Own up please.

[cloud camper]

I've still not voted in your poll.

...for no matter how promising I believe my ideas to be, I wouldn't feel comfortable in claiming I've achieved the goal until I've actually seen something unmistakably working in front of my own eyes.

If something of mine were to ultimately work, however, the date of the conception of the invention could be years (if not even decades) ago.

In the U.S. where the patent system is still first-to-invent rather than first-to-file - at least for the next 7 months or so - I would still, though, have a pretty hard time in claiming such an early date of invention.

...for due to my health problems and the numerous projects of mine that are for all practical purposes on hold, I would have a very hard time showing that I have worked diligently to reduce any of my previous inventive ideas to practice, I would think.

http://patents101.com/2009/03/date-of-i ... to-invent/

Anyway, after March 16 of next year, I guess that really won't matter much.

...not to mention that for our quest a working model would pretty much have to be demonstrated, anyway.

Dwayne

This is my boat as well. I've had too much training in science and physics to make any rash statements. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof!

I do believe I have a good concept that matches every clue JB left but even if it did perform exactly as Bessler's I'm not sure I would even announce the results. Who needs the distraction of others demanding "proof". No video is skeptic proof. I would rather go to a local university which has a world renowned physics dept after filing for a provisional patent than attempt to convince anyone here. Who is to say there is not a hundred better concepts than the one JB came up with anyway?

[getterdone]

Hi Cloud Camper, we'd be happy with any concept that works, better or worse, it dont matter. Just get your wheel to turn 361 degrees on its own and let us know how it works after you have your patent, so we can lie down at night at think about boobs, like normal people do

[daanopperman]

rasselass ,
If you want to , just give directions to build and confirm , I will try to replicate your see saw .

[Tarsier79]

Rass, I didn't mean to upset you. Your statement does appear to say you have achieved a PM, but haven't been able to connect it to a wheel. Pendulums still need an input to sustain.



If this is the pedulum drive you are talking about, I cannot see the required reset.

I assure you I understand the dynamics of a pendulum, but admittedly, I have not yet built my ultimate test for CF/modified Milkovic Pendulum to test CF vs power. I have been meaning to build it for about a year now, but it has not been a priority.

Searching for the answer to the Bessler wheel is frustrating, and becomes more so the more time you spend on it.

Although it may seem I am a nay-sayer, I have reason for this. When I joined BW I believed wholeheartedly at the start of my search that gravity could power a wheel, as many people still do. The hard truth is that Newtonian physics is proven with mass/leverage devices, and expecting success looking only in gravity driven devices is futile.

When Besslers critics provided their proofs that gravity is conservative, Besslers reply was that "they are right, and so am I". This for me is just more proof that Bessler did in fact find a solution, and that it utilises something other than gravity.

[jim_mich]

Besslers reply was that "they are right, and so am I". This for me is just more proof that Bessler did in fact find a solution, and that it utilizes something other than gravity.

How right he was. Bessler started out like many of us, searching for a way to use gravity by moving weights in and out on a rotatable wheel. Bessler says that is where he found the solution, the same place where other had looked, namely with weights moving in and out. Bessler says he is right, then also admits that those who claim gravity cannot power a wheel are also right.

So we are left to find some sort of solution, where weights move in and out on a rotating wheel, but the wheel is powered by the motions of the weights rather than by gravity.

[raj]

Weights' moving in and out on a rotating wheel' means weights rolling downwards from a higher point to a lower point on the rotating wheel, which then means that the weights have to lifted again so that they can roll downwards again, to achieve PM.
Therefore weights have to go through an UP and Down motion anyway. And gravity must play an important part here.

[jim_mich]

You are right.
And so am I.

Bessler's last two wheels were balanced.
Balanced wheels are not turned by gravity.

Rolling weights make a unique noise. There was no rolling noise. So we can assume the weights did not roll.

Don't you see??
If for every weight that moves out (or in) there is another weight at the other edge that also moves out (or in) then the two weights always balance each other.

[rasselasss]

Daan,send me a P.M.with an unused e-mail address and i will give you what you want.Good Luck.

[bobriddle]

Bob, you should have read ALL of my post.

But if you study the story, it seems to rule out trickery. Bessler claimed that his wheels where the real thing, i.e., perpetual motion.

If perpetual motion of moving weights on a rotating wheel is possible, then people need to search for the solution.

I'm a skeptic concerning gravity wheels. I'm a believer that Bessler built self rotating wheels, which if true, would fit the definition of perpetual motion.

This is what baffles us. If you take the time and effort (as most of us have) you will see that there is a lot of evidence that Bessler's wheel was NOT a hoax. Bessler offered his head if the buyer found that Bessler tricked him.

What if there is actually a method, which doesn't depend upon gravity, that gains motion simply because it is moving? What if the weights inside the wheel were to transfer motion such that one of the weight gained velocity, i.e. it gained motion? And what if this was done without slowing down the wheel and then that faster moving weight hit against the wheel pushing it forcefully forward? The wheel would be rotated by weights, but not by gravity.

>> What if there is actually a method, which doesn't depend upon gravity, that gains motion simply because it is moving? <<

You're joking, right ?

[jim_mich]

You're joking, right ?

No, I'm not joking. Ask other members here. I seldom joke. I take the Bessler search very seriously.

What if the reason why no one has been able to discover Bessler's secret is because most everyone is searching for a gravity wheel. Maybe the reason is that his wheel was a motion wheel, powered by the motion of weights.

I know that may not make sense to many people. But Bessler said that his wheel was turned by weights that gained force from their motion. The German word implies either motion or swinging. With either translation, swinging or motion, the meaning is the same. Weights gained force by moving on the wheel. Moving implies inertia and momentum. But most people think like you do, that motion of weights means in and out so as to produce an unbalanced wheel so that it can be rotated by gravity.

But Bessler demonstrated two balanced self-rotating wheels. People think, well they must have become gravitationally unbalanced once in motion. But what if they are wrong? What if the wheel becomes inertially unbalanced when it and its internal weights are in motion? Then the wheel would gain motion simple by moving.

[daanopperman]

How do I do that

[Ben]

I’m sorry Jim, but most of your writing comes across like rhetoric to me. If the wheel were powered by the motion of weights, then surely it would work in outer space, right? I think you’re over thinking it, leaving no possible solution.
You must be convinced you’ve tried every possible configuration of gpm, and that none of them worked, so on to other theories, but I think you’re wrong about that, too.
I’m not saying that I agree with any of the ideas I’ve seen posted here, but I do still think Bessler’s wheel was powered by gravity. The idea that Bessler came up with a new form of energy made of wood and lead seems to me a bit farfetched.
By the way, you look much younger without the beard.

[daanopperman]

jim_mich ,

A 1 liter container is placed 10 meters high , containing 1 kg of water , it is connected to a bellows 2.5 X 2.5 X 16 cm at ground level via a 3mm tube . The pressure at ground level is 1 bar . At 1 bar pressure the bellows can produce a force of 6.68 kg for a distance of 16 cm with the water from the container which is 10 cm X 10 cm x 10 cm , if the 3 mm tube is pre filled , which of coarse will give the 1 bar pressure , the bellows will consume all water in the container which will drop in level by 10 cm . If the bellows is connected to a levered weight at 1 : 2 , I can raise a + - 2 kg weight more than 300 mm high even with friction losses .

[jim_mich]

If the wheel were powered by the motion of weights, then surely it would work in outer space, right?

You are right!! I agree that it would work in outer space. And it would also work laying down sideways.

You must be convinced you’ve tried every possible configuration of gpm, and that none of them worked, so on to other theories,

No, I was searching for a gravity perpetual motion, though I had doubts. I was using Visual Basic to calculate the motion of each component in wheels. And I was calculating the CF of each of those components. The programs animated everything. And it drew graphs of each force as the wheel turned. It was then that I noticed something unusual about CF. It can cause out-of-balance of force. And all engines / motors require unbalanced force in order to move or rotate.

[bobriddle]

You're joking, right ?

No, I'm not joking. Ask other members here. I seldom joke. I take the Bessler search very seriously.

What if the reason why no one has been able to discover Bessler's secret is because most everyone is searching for a gravity wheel. Maybe the reason is that his wheel was a motion wheel, powered by the motion of weights.

I know that may not make sense to many people. But Bessler said that his wheel was turned by weights that gained force from their motion. The German word implies either motion or swinging. With either translation, swinging or motion, the meaning is the same. Weights gained force by moving on the wheel. Moving implies inertia and momentum. But most people think like you do, that motion of weights means in and out so as to produce an unbalanced wheel so that it can be rotated by gravity.

But Bessler demonstrated two balanced self-rotating wheels. People think, well they must have become gravitationally unbalanced once in motion. But what if they are wrong? What if the wheel becomes inertially unbalanced when it and its internal weights are in motion? Then the wheel would gain motion simple by moving.

been nice chatting with you. Do know though that motion can increase the potential of gravity on a body in motion because of it. Pretty well known but pretty much ignored.
kind of like Milkovic's pendulum, pumps water more efficiently even though you have to move a heavy weight. the person actually does less work by moving more weight. principles of motion/engineering were applied differently.
maybe bessler thought of a similar way. of course, it works on pumping water, not sure if it would work on something else.