Bessler's use of Gravity

[Sevich]

Winkle wrote:

over 300 members and 8 think they have a working idea worth building somebody must be holding out

Well I'm currently in the process of testing my 5 footer, and from what I see written in John Collins book about weights working in pairs, I have to say I've come to the idea that Bessler could have easily had his wheel rotate with only one single weight. The only drawback with that idea would be a wobbling effect. On the other hand he (Bessler) could of used a single active weight at (north) and a fixed weight at (south) so it would rotate without a wobble effect) ......i'm only stating what the minimum requirement for rotation or the basics? His quote that that says weights work in pairs is true only to the point his wheel is stabilized whilst in rotation.

My idea is that weights are in single units at 4 per wheel ........north, south, east, and west for the one directional wheel.


anton

[MC]

Mr. James L Kelly,

It has been interesting to hear about the renewal of your machine from Â’63.

Sad to hear though, that youÂ’re now confined to Off TopicÂ…

MC

[james kelly]

MC No such thing! Nothing was stirring, not even a mouse. I am just a jolly old elf. jimmy

[winkle]

Sevich wrote:
Well I'm currently in the process of testing my 5 footer,

and Anton makes 9

now we're getting somewhere

[winkle]

Pete wrote

The riddle to solve is the 1lb falling 4' lifting 4lb 1', solve that are you have cracked it.

Rainer wrote

1lb down by 4' , lifting 4lb up by 1' ... that's not really a riddle ... that's just normal leverage.

i may be wrong as usual but i think what he said was

i lb falls 1/4 and lifts 4 lbs 1 ft

i don't think 1 lb dropping 4'' and lifting 4 lbs 1 ft is a big issue as long as it's not being used in the context of trying to keep a wheel turning

i belive that formula would be imposable if using an even number of weights

although it might work on an odd number of weights

except i belive it would be imposable for a odd number of weights to keep a wheel turning

[Fletcher]

Hey Rainer, you might have to pull out the German version from JC's book & your own translation of it. I'm sure James, Jonny Net, Denis & others with knowledge of the language will offer different interpretations to bounce around. The translator just can't do it justice when Bessler was being deliberately obscure in the first place.

IIRC John's 18th century German linguistic expert did a pretty thorough job but the nature of the comment makes it hard to decipher the context correctly. I'll see if I can find the relevant thread where it was discussed previously on the board & post it here.

See Community Buzz Topic : 4 onces, 1 pound

Just to clarify, as I posted before, the german original text doesn't say anything about ounces.

It says, When 1 pound drops 1/4 , it will (swing,throw?) 4 pounds upwards by 4/4

Question is .. what units is he talking about. Can be the length of a beam, the diameter of a circle, the arc area within a circle etc... Who knows,

Rainer

[John Collins]

Pete

If we get there before our American cousins shall we have the parade in London? Or maybe put it on display at Warwick Castle

.

Warwick castle! I could walk to it.

JC

[james kelly]

WE are off to see the WIZARD, the wonderful WIZARD of OZ.

[Jon J Hutton]

Quote:
Pete wrote

The riddle to solve is the 1lb falling 4' lifting 4lb 1', solve that are you have cracked it.



Quote:
Rainer wrote

1lb down by 4' , lifting 4lb up by 1' ... that's not really a riddle ... that's just normal leverage.

No.... if you just use leverage you have ballance. Over Unity is lift or motion.

JJH

[Stewart]

I've just poked my head in to say Hi and to see how things are going. I've received a number of emails from people asking what happened to me, if I am ok and what I am doing. I've replied to all of them now, but thought I'd just post here also. John - you mentioned in this topic that you had sent me an email; I've not received one, but will email you after I've posted here (I haven't made it on that trip to Germany yet, hopefully soon though!).

This forum has always been my favourite place on the internet, and I've been a member right from the start. I decided to take a leave of absence for a while (its been quite a few months now - 7329 new posts - yikes!) as I was finding it very hard work being a part of the discussions on this board. This was mainly due to a certain individual's selfish behaviour that I felt was spoiling the great discussions that go on here, but also a general loss of focus.

Since I've been away I've been lucky enough to be in a position to devote a large amount of time to Bessler research and have been doing research on all the Bessler related books, documents etc, as well as building wheels in the garage. I've become great friends with Ed and have found we work really well together, and we are always bouncing ideas off of one another. We have lots of information which we want to share with everyone, and will do so via our website: http://www.johannbessler.com . We are hoping to launch it soon, and although initially it will probably have fairly basic content, we will be adding to it as and when we have the time. It has generated quite a bit of interest so far, with lots of people asking for access, but the only members at the moment are Ed and myself. We'll notify you all when it is ready for launch.
As far as a working wheel goes though, we aren't there yet, but are quietly confident that we will get there.

For those of you asking about my private forum on bw.com, it has no information on it that I haven't since posted under GD and CB, and is effectively dead. I will be closing it down as soon as possible, to put those people's minds at rest who think I'm not sharing information! I will say this though: there are great benefits in splitting up into smaller, more focused working groups; Ed and I have made great leaps and bounds in our research since working together. Those older members of the forum will know that I've always been open with my ideas and research and am always willing to share. My goal has always been to make sure Bessler's wheel is rediscovered as soon as possible and revealed to the world so that we can all start to enjoy its benefits. This is becoming more and more urgent each day, as we all know. In my opinion it doesn't matter who solves it and, although all those involved should be rewarded for their hard work, the main credit goes to Bessler who might finally be able to rest in peace!

Good luck to you all, and I'm looking forward to catching up with the old members, whos great discussions I really miss!

All the best,
Stewart

[james kelly]

There are a great many things in the engineering of a free energy device. many of them can not be worked out on Turbo cad or working model. in the process of building you discover much that was never thought of. Things behave very differently than on paper.There are many laws of physics that are really only theories, but have been used so much they are accepted as law. Much that we were taught in school, even in higher education is no longer true. You oldsters think about things that are now common that were not so in or before the 1950's jim kelly

[Fletcher]

Hey Stewart.. Nice to hear your calming voice of reason again. Rainer tells me you have an animation on the home page of your website (without flash player it appears as a big white hole). Are you able to load a static picture for those of us who are luddites ?

Will your's & Ed's site have a discussion board ?

[Fletcher]

James .. it is difficult to gain any real understanding of how those laws might be different, just from what you say. If, in a few days, Ralph is successful in duplicating your principle then he will be the second person in modern times to understand that these laws are wrong or incomplete. Then will begin the process of rewriting textbooks to accommodate your findings & write a new chapter in the history books to acknowledge the discoverer's & inventor's who opened the doors.

[ken_behrendt]

Stewart...

Nice to hear that you are well and being productive Besslerwise. I am looking forward to seeing what you have to present on your own Bessler website. I toyed with the idea of making my own such site a while ago, but I just do not have the time anymore. Just maintaining a "presence" here is enough for me at the moment.

Anyway, good luck with your research and your partnership with Ed. He impressed me as a very knowledgeable and dedicated mobilist.


James Kelley...

Most of the things I learned in school are still true. But, I realized a while ago that the laws of physics and mechanics I learned are not adequate to rationalize what is happening within a working overbalanced gravity wheel. I eventually realized that we must have a new law of motion to cover the operation of such a device. I found that in any truly chronically overbalanced wheel, there will always be a downward average velocity of its weights.

Whenever this condition exists, the weights must, with each wheel rotation, continuously lose gravitational potential energy which is converted into the kinetic energy that accelerates the wheel and can perform external work to it. In honor of JB, I've started calling this new law "Bessler's 4th Law of Motion". I have no doubt about it's reality or validity at this point in time.


Fletcher wrote:

If, in a few days, Ralph is successful in duplicating your principle then he will be the second person in modern times to understand that these laws are wrong or incomplete.

Well, we have not heard much from Ralph since I posted a sketch of an "Empty Side / Heavy Side, Peacock's Tail Wheel" on page 28 of this thread...I wonder why? Could it be that the design I came up was close to what Ralph is working on?

In any event, I do wish him well and success with his efforts. However, there is something that is puzzling to me.


Ralph...

I think I recall you stating that you were working on a "modified" version of the wheel design that James Kelly claims he has had running since last July. IF he does indeed have a working design, then why are you not working on making an exact copy of that design? Would that not be the better way to verify that he does, indeed, have a working wheel design?



ken

[rlortie]

Ken,

Well, we have not heard much from Ralph since I posted a sketch of an "Empty Side / Heavy Side, Peacock's Tail Wheel" on page 28 of this thread...I wonder why? Could it be that the design I came up was close to what Ralph is working on?

Sorry Ken, I did not answer until I quit laughing! All you have done is put Kelly's original idea inside another wheel. A design by the way that you said would never work.

In any event, I do wish him well and success with his efforts. However, there is something that is puzzling to me.

Thank you for you wishes, and I will try to answer you the best I can.

I think I recall you stating that you were working on a "modified" version of the wheel design that James Kelly claims he has had running since last July. IF he does indeed have a working design, then why are you not working on making an exact copy of that design? Would that not be the better way to verify that he does, indeed, have a working wheel design?

I am working on my own concept of the same design. We both had started down the same path without notifying the other. James informed me by phone that he had one built.

I have not seen Mr. Kelly's wheel in operation. It is not my place to verify what he does or claims, I am not his keeper, nor can I substantiate what he writes on this forum. I believe that mine stands as good a chance as his.

We do not intentionally make copies of the same wheel design. Why should I build the same and have both possibly and likely fail? We work together and exchange input on what we are doing, but I tell him what I am fabricating and does likewise. Our wheels are not the same.

If and when one is substantiated then we will share in the recognition as a team effort. That also includes any third party who may have given us the inspiration to blaze a new trail!

Ralph