Besslers Codes

[justsomeone]

When you publish Oystein , will you also have your working Bessler wheel spinning continuously?

[Oystein]

My main plan is to verify that the machine work/turns and use the publishing as a part of a special "patent-process". Though some of the work can be enjoyed without getting to know how the mechanism look/works. The methods use has real historical value and wider implications, that is why I am being so restrictive about disclosing the methods.

My coming WEB-site has the intentions to show just enough to prove that there is something hidden in Besslers work and prove through examples that I have found the way to read and see the hidden information, and show how simple, yet clever it is hidden. Maybe somebody would be interested in making a documentary about that aspect of Besslers story etc.

A working machine will by itself prove the codes. (Even if the codes is self-proving) And it will then also automatically prove my second project, the RC-codes in Shakespeare. Both are valid work without a working machine, but it will have a very different public approval if the wheel turns. (People will believe what you write, before they read it).

If I get too old or sick etc. before I succeed, my last resort is to patent the mechanism that is revealed and the inter-connective method and publish both my works, and let anybody with the right equipment and resources try to duplicate it. In this way my family may enjoy some fruits of it even if parts of my work should fail. If somebody else then make it work, my son will have the rights to the books and mechanism.

I will soon be 43 so I hope that doesn`t happen, but after being away for a year because of illness I know what I am talking about.

About the people telling me that I should just build machines, and not do this kind of paperwork, my answer is that I would never had come up with or built what appears through this work, without doing it this way. It has "taken me places" I would never had gone, and I see it as my "calling" to do this, in this way. There are enough people doing it the pure experimental way without success. PS, I have studied physics and math during long nights for years, and done traditional lever and machine experiments on paper, building inside my house and on computer sims for many years, so I know what a mechanical principle with advantages look like. I gave up, and then returned with sudden faith in Besslers paperwork.

[ovyyus]

If I get too old or sick etc. before I succeed...

Sounds like your disclosure process might take a very long time if you're worried about getting too old at the current age of 42!?

[Oystein]

Didn`t you think that I saw that one coming when I wrote it?? But I am always honest.

There is always a possibility that I fail to make a good replication (because I am no good mechanic, very lazy or have missed the possible, that Bessler left out a spring or something to make a last undocumented obstacle.. (No springs appear in his hidden work) (The other parts have names) Then I would have to, at some point, make a decision, what is the best. Let good builders read and try? I don`t know if I will die of a heart-attack at the age 45 or 95! Do you?

If time goes by or I get sick, I will finally choose to secure and publish everything, even without a successful replication. I can`t predict the future! At some point in time this will be smarter for me and my family, than possibly die with nothing published. What I have found is important, the one way or the other. And must not be lost.

(Though there are arrangements made with a writer that will write a novel that will touch the lighter part of my work. The novel will make people wonder and know Besslers and possibly Bacou/RCs methods a little. Since what I will show in the novel is true, maybe the rest of the story is also true?)

A little curiosity, In Shakespeare you can find several riddles/games. An example: By using my documented methods a misplaced word ex. "me" or "found" points at:

Cou/ntdown....
A /lready
B/ut..
<------- (me

Please read with screen, page/sheet (or head) upside down, and you will see one "stupid-simple" way to manipulate letters. u becomes n.

You may use ctrl+alt+(arrow down) to flip you windows desktop.
And ctrl+alt+(arrow up) to go back :-)

This method (upside down u) was NOT used in Besslers work, but Bacon+RC used alot of other upside/down solutions. (close to 50%) Also very hard for a computer to detect! NB! This is not used as proof! But just something that I kindly share. A curiosity that show up as a "bi-product" when solving a coded page. A simple way to show that there exists ultra simple hidden information and "games" that nobody thinks of.

[Tarsier79]

So can you confirm an actual mechanism is described in the code? And to what detail is it described?

[justsomeone]

Great question Tarsier. I would also like to know that answer.

[ovyyus]

I don`t know if I will die of a heart-attack at the age 45 or 95! Do you?

Of course not. However, what you said was:

If I get too old or sick etc. before I succeed, my last resort is to...

I was simply pointing out that your disclosure process might take a very long time if getting too old before succeeding is a concern at the age of 42. Do you want it to take a long time?

Of course, that may eventually lead to frustration on the forum as members come to understand that release of anything potentially significant or useful may be years away (or maybe never if you die of a heart attack in 3 years).

Perhaps you saw that coming before I wrote it ;)

[Fletcher]

So can you confirm an actual mechanism is described in the code? And to what detail is it described?

Oystein .. you say it is a gravity only mechanism, with interconnectedness.

Were you able to sim it in WM2D, & did it remain unbalanced never finding PQ once started ?

Very interested in what you are doing Oystein, but I'd like to know categorically that it was a gravity only device because of the implications to Conservation of Momentum & CoE, & that gravity is considered conservative.

[Oystein]

To Ovyyus, yes it is true that the full disclosure process MIGHT take a long time. I wan`t lie and say it is "a couple of days away". I have been compared to Trevor so I thought people wanted reality "checks"? Though the plan is to avoid that happening.

To Fletcher. I stopped using WM2D when I "gave up" on solving it. When I returned, I did not even have the software installed. I could make wheels turn using the software, but that was just wrong.

I have tried to construct similar "forcefull" accurate interconnected system before, and they get very messy, with a lot of constrained points, uneven parts etc. (I am not to good to add symmetric and even mechanisms with some parts working in layers).

The "problem" with the mechanisms is that you can`t make them accurate as in the digital domain, because then they will lock up. I have built one in real life and it is true. Some of the holes have to have "some slack" or else it will lock up. So you can`t use infinit accuracy. This is naturally achieved in the mechanical world, but I promise it will lock up in WM2D. Then we have to work around that etc. I wanted the real world to decide this one without alterations from what I found.

Yes, gravity only. The machanism alone is "underunity". Interconected, it places itself in new positions that seems to be able to achieve overunity.

[Oystein]

Tarsier:

So can you confirm an actual mechanism is described in the code? And to what detail is it described?

Yes, as I wrote, items do appear in the codes.

It show a usefull mechanism that has the ability to do some of the mechanical connections that is missing in MT15.

It is described in great detail. Even joints are marked and some parts/functions are named and repeated many times.

[Tarsier79]

Good luck Oystein. I look forward to hearing more.

[Fletcher]

Good luck also Oystein. You have my attention for sure, and I know you have credibility.

Just for fun: MT15 Bessler notes IIRC are the ones where JB talks about showing the overbalance but nothing of the Prime Mover can be deduced.

It seems your found mech is the Prime Mover connection that does not allow keeling whilst the likes of MT15 types provide the pure gravity imbalance.

At least that's how it sounds to me.

[Oystein]

If you look through MT, you will find a few machines that does something that can`t be accounted for. They have some missing mechanics. MT15 is one of them. Again, as in AP, you must fill in the "blanks".

[Fletcher]

Thanks again Oystein .. As you know none of the MT's work as they are.

They all need a source of energy in the form of a sequestered force to lift or reposition a mass inside the wheel to RESTORE POTENTIAL ENERGY to the wheel.

For some time I have been thinking about 'storksbills' or pantographs again, for this purpose.

We all know they are a form of linear gear. Many of us have looked into the force profiles and acceleration properties of storksbills and found nothing of particular interest. N.B. I believe Mr Vibrating was the last to make a study so he might be interested in what I say next.

I was looking at it from a different angle Mv = mV (i.e. Conservation of Momentum).

If Linear Momentum is conserved when a larger mass impacts a storksbill which in turn accelerates a small mass (ratio specific) then the second smaller mass would have high velocity and far greater KE than the originating larger and slower mass (this relies on leveraged inertia's of the masses counterbalancing I think). This is potentially a source of restoration PE which also has an abundance to cover ordinary system energy losses, aka overunity potential.

I really can't think what else might be able to supply the restorative PE required unless the Prime Mover mech manipulates to conserve linear momentum but by default increases KE/PE.

N.B. the normal problem in linear transfer of momentum of unequal masses where there is physical intervention (such as a spring or lever etc) is that the 'earth reference frame is invoked' and thus some of the linear momentum goes to earth (perceived loss of linear momentum) and COE rules because of it. 'The wheel no workee.'

...........................

But I digress and it is only a speculative line of thought for me at the moment as I think about the mechanics and purposes of a Prime Mover.

Yours may well have a different method of restoring PE to a dynamic wheel.

I sincerely hope you are 'on the money' and are willing to share, as a break through is long overdue for a very tired discussion board.

[MrVibrating]

@Fletch

You're right i did specifically test to see whether storksbills were, of themselves, overunity.... but i found that the mV/Mv products were equal, ditto for in/out MV^2. In fact i'm not sure i found anything that distinguished them from simple rotary levers.. as you say, they're literally just linear gears. I wonder if Oystein's discoveries throw any light on Bessler's fancy for the storksbills?

@Oystein - so any indications what's so special about 'em? Clearly, two of the 'incomplete' MT images are MT40 and MT41 - the latter showing us the supposedly-superior horizontal application of the storksbills. So what is the 'something special behind' them?

One thing that always puzzled me about the 'horixontal application' of the storksbills is whether he meant horizontally aligned - as in MT41 - or simply, horizontally activated, as in MT41 but also MT42. Not much room for horizontal alignment in the descriptions of his wheels.. in which case the implication could be that there's something non-trivial about horizontal activation / actuation of the storksbills?

Is the missing mechanism something that applies a horizontal force?