apologia poetica has clues from MT

[ike]

i found 3 drawings to witch the clues in the AP refers

1: drawing 47
2: drawing 13
3: drawing 111

is there anyone who has the same idee?

[SeaWasp]

ike.. Welcome to the board! I am sure many here do have clues. But what is important, is how you came by those clues! Can you elaborate?

[snpssaini]

i found 3 drawings to witch the clues in the AP refers

1: drawing 47
2: drawing 13
3: drawing 111

is there anyone who has the same idee?

Nothing is there in drawing 47, 13, 111.

No clue at all.

[fAtnhapy]

One of the amazing phenomina about Bessler is that almost no matter what concept you concieve you can match up some feature of it with something he said and usually many. I have come to the conclusion that no matter what design ulitimately suceeds it will match up with many clues and the fact is I doubt we'll ever really know how close the sucessful wheel come to replicating what Bessler did. With the exception of the result.
fAt

[Michael]

I completely agree with you FAt.

Mike

[fAtnhapy]

Thank you Michael but I expect anyone who has contemplated more than two wheels would likely agree, I think a typicial conversation between two wheelers usually goes something like this:
wheeler1 : Look at this it's exactly as Bessler described

wheeler2 : Huh? That looks nothing like Besslers wheel.

wh1 : Sure it does, lookie there a peacock

wh2 : Where?

wh1 : Right there! You can't see that it's right next to the crab thingy.

wh2 : What crab thingy?

Wh1 : That crab thingy (pointing) right next to the mouse.

wh2 : That's a mouse? Heck it's 80 lbs.

wh1 : Yeah but look it's got a hole in the end and it's cylindrical that's why Bessler wouldn't let them touch the end... dead give away.

wh2 : Does it run?

wh1 : No but it's close and lookie a warped board! This has got to be it!!!

wh2: Ok I see the warped board....what's it do?

wh1: Nothing but it's a Bessler wheel, it has to have one.

fAt

[Michael]

Hmmm, my agreement with you has one slight modification. I'm one of those people who thinks there is more than one way to make a perpetual motion machine but regardless when one does get one made it will probably be heralded as the Bessler genuine article because some of it's components will match Bessler's statements.

Wh1 see there it's got that and that, AND it works! It has to be Bessler's wheel!

Wh2 Yes but it doesn't have this and this!

Wh1 So What?! Those were obvious textual distractions and decoys!

Enter working wheel number 2

Wh1 and Wh2 in unision. HUH?!

[ovyyus]

fAt - LOL - that sounds somewhat familiar

[ken_behrendt]

fAt wrote:

I have come to the conclusion that no matter what design ulitimately suceeds it will match up with many clues and the fact is I doubt we'll ever really know how close the sucessful wheel come to replicating what Bessler did. With the exception of the result.

Well, I realized a long time ago that we may never know the exact details of Bessler's wheels unless, of course, John makes some sort of incredible breakthrough in decoding something in the Bessler literature that gives a detailed description of the wheel's mechanism.

However, I do believe that a "general" solution is possible.

I seem to be slowly being forced to the belief that there is, indeed, only ONE way of achieving a working gravity wheel and that Bessler managed, after great effort and much luck, to stumble upon it. IF this is the case, then if some present day or future inventor does come up with a working gravity wheel, then it must be the general solution to the mystery that I have sought now for forty+ years.

Yes, I know that about 3/4 or more of the membership here will immediately rise up in protest and say that there is no way for me to be able to assert that there is only one solution. To this I respond with the observation that if, in fact, there were multiple possible solutions that could work, then why has not one of the tens of thousands of inventors since Bessler (and before!) who pursued this device been able to achieve it? I mean, if there are many or even just several workable designs for a gravity wheel, then why do we not have one yet?

This is an interesting question that each of us must try to rationalize for himself. To me the simplest rationalization is that the problem is made all the more difficult because the "exclusivity hypothesis" is valid... there is only ONE way to do it...


ken

[pstroud]

fAt,

That wh1 / wh2 conversation looks like many others I have seen taking place on this forum. Very true!

Ken,

I like to think there are multiple ways of achiving a PM gravity wheel. But I wonder all the time why it has not been re-invented after nearly 300 years. When we find the "ONE" key that makes it work, it will most likely make multiple options work. Similar to Bessler's one directional vs multi-directional wheels.

You have 40+ years of looking for the answer???

Preston.

[snpssaini]

Quote:
I have come to the conclusion that no matter what design ultimately suceeds it will match up with many clues and the fact is I doubt we'll ever really know how close the sucessful wheel come to replicating what Bessler did. With the exception of the result.


Well, I realized a long time ago that we may never know the exact details of Bessler's wheels unless, of course, John makes some sort of incredible breakthrough in decoding something in the Bessler literature that gives a detailed description of the wheel's mechanism.

However, I do believe that a "general" solution is possible.

I seem to be slowly being forced to the belief that there is, indeed, only ONE way of achieving a working gravity wheel and that Bessler managed, after great effort and much luck, to stumble upon it. IF this is the case, then if some present day or future inventor does come up with a working gravity wheel, then it must be the general solution to the mystery that I have sought now for forty+ years.

Yes, I know that about 3/4 or more of the membership here will immediately rise up in protest and say that there is no way for me to be able to assert that there is only one solution. To this I respond with the observation that if, in fact, there were multiple possible solutions that could work, then why has not one of the tens of thousands of inventors since Bessler (and before!) who pursued this device been able to achieve it? I mean, if there are many or even just several workable designs for a gravity wheel, then why do we not have one yet?

This is an interesting question that each of us must try to rationalize for himself. To me the simplest rationalization is that the problem is made all the more difficult because the "exclusivity hypothesis" is valid... there is only ONE way to do it...


ken



Hi Ken,

You are right , there is definitely one solution of BW. But with the help of this solution you can make different wheels. Because same principal will work on them. ( I think mechanism is right)

I have three different working wheels on papers. If any one want to make the working prototype with me, He/She is MOST WELCOME.

Snpssaini

[fAtnhapy]

Certainly as several have pointed out if there is but one basic prinicpal it can be applied in at least 2 different configurations with different results. Taking the available information as a whole there are facts, and there are assumptions. There are assumtions of what it must be and assumptions of what it isn't. There may be more piles than these three categories but in essense that's what it boils down to. It's been 300 years and coutless people have spent countless hours attempting to solve the riddle. It's my guess that by now the fact pile and the what it is pile has been picked over pretty thouroghly. The longer the what it is pile bears no fruit the more likely that the key everyone seeks is safely tucked away in the what it isn't pile.
fAt

[ken_behrendt]

Preston asks:

You have 40+ years of looking for the answer???

Well, I first read about Bessler in the R. Gould book titled Oddities when I was about 12 or 13 years old. In a few months I'll be 55 years old, so that makes about 42 or 43 years of working on the problem. Oh, I have not worked on it 24/7/52...maybe every few months I'd go through an intensive phase of design and calculations and then, perhaps, attempt two or three builds a year. Well, quite unfortunately, not a single thing I designed or actually built ever worked or even looked like it might work! However, that did not seem to deter me. I always figured that I was close and that only a few more slight changes in the design would do the trick. But, of course, they never did. Sometimes I'd take a "vacation" from the subject for almost a year, but then I'd come back to it again with renewed interest and the hope that, this time, a breakthrough would occur. Maybe it's a good thing that I did not have WM2D back then. If I had, then I probably would have gone through ten times as many designs!


fAt observes:

Certainly as several have pointed out if there is but one basic prinicpal it can be applied in at least 2 different configurations with different results.

Yes, there were one-directional and two-directional wheels. But, I am convinced that the two-directional wheels were just two one-directional wheels "packaged" in the same drum which also included an additional mechanism that would disable whatever wheel was forced to undergo retrograde motion when the drum was given a push. This idea of two one-directional wheels mounted back to back is reinforced by the ability of the two-directional wheel to remain motionless. This is to be expected when one has two one-directional wheels in the drum, each with its offset CG on the opposite side of the drum axle so that their composite CG is at a point just below the drum's axle (Bessler's punctum quietus).


ken