"It's not about what you can see.."

[rasselasss]

"It's not about what you can see,it's about what you can't see",the opening statement to many lectures about "Dark Matter",the words apply equally to our Bessler enigma,its my opinion his drawings and writings were totally to "confuse and send all in a wrong direction",so,i reckon we should "start over,wipe the slate clean",possibly then we shall solve this riddle ,its ongoing 300 years and no offence but all this talk of "patents etc."will not solve it ....let us ALL collectively have the courage to show our devices and not if it fails i'll post etc....the truth is hard to swallow but our endeavours to date have shown no success...so why not show?

[rlortie]

Rasselasss,

As some keep up with all threads, they are aware that I am building (currently on my third re-build) of a gravity driven fluid design.

It is also my opinion, his drawings and writings were totally to "confuse and send all in a wrong direction". It has taken me many years to concede to this fact. I only rely on the eyewitness reports claiming that his machine ran, as to how or why, I no longer look for it in Besser's drawings or words of wit! At the limit of ones mental resources; utterly at a loss. A loss now over 300 year old.

I have thrown Bessler and his crossbars and weights out the window, and proceeding on my own intuition. My design can still be explained and fit Bessler's "play on words". It has weights that move in and out, to and fro, it is full on one side and empty on the other as it should be etc...
For every action, there is a reaction, never finding equilibrium.

If it does not work then I have already given my word that I will release it for all to see. If it does work then it will be patented and plans made public for the do-it yourself-er to build there own.

Ralph

[rasselasss]

Riortie,,are we to "become" Bessler and only show failures,the purpose of this post, is, possibly some here can give assistance to others and just maybe you,through others wisdom and imput might have only needed one attempt to build to achieve your goal ....we are none of us an "island"...working as we do alone sometimes we can't see the "woods for the trees"....we have to get real here if Bessler's puzzle is to be solved.....i'm sorry if you or anyone takes this post personally but many heads are better than one...it will never be solved if we keep going round in circles........eg...."oozlum bird"

[rlortie]

That is exactly my point and what I have been preaching, if you attempt to duplicate Bessler IMO you are going around in circles.

My advice and assistance it to first, get out of Bessler's forest, for as long as you are in it, you will not see the "woods for the trees".

The "get real" is to break away from Bessler and learn to use your own discerning innovative skills. Exercise your imagination and think outside Bessler's confinements. Coming up with a runner is one thing, trying to duplicate Bessler's unclear design is fourfold the problem of coming up with your own possibilities.

Don't think into a tunnel with no light at the end, where Bessler leads you, but learn to think laterally.

I have reviewed many designs through the years, including but not limited to; levers and weights, buoyancy, percussion, gyroscopes, precession reaction, fluid displacement, ramps, magnets and the list could go on. But what I usually find in common is that they are all based or related on Bessler's unforgiving doings, based on a radial wheel design that always ends up with the common "height for width" scenario.

Use Bessler's published works by John Collins as a bedtime reader, but when you wake up in the morning, think of what is not said, look around your environment and consider alternatives.

Ralph

[jim_mich]

But what I usually find in common is that they are all based or related on Bessler's unforgiving doings, based on a radial wheel design that always ends up with the common "height for width" scenario.

So when are you going to stop reading your own thoughts into Bessler's words and start reading Bessler's thoughts?

In Apologia Poetica, Bessler was discussing Wagner's description of why rising and falling weights would not work. It seems that back then, as how, everyone was thinking Bessler's perpetual motion wheel was rotated by rising and falling weights. Bessler's reply was not what most forum members think. Bessler's reply was a cautionary note, that reads as follows:

But I would just like to add this friendly little note of caution:- A great craftsman would be that man who can "lightly" cause a heavy weight to fly upwards! Who can make a pound-weight rise as 4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall. If he can sort that out, the motion will perpetuate itself. But if he can't, then his hard work shall be all in vain. He can rack his brains and work his fingers to the bones with all sorts of ingenious ideas about adding extra weights here and there. The only result will be that his wheel will get heavier and heavier - it would run longer if it were empty! Have you ever seen a crowd of starlings squabbling angrily over the crumbs on a stationary mill-wheel? That's what it would be like for such a fellow and his invention, as I know only too well from my own recent experience!

Bessler is cautioning people who think that adding more weight to one side of a wheel will make the wheel keep rotating. If you can make a 4 ounce weight lift a 1 pound weight, then yes, you would be a great craftsman and you would have a PM wheel. But read what he writes after that. If you can't, then all your work is in vain.

Bessler is telling us that trying to make an OOB wheel, you will rack your brains and work your fingers to the bones with all sorts of ingenious ideas about adding extra weights here and there, and the wheel will remain stationary.

This whole conversation concerns Wagner supposing that Bessler's wheel was rotated by weights rotated by gravity.

Let me be very clear. A PM wheel needs unbalanced force to keep it turning. And Bessler in other places says his wheel is turned by the force of moving weights. But, but, BUT, unbalanced weight-force does NOT always mean unbalanced gravity-force, it can also mean unbalanced momentum-force. Bessler tells us his wheel was turned by the force of moving/swinging weights.

And so everyone ignores what Bessler said. Everyone thinks that because Bessler had a bunch of drawings of unbalanced wheels, everyone thinks Bessler's wheel was a wheel rotated by, "all sorts of ingenious ideas about adding extra weights here and there. The only result will be that his wheel will get heavier and heavier - it would run longer if it were empty!"

Could Bessler have said it any clearer? His wheel was NOT a wheel turned by gravity acting on weights added here and there.

And so instead of looking for a method of rotating a wheel by the motions of weights, Ralph looks at designs, including but not limited to; levers and weights, buoyancy, percussion, gyroscopes, precession reaction, fluid displacement, ramps, magnets and the list could go on, all based on radial wheel designs that always ends up with the common "height for width" scenario.

Ralph advises us to look at what was not said by Bessler. Maybe we should go back and take a fresh look at what Bessler actually said, and not what we think he said. Don't look at MT, for it is only a group of designs found by Bessler to NOT work. Yes, Bessler said that if you combine components from a number of MT drawing, you can come up with the mechanism that made his wheel rotate. MT is like an erector set for wheels. You can build most any type of wheel by taking parts from different wheels. But if you are looking to adding extra weights here and there, then:

The only result will be that his wheel will get heavier and heavier - it would run longer if it were empty! Have you ever seen a crowd of starlings squabbling angrily over the crumbs on a stationary mill-wheel? That's what it would be like for such a fellow and his invention, as I know only too well

[cloud camper]

Jim you have no proof whatsoever that your theory about Bessler constantly requoting Wagner's false ideas is correct.

We have only one instance where JB said that he didn't know how Wagner got the idea of the weights "gravitating to the center" but JB NEVER DENIED the mechanism worked that way. He was merely surprised that Wagner had figured that much out on his own.

You have taken this one instance and blown it completely out of proportion, twisting it into a totally inappropriate meaning.

In the list of clues I gave you about the weights rising and falling, you said that some of them were correct and did not involve JB requoting Wagner. But you were totally unable to identify which ones.

So much for your vaunted "research".

[rlortie]

Jim_Mich wrote:

So when are you going to stop reading your own thoughts into Bessler's words and start reading Bessler's thoughts?

I stopped reading my own thoughts into Bessler's words quite some time ago. People have been reading them for years to no prevail and apparently to date you are no exception.

I cannot read Bessler's thoughts as he did not put them on paper. what he put on paper was his version of alleged factual proof refuting Wagner showing he would make for a good captain of a debate team. A lot of defense with no objectivity or exhibits backing his denial against Wagner's accusations.

I have asked you before, if you had any tangible proof that you have gained anything from his writings other than more hypothetical theory. You have refused or ignored my request which I attempted to inquire within a friendly collaborating manner.

The only thing that you and I have agreed to is that a one pound weight under the influence of Cf can lift a four pound centripetally confined weight with adequate velocity and radius of/or Cf tangent pull.

Problem here; is where do you get the adequate cf and maintain it. I would think that more than a moderate push or impetus would be required than what could be gained in two revolutions.

Let me be very clear. A PM wheel needs unbalanced force to keep it turning. And Bessler in other places says his wheel is turned by the force of moving weights. But, but, BUT, unbalanced weight-force does NOT always mean unbalanced gravity-force, it can also mean unbalanced momentum-force. Bessler tells us his wheel was turned by the force of moving/swinging weights.

This I will buy! An unbalanced force to keep it turning, a force created by moving weights, moving weights have inertia and will negate gravity if moving against it, aka "momentum force". Moving weights IMO is the proper term, "swinging" is not a necessary property but a diversionary tactic term to avoid telling a lie.

My current build has weights, they come in pairs and weigh approximately one pound, one comes in the other goes out, there is no swinging in the weights, but what they create can be deemed as swinging without stretching the definition or term.

Ralph

[rlortie]

Congratulations cloud camper, I see your above post earned you your second greenie!

Ralph

[rlortie]

And so everyone ignores what Bessler said. Everyone thinks that because Bessler had a bunch of drawings of unbalanced wheels, everyone thinks Bessler's wheel was a wheel rotated by, "all sorts of ingenious ideas about adding extra weights here and there. The only result will be that his wheel will get heavier and heavier - it would run longer if it were empty!"

Could Bessler have said it any clearer? His wheel was NOT a wheel turned by gravity acting on weights added here and there.

IIRC Bessler did not originally describe his machine as a wheel for it had no rim, those who looked upon it called it a wheel and Bessler said so it shall be called a wheel. Not the actual words but close enough to make my point. To my thinking a rectangle inside a drum would be more effective.

In fact, the more I think about it, my next build may end up being a square rectangle.

Ralph

[ovyyus]

Jim you have no proof whatsoever that your theory about Bessler constantly requoting Wagner's false ideas is correct.

FWIW, Jim is correct.

[jim_mich]

Thank you Bill. A try very hard to be correct.

[rlortie]

If you wish to see nature and "momentum force" visit a local ocean beach and watch the waves wash/swing in. Inertia drives them up well past mean water level and they recede slower than incoming. Watch what happens when inertia smashes them into an impediment to appreciate the power involved. This is weight in motion.

And for a little trivia: here on the Pacific coast, count the waves, you will discover that they run in a cycle of seven. Each wave from one through seven is slightly larger than the preceding up to the seventh, then the cycle starts over.

http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/197 ... seven.html

Ralph

[jim_mich]

In fact, the more I think about it, my next build may end up being a square rectangle.

Actually, the last wheel I built was made from a square piece of plywood. That was 3 years ago, just before my wife left me. I then quit building wheels because if they worked, she would claim half ownership. Now that our divorce if final, I'm starting to build again.

[rasselasss]

That's Good News Jim Mich,with your knowledge hopefully we'll crack this nut this year...Good Luck.

[rasselasss]

A link for our Anzac cousins ...a bit long winded,but i think funny..