A Picture of JEEB's Axle.

[ken_behrendt]

Ralph and Ed...

Even though I have not yet had the opportunity to read AP and DT, I think I've seen enough information about Bessler's wheels to, at this point in time, at least feel comfortable in assuming that they were strictly powered by some sort of simple self-shifting weight mechanism that only involved weights, levers, stops, and springs.

Of course, finding that "simple" mechanism he used can be most frustrating and, I realize that one's natural tendency when one is not making progress with that approach is to start considering other mechanisms that might work, no matter how bizarre or complex they might be. I try to avoid this tendency whenever possible although, as my recent brief journey into pendulum power shows, even I am not immune to this distracting habit!

There could be many ways to create a temporary state of imbalance in the weights on the ascending/descending side of a wheel and some sort of wobble induced weight shifting might, indeed, work. However, at this point in time, I think such a mechanism, if it was feasible, would not be one that would be obvious from a cursory examination of the Kassel wheel's interior that Count Karl was permitted to make. If Karl said it was simple enough for a "carpenter's boy" to make, then I think it would have been far more obvious and simple than some design that depended upon the subtle wobbling of the giant wheel.

Sorry...as of now, I just do not consider it a likely candidate for the actual mechanism Bessler used.

ken

[Ed]

Sorry...as of now, I just do not consider it a likely candidate for the actual mechanism Bessler used.

I respect everyone's opinion on this board. However, since much of your assumptions are based on eye witness accounts of the wheel, and since more of this information is in John's AP compared to John's Bessler book (which has excepts from AP), AND since you admit you have not read AP and DT....you force me to wonder why we should care what you consider a likely mechanism?

-Ed

[rlortie]

Ken,

even I am not immune to this distracting habit!

There could be many ways to create a temporary state of imbalance in the weights on the ascending/descending side of a wheel and some sort of wobble induced weight shifting might, indeed, work. However, at this point in time, I think such a mechanism, if it was feasible, would not be one that would be obvious from a cursory examination of the Kassel wheel's interior that Count Karl was permitted to make. If Karl said it was simple enough for a "carpenter's boy" to make, then I think it would have been far more obvious and simple than some design that depended upon the subtle wobbling of the giant wheel.

Sorry...as of now, I just do not consider it a likely candidate for the actual mechanism Bessler used.

ken

Not being immune to distractions is called innovation and receptiveness to sudden discerning ideas. At times the the majority would vote that you are immune.

"If it were feasible" Oh! its feasible, the next time you are stuck at a railroad crossing, look at the axles and wheels as the train goes around a curve. Note that the wheels and axles are of one piece. Then ask yourself, I know that the outer wheel must travel a longer distance than the inner, but it is all one piece so how does it do that?

If you do not believe a subtle wobbling wheel is simple then look at your latest drawing! The first thought that crossed my mind was a ferris wheel all lit up for Christmas. Yes the answer, if there will be simple. I cannot say that I find your concept simple enough for a carpenters boy. I certainly cannot make heads or tails of it so I guess I am immune to such an approach.

I believe it is so simple that I have two partial completed wheels in my shop that I feel will work or at least point to the proper path.

Do not ask me why, but I am so sure, I do not care to get excited and finish them to find out. I am having more fun and enjoying life by helping others while learning that there is more than one way to skin a cat.

Ralph

[ken_behrendt]

Ed...

You wrote:

...you force me to wonder why we should care what you consider a likely mechanism?

Actually, you shouldn't! Everybody has to pursue the mystery of Bessler's wheels in their own way based on what they "see" in the properties of the wheel and what might account for them. The approach I am currently following (which is not chiseled in granite and subject to change if I see credible additional evidence) is the one that makes the most sense to me. If someone else thinks otherwise, then that is fine with me. He will either be right or wrong. If he is right, then I am wrong. If he is wrong, then he is either wasting his time or, possibly, will find some other mechanism, not used by Bessler, that could lead to PM. I wish him the best of luck and I actually do hope he (or anybody else on the Discussion Board) is successful no matter what route they take to PM. The next best thing to me finding the secret would be to know for a fact that someone else found it. In any event, I look forward to having a miniature working model of one of Bessler's wheels sitting on my coffee table and spinning merrily around.

However, I like to think of myself as a "pure" Bessler researcher. Thus, I am only interested in the most probably mechanism that Bessler actually used in his wheels. Approaches other than the one I am currently committed to may, momentarily, attract my attention, but I have to be careful not to spend too much time on them that I could be applying to my own approach.


Ralph...

Being immune to distractions is also called "having focus". The people in the world who actually accomplish things have to have a lot of focus to do it. I have found that the only way I have ever made any progress in a subject was to delve into it as deeply and steadfastly as possible. To do less, as I learned from years of experience, is to virtually guarantee failure.

Of course, many people are only pursuing various activities for "entertainment, recreational, or social" purposes and, in those cases, it is perfectly okay to jump from one pursuit to another without really accomplishing anything in any one of them. But, then again, they should not complain years later when they wake up one day and realize how little they actually accomplished.

Well, perhaps I should not be giving anybody a lecture on how to get results. I've been at this PM/OU business for decades and have almost nothing to show for it. Yes, I learned a lot about building devices along the way and did improve my mechanical aptitude, but the fact remains that I did not find Bessler's secret. Of course, I had to go to the trouble of constructing physical models to test out a design when I could not determine its feasibility from calculations. Well, now I have a new toy to play with...my first CAD program (WM2D). Now I have an opportunity to make up for the effort I did not/could not make in past decades. So, I am going to see just how far I can go with the program in my Bessler research. Yes, I may ultimately fail and that will be disappointing, but, at least, I will feel the satisfaction of knowing that I did keep my focus and gave it a good try...

ken

[rlortie]

Ken,

Your quote:

Being immune to distractions is also called "having focus". The people in the world who actually accomplish things have to have a lot of focus to do it. I have found that the only way I have ever made any progress in a subject was to delve into it as deeply and steadfastly as possible. To do less, as I learned from years of experience, is to virtually guarantee failure

.

I agree with your definition of having focus, but I also see it as tunnel vision. focus on the tree and you cannot see the forest. My professional career and schooling has taught me that focus is the last thing you want to do.

To delve into it deeply closes all avenues of the unexpected or improbables and after reflecting on the probables one must stay receptive to the probably improbable. Focus means that someone can give you the answer but your focus has denied you the perceptive ability to absorb it.

Of what value is a think-tank discussion to some one who is focused on one concept only. I guarantee that this will cause more failure than you have experienced by focusing that has lead to failure.

The people who accomplish things are the ones who absorb any and all possible related input and take note of thoughts that meander in out of their minds.

I think of myself as a "what if" person and do my best to listen and absorb all input whether it sounds stupid or educated. The more far fetched the more room you have to build on it.

May I suggest you find and read Dale Carnagys paperback "How to win friends And Influence People"

Ralph

[ken_behrendt]

Ralph...

Having focus does not mean that one maintains it no matter what. I try to keep very focused on whatever I'm doing, but when I see that it is not progressing, then I readily look about for another approach to keep my focus on.

It seems nowadays, however, that people are lazier than ever. They expect instant results and, if they are not forthcoming, they're off on another tangent. Unless one is willing to make a suitable effort, then one can not expect to achieve much.

If one focuses on the tree, then they may not see the forest, but they will learn a lot about that tree!

ken

[Wheeler]

Ralph
Do you write just to sound good?

Ken has always said stay open to all options.

You say this, but when I started working with you, your reaction to was attack on the forum.
I was starting to send you details and you wanted me to send you my discovery.

Look back at your posts.
You had no room for the exploration of what I was about to share with you.

[rlortie]

Mr. Wheeler,

The only reply I have for the above post is, "I have considered the source"

If you have a discovery that you were going to send me, then why are you riding on Kens band wagon and before that Georg and before that Robert.

Ken can respond to my debate and offer his defensive rebuke very well by himself. I give him credit and respect for this capability. He is a good debater. I am responsible for introducing him to this forum, do you think I would have done that if I I did not think he could and would offer input and know how to debate what you consider attack. ( I must admit that I did not expect daily editorials) :-)

Any more slanderous remarks on your part will lead to the public opening of my folder of our private posts. I have never attacked anyone. I simply contrived a way for you to expose yourself. At no time did I ever violate my code of confientiality. You now claim that you started to send details and that I wanted your discovery, Wrong! you wanted me to sign a blank disclosure statement first. I of course declined as I could be signing my own ideas away. A statement that now appears to have been true.

I have all the room for exploration one would need, but you never sent anything to share or for me to assist you with. Sorry but my band wagon is not big enough for the both of us.

As for your discovery, who is building it and what are you still doing here talking about waves, is that where the penguins swim?

Ralph

[Techstuf]

My Grand pappy used to tell me...

"Son, the last thing you want is focus when driving heavy equipment into the forest for the trees".


Truly,


Foghorn Leghorn



P.S.

If one focuses on the tree, then they may not see the forest, but they will learn a lot about that tree!

Excellent point, Ken.

[Wheeler]

So we can stop the nonsense and get on with the real stuff
Dose that sound fair?

[Michael]

Wheeler, are you in fact Darrel?

Just curious, no offense if not.

[Wheeler]

Why do you ask?
I am not offended by the question.