Cracking Apologia "Wheel Page"

[Oystein]

I don't think there is any 5 in my avatar..

[Fletcher]

Hey MrV .. I was sticking with the theme proposed by both JC and Oystein. That JB's wheels were purely gravity driven.

If so, then very obviously the usual 'logical thinking' direction hasn't come to the party.

And that there are only two elements for consideration. That being the Static 'go to' weights displacement around a wheel i.e. further out and down on the descending side, and closer in and up on the ascending side.

The second consideration being the Dynamic of what happens to weight torque on the axle when weights are changing radius (moving down or up).

The usual approach has failed us and we need a new approach. Yours may be the one that busts the dam. In that it might still resemble a traditional looking weight driven wheel (so fulfills that requirement but is misleading) but works because of a completely different excess torque reason, perhaps as you've suggested.

However if we stick with gravity only for now then perhaps we need to really lean out on the branch and reverse the weights placement scenario and explore those things that we would usually see as non-sensical and not even try because it 'obviously won't work' because ...

JB did seem to be hinting at some strong reversal of positions or roles in MT13 and 15 for example. Oystein has given his opinions on those two. Oystein has also previously drawn our attention to the fact that traditional attempts at an OOB wheel end up with a shortage of weights on the descending side and an over abundance of weights on the ascending side. And suggested that this needs to be reversed to be successful i.e. more weights on down-going side and less on up-going side. Just how to arrange that is so far problematic.

So why would MT's13 & 15 look to be running backwards if viewed as a clock face ? I'm simply saying our thinking about 'what could work' may need to be revised and perhaps reversed. We know what doesn't work already.

[Oystein]

Hi Fletcher.

In regards to the mechanical aspect, I think MT 13 and 15 has no direct merit, but they mainly are there to be unison and a graphical counterpart to the parallel code in AP.

It demands you to search for something that Bessler removed...something resembling the inner part of MT 13. So does the blanks in AP. They are a twin code.

Another thing about weights and numbers..ascending versus descending..

If you count the weights in all the MT's, you will notice that some MTs has missing weights. Bessler removes a weight from the side going up.

Let's say you draw a wheel with four weights on the ascending side, and 4 on the descending side...then if you flip ONE over, the imbalance is 3 to 5.

I have a strong feeling that this was where the RC code of 3 and 5 resonated with Bessler..and the mech.

IMO

Best
ØR

[ME]

This seems a logical approach. But it never does (I'm sure ME could run the math again to show that the NET torque (turning force over distance) exactly equals the NET GPE change. Zero sum game and proof of the WEEP.

We easily recognize these wheel attempts as commonplace and nothing extraordinary to write home about (a bit like regular MT13 and 15 attempts). We also just about always use the STATIC analysis (the snap shots, as above) thinking it sufficient. Yet a self sustaining wheel would be a DYNAMIC environment.

By now I hope most of us get skeptical about those commonplace-oh-that-must-surely-work-with-one-force-used-twice designs and aim for the it-shouldn't-work-but-it-still-does-something-weird-overthere designs.
Sure, I may do a rerun when I need the training and exercise: you can never get enough training to hopefully see right through the obvious and then aim for the beyond.
Just like Øystein with his codes... train yourself until fluency, then look further.

My aim is 'simply' an unidirectional self-starting wheel (Bessler started that way too). When for one the add-all-and-forget-none is non-zero-sum, or proven to completely 'recharge' at some condition, then we're successful.
Add many and there we go. How fast: who cares. As long as it has the potential to move then the rest will be a matter of optimization.

[ovaron]

I am convinced that the secret of the wheel can not be solved by logical thinking and mathematics alone. Otherwise it would have been done long ago. The dymanics inside a wheel are so complex that presumably experienced mathematicians or physicists have problems with it. Fletcher has already said that we tend to analyze only static, where there is dynamic. Bessler has found an effect that has not yet been observed. For the same reason, I do not think that simulations will reveal the secret. Gravity alone I also consider excluded. The interaction of gravity, inertia and CF is probably more than the sum of the individual components. Here's just a try, or, if Bessler really left a code for deciphering the secret, to find that code. Hopefully John or Oystein will succeed. MrVibratings ideas also are very promising, although I find it difficult to follow his thread.

Good luck to all!

"Probieren geht über Studieren" (german proverb)
trying out trumps studying

[MrVibrating]

Hey MrV .. I was sticking with the theme proposed by both JC and Oystein. That JB's wheels were purely gravity driven.

If so, then very obviously the usual 'logical thinking' direction hasn't come to the party.

And that there are only two elements for consideration. That being the Static 'go to' weights displacement around a wheel i.e. further out and down on the descending side, and closer in and up on the ascending side.

The second consideration being the Dynamic of what happens to weight torque on the axle when weights are changing radius (moving down or up).

The usual approach has failed us and we need a new approach. Yours may be the one that busts the dam. In that it might still resemble a traditional looking weight driven wheel (so fulfills that requirement but is misleading) but works because of a completely different excess torque reason, perhaps as you've suggested.

However if we stick with gravity only for now then perhaps we need to really lean out on the branch and reverse the weights placement scenario and explore those things that we would usually see as non-sensical and not even try because it 'obviously won't work' because ...

JB did seem to be hinting at some strong reversal of positions or roles in MT13 and 15 for example. Oystein has given his opinions on those two. Oystein has also previously drawn our attention to the fact that traditional attempts at an OOB wheel end up with a shortage of weights on the descending side and an over abundance of weights on the ascending side. And suggested that this needs to be reversed to be successful i.e. more weights on down-going side and less on up-going side. Just how to arrange that is so far problematic.

So why would MT's13 & 15 look to be running backwards if viewed as a clock face ? I'm simply saying our thinking about 'what could work' may need to be revised and perhaps reversed. We know what doesn't work already.

I don't know mate.. if one's purpose here is purely to crack mechanical OU, then Bessler's cyphers and riddles are a fool's errand, a time wasting exercise, which could be better focused panning through the finite range of places a mechanical symmetry break could be hiding. Any seemingly-meaningful correlations are a bonus, but not the objective.

If however you're more interested in just cracking codes, then the physics seem less important, and maybe the codes will reveal new physics or something..(!)

To me, MT 13 has the key components of a gainful system - but then it's almost hard to come up with any random design that wouldn't - however it also has that internal stator, which he's explicitly told us in AP precludes "true PMM" outright. Which, intentionally or not, frames his exploit squarely as an effective N3 break. Everything has to go around together, to maintain the constant cost of momentum creation, and consolidate the gains. It's an absolute necessity,without which there can be no magic.

MT 15 - and for that matter, 16 too - also have the key components (interacting angular inertias, some of which are also subject to gravity). If MT 15 has any particular usefulness, it's going to have to be with regards to inertial forces, CF/CP and/or momentum distributions, because as a gravity wheel it is useless; all are, we can all do the integration in our heads: "closed loop trajectories through static fields yield zero net energy". There, job done, all possible attempts at a gravitational asymmetry pre-empted and redundant, the entire class eliminated. It is unequivocally settled, the "mechanical intuition" of a prospective GPE asymmetry is a mirage, an impossible dream, fantasy.. error.

Obviously, a wheel can't have more weights ascending than descending or vice versa, or else they'd be piling up at the top or bottom. It's alchemy. Superstition. Not rational, or scientific.


LOL, the ironic thing about all this secrecy - and i found this out many years ago - is that when you actually find a real symmetry break, you can't give it away! The problem is not keeping it secret... it's getting anyone, anywhere, to understand what they're seeing at all. You can write it out a hundred times in letters ten foot high, explain it to the nth degree, from every conceivable angle, and if you're lucky, occasionally someone will hesitantly mumble your words back at you, in a half-unsure kinda way, before promptly forgetting again.

You get that... and cargo-cult builders. Bless 'em, if it looks basically the same, it's in with a chance!

But the ones with the secrets usually tend to have nothing. Precious errors, misgivings, misconceptions, just sheltered from the scrutiny that would threaten to steal them away..

As i've said before, i only tend to research claims with a testable central thesis. In this case, since most evidence was anecdotal or circumstantial, the only available test rig to scrutinise was all of mechanics, but which, to be fair, is a finite space of possibilities.

I almost had it in my first major thread here, years ago - i was thinking the cyclical addition and subtraction of CF and gravity throughout a vertical rotation might present an energy gradient. Almost there, right in that moment - now all these years later, i'm generating momentum from overlaying gravity and inertia, rather than CF..

And it's totally kick-yourself obvious, just as some of us half-expected - i knew i had to be looking for something you can do in a gravity field that causes an asymmetric inertial interaction...

I knew this for years. I've kept repeating it, over and over... something you can do in a gravity field that causes an asymmetric inertial interaction...

So what is it? Duh. An inertial interaction, in a gravity field! So you actually do an interaction, between two inertias, in a gravity field. That makes it asymmetric.

How friggin' dense am i? There was only ever one possibility in the first place! I mean it's not like it was multiple choice or something - the answer's right there in the friggin' question. I am a stupid, stupid, man. S-l-o-w.

And it's not like we're even lucky that it's a stupidly-simple solution - 'cos it's not like there could be any more difficult solution - we've only the fundamentals of mass, ie. inertia, motion, time, space and gravity to play with. It's an inherently finite, limited set of potential interactions to evaluate. We already know that OU means the input and output F*d integrals have to be in different energy scaling dimensions, and one of them has to be the 1/2mV^2 standard, by default... so we were only really ever looking for one thing - a way to use gravity to buy cheap momentum. Simple process of elimination, converging inexorably on a solution guaranteed by Leibniz himself (arguably the discoverer of the 1/2mV^2 standard), and Wolffe, and Karl, S' Gravesande et al.

The hard problem is solved, i assure you. If i'd made a mistake i would've found it by now. Occasionally i get a shudder of doubt, and almost an accompanying sense of relief that finally the latest bout of mania's subsided.. only to realise that no, actually i've triple-checked everything already. This really is it, no false alarm this time.. all the pieces are in place, it just needs linking up into an engine.. and the most eloquent solution to which will likewise be a simple matter of elimination and reduction. It's now just a design problem, no longer a magic trick.

I think much more will become clear about what was and what wasn't encoded once analysed in context of the known exploit. Maybe the Toys Page isn't so much an instruction manual or secret map to OU, as an IP claim, the meaning of which would only be clear to someone who'd either discovered or independently co-discovered it? Dunno... the track that seemed most prevalent to me in the three Kassel engraving's anomalies was counter-momentum, and its relationships to earth, represented by the vertical parts that intersect the border frames outlining the pictures.

But surely the most potentially informative contexts in which to view the MT's is with regards to momentum symmetry, and ways to manipulate and exploit it.

The drive to persist with gravity wheel research despite ostensibly understanding that gravity and rest mass are constant, is baffling and tragic, squandering talent, time and good intentions with a futile red herring..

[Furcurequs]

It sounds like you've been beamed up, that you've ascended to "the realm." Say hello to Ken for us! ;P

[Oystein]

Yes, this is a good illustration, lol.

At the same time, for those that can go back and read the thread you will see that where we are now, is the reason it is almost possible for the biased PM searcher (Biased by his own idea of how a PM must certainly work) to follow or accept a trail of code.

THE UNBIASED PRESCHOOL BABY:

I have talked about building bricks from simple facts on top of each other, through time (Taking notes of observable fact, and use them as new "truths", and never to start at the top. if we do it this way, things can be as simple as the AP figure is to a small kid. (Attached Masonic pictures).

Attached pictures is about how simple it is! By knowing the so simple masonic methods, it makes The AP Wheel and the pyramid secret so simple that a a preschool kid can understand it. This is simply because of one thing. You'r perceived "knowledge" is in the way. What you believe a thing is, will make it close to impossible to discover that it is another thing, if it's not by accident true. This is Religion. The opposite of Masonry!

This thread was to build stable bricks (as in the baby building a pyramid), and show how simple it was to slowly climb on Jacob's ladder.. (literally speaking this time)!

When I, brick by brick show that the answer to the question on the page is:
3 x 5 is 15, what happens?

We are ending up with deep technical elaborations about how MT 15 may or not work, elaboration of their pet idea that is NO way near MT 15..or an idea that 7 seems to be fitted in here. So all must be wrong. So when you say, no 15 doesn't seems to fit my mechanical idea... 15 it isn't then you are not the unbiased "baby" anymore. You can't receive new information that way..

This is not building bricks (Masonry). This is starting in the air... like a blind person, trying to connect the first block to the roof.. It wan't become a pretty building..

PS! This is my way of writing, really no pun intended.

[MrVibrating]

It sounds like you've been beamed up, that you've ascended to "the realm." Say hello to Ken for us! ;P

LOL i'm not the one advocating gravity wheels.

Far as i can tell, i'm the only one following the physics, and producing the goods. I'm mathematically proving the existence of an OU energy gradient, that produces momentum and energy, and requires just two inertias, plus gravity.

And, predictably, everyone totally ignores the science, and carries on digging for buried treasure.

I suspect if Bessler's allusion to Jacob's ladder is anything, it would be a reference to the only possible free energy gradient in mechanics capable of producing momentum and energy..

It looks to me like i'm not the one ascending to the realms of total Bessler awareness.. i'm excited, yes. Manic? Not apparently in a bad way, at least as far as can be mathematically verified. But delusional? Are my sums wrong? Do the sims replicate those errors?

The gradient i'm describing perfectly matches the behaviours and performances of Bessler's wheels - the load-matching abilities, the ability to turn very slowly but with very high force, the statorless requirement, the ability to produce both excess energy and momentum (not a mutual given), and despite this, does so in a manner fully consistent with all known classical physics.

Even if cracking a Bessler code led to the revelation of a complete set of instructions on how to build and run a wheel, it could only be this energy gradient it was accessing, so if that's the objective goal then i've already pre-empted the need. You're already much further ahead, simply from grasping that CoE depends upon N3, but that momentum distributions skewed by gravity break N3. No Bessler clue is going to give you a more succinct explanation of the magic.

But so far, no attempts at the codes by anyone has produced any hidden mechanical linkage or principle or physics, maths or tangible science of any kind.

I'm the one who's dabbled in the Kabbalah of classical physics, and come out with new knowledge and powers LOL. Anyone can follow, no secrets. More importantly, perhaps... no suspension of disbelief required, either.

I mean, if you personally calculate the energy cost of producing momentum the way i suggest, and then also calculate the value of that momentum as it accumulates via some standard energy term, then either you've made some mistake, or you're looking at OU.

Let the code-breaking efforts likewise speak for themselves.. Where the energy and momentum come from then, eh? Simple question, gotta be a simple, equally-straightforwards answer, right? Got any mechanism or principle we can review?

At some point fantasy and reality have to meet... the train has to pull into a station, somewhere.. mine's already arrived and alighting on platform N3... where this one's stopping, i care not, cos i'm already precisely where i wanna be and it's no longer mere fantasy..

[daxwc]

#137 is an interesting number where Bessler put his Dodecagram. It is the 33 prime number. Masonic G=33. You also get to 137 with the Masonic compass and square in that the compass is set at 47 degrees and the square at 90 degrees. 47 degrees represents the 47 problem of Euclid. It is a triangular number. It is also a Fibonacci number. Obvious an very important Masonic number.

PS. Strange; I lied. It is not a Fibonacci number or a triangular number. Why would they state it is?

I can see the linkage to Fibonacci number. Hmm...

One can make 4 equilateral triangles out of it. Not sure why?

[eccentrically1]

I'm interested, I agree he seems to have used the secret society numbers/letters/methods in his drawings, but I have the same question as everyone, has your research led you to believe the solution is in a combination of the MT's as Bessler indicated?

The first i did was to deduce a mechanism that filled the space and function in MTs. I found what was missing in a series of MTs and worked on it until I found a mechanism that would count for the missing transfer or coupling..

Then this mechanism seemed to fit into several of his drawings, also geometrically in other MTs. Then I deduced what the numbers and letters would have to mean for this to be true. Then I did the same in AP.

When I went out of the Bessler "bubble" and started to look at some interesting (mostly true) Shakespeare and RC codework from another person here in Norway...

Suddenly .. bang bang bang..

Besslers methods was IT. A figure arose from Euclid's original Elements 300BC. This was the secret.. The ancient Geometry in religious writing and art..often applied without permission of the principal, not to be spoken of...

Now I am in search for if I can find out of how Besslers basic mechanism was applied... what I originally thought? Or does it interact/work in combination with another chain of arms/ hammers..etc. So yes I have worked this up from a mechanical perspective.. and hope to work it down again. I'm kind of happy though..In this way I have something no matter how it turns out. The thing about PM is that you either have all or nothing...Only Bessler have had something in history, now I have something..

So are you saying you think the codes are telling you the mechanism is in MT, and you think you know what it is, but you're not sure because you haven't either built it to verify it (because you aren't sure what to build), or, you haven't had a neutral qualified party verify your proposed mechanism? I think you said your friends had read your code material and were impressed, but what about the wheelworks?

Don't you think if the codes really pointed the way, then someone well versed in masonic and rosicrucian codes from that time and place would have solved it? Why wouldn't someone have done so if it was the most important discovery of all time? Or maybe someone did and like Karl discovered it was not worth the asking price.

[daxwc]

Don't you think if the codes really pointed the way, then someone well versed in masonic and rosicrucian codes from that time and place would have solved it? Why wouldn't someone have done so if it was the most important discovery of all time?

eccentrically1 that is what I said before, but he could be hiding it not far from their works.

[Fletcher]

I am not bashing Oystein but I do want to follow up on the above two posts.

When I first read Oystein's response about looking thru MT and deducing a mech for the job then finding confirmation in AP and MT etc I thought about 'confirmation bias' being a possibility. He answered that by saying he worked up to the mech and hopes to work it down again. I'm not saying there is confirmation bias but it can happen to all of us and has to be looked out for by a researcher.

And that brings us to Mr Tim's comments about a code or cipher .. which I'm sure Oystein has considered and tested against.

(Friedman's rule) For a translation/decipherment/decoding to be correct, it must:

1) Be repeatable by a second party who only knows the system. They must come up with the same output as the proposer, from the same enciphered text.

2) That output must have meaning in some context.

If your proposed solution meets both of those criteria, it will be taken seriously by the cryptography community. If not, they'll be your harshest critics. Just letting you know what to expect...

Oystein has said he found the mech in AP and it raises all the concerns you guys have mentioned. What if a fellow RC read his books before the wheel was sold and solved the mech etc. That seems a risky strategy to include a mech in his published works. Not saying it isn't there, because Oystein previously said it was in there multiple times, of different proportions, repeated.

However MT is another matter entirely. There Oystein says that the same general mech can be found and also says that in MT JB used his own variation on the RC/Masonic codes which one would have to crack. It would be far safer to draw attention to a mech in MT (which wasn't published) once you had deciphered the Bessler variation coding I would think. And then he might have indisputable posthumous recognition if he died first, as happened.

The point is Oystein is convinced that the same or similar mech principles are shown in more than one source including MT as confirmation and that his decoding is sound. I think it more likely that AP etc show a generalized mech and perhaps function but that MT would be a more reliable source of accurate information about the mech and function. He also says that there are layers of information that you only get to step by step. As an example he points out numerous times that the Masonic codes (3, 5, 15 etc) are like baby steps and baby levels of complexity. We tend to overthink things. But that there are deeper complexities in the codes levels down. And that how would you necessarily know you have reached the bottom of the well and got to the real information it contained ? I think Oystein is just showing us an introduction to the topic. At the same time I hope he has a real good grasp on the Bessler mech but even then it appears that there is no blueprint of how a wheel works (because he is still wondering about connections to chain of arms / hammers etc), or at least not deciphered yet. JMO's.

[daxwc]

Oh, I believe Oystein could in fact have the mechanical solution because I believe he showed something that makes me think the two ways end up at the same spot. Because he back engineered it he might have jump the number code system or the geometric code.

On the other hand I am skeptical because he hasn’t been able to make a running wheel with it so far.

It is a very good point Fletcher that MT wasn’t published. Bessler also hinted in AP that plans were made in case he died.

[Oystein]

So are you saying you think the codes are telling you the mechanism is in MT, and you think you know what it is, but you're not sure because you haven't either built it to verify it (because you aren't sure what to build), or, you haven't had a neutral qualified party verify your proposed mechanism? I think you said your friends had read your code material and were impressed, but what about the wheelworks?

Don't you think if the codes really pointed the way, then someone well versed in masonic and rosicrucian codes from that time and place would have solved it? Why wouldn't someone have done so if it was the most important discovery of all time? Or maybe someone did and like Karl discovered it was not worth the asking price.

I don't see your reasons for this questioning, as I have written all about how I work. My first book about the codes of history is about How much of Bessler's use of codes happened to be something he had learned from others. I found out what that code was and who had used it before him in history. It happened to be origination from more than a handful of the most known works or literature and art in history. I thought that was so important that I decided to write a book about it, and let others read it and be critical. (A book for general people interested in solving mysteries). The readers believe Bessler used and actually documented what all the buzz about secret societies, RC, Masonry, secret codes, pyramids, square and compass, da Vinci, Durer, the Shakespeare/Bacon controversy etc etc.. He knew and documented it. Kassel was the place for RC and Bessler. The readers concluded that it is real and groundbreaking!

I think it is exceptional that Bessler not only invented PM but also knew this and documented it. Now it is not so strange that MT also had a great value even used to negotiate the price of the wheel.. Wheel price, with or without MT? Why did it have value if you have bought the wheel? I think Bessler valued MT about 1/10th of the wheel price..
What other secret did it contain, that has 1/10th of the value of a working perpetual motion machine??? I have the answer! And I am proud of it.

So, I am not dead yet at age 45, and I must finish one thing at a time, or I will not be reaching age 50.. This is a burden to carry if it is not all documented perfectly. If I can reach a stage where I am able to support my self from this, I will have time to work on the next task.. and the next..

Pure Bessler codes by itself will not have great value without a working wheel. But when he discloses the great secret tradition of modern history, he will be a little more acknowledged..Maybe then a book purely on Bessler would be appreciated, and a parallel replication attempt would be proper. I am very happy that I chose this way and not the other way around. I do what I do best, in the order I think is best, and you do what you do best.