Dr. Bill Wattenburg

[rlortie]

One thing one must remember, Bessler lived in a time when the Catholic Church held great power. Many learned people found themselves in hot water with their thinking and discovery's.

Here is an edited quote regarding Galilio. Despite two official licenses, Galileo was summoned to Rome by the Inquisition to stand trial for "grave suspicion of heresy." This charge was grounded on a report that Galileo had been personally ordered in 1616 not to discuss Copernicanism either orally or in writing. Cardinal Bellarmine had died, but Galileo produced a certificate signed by the cardinal, stating that Galileo had been subjected to no further restriction than applied

"Galileo," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 97 Encyclopedia. (c) 1993-1996 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Although this took place almost 100 years before Bessler, the Church still played a dominant roll effecting the scientific societies. Bessler probably included quotes from the Bible to simply keep the Church from calling his device of heresy which could lead to torture and excommunication.

The Roman Catholic Church did not officially ban physical torture for heresy and accusations of heretical doings until the 1860's

Ralph

[wikiwheel]

Thank you Ralph for the info about the CC.

Now, let's get back to discussing ciphers...

I believe what JC has uncovered, the twelve coded passages, is a DECOY, devised by Bessler to lead everyone astray.

It makes no sense for him to spend a lot of time encoding stuff that just repeats if the objective was to prove his priority while he was alive.

The real key may have been a list of words kept only by him and which is now lost.

JC's 12 passages describe a device way too complicated.

I'm reaching these decisions in COLD BLOOD.

MIK

[John Collins]

Mik, I'm not sure the purpose was just to prove his priority while he was alive but was also there in case he died before he could profit from the invention. He stated that if he could not sell the wheel while he lived then he would accept post humous recognition.

Anyway the coded parts I have deciphered appear in 12 places and some contain more than one set of coded information. I'm sorry I can't tell you any more at this point but you will understand when you have more information. The twelve pieces of code do not describe anything complicated, on the contrary it is very simple to understand if not so easy to build.

JC

[Fletcher]

It is possible Mik that they were merely a further decoy but is that really likely or probable given John's statement about posthumous recognition being important to Bessler ?

The crux of it is this imo !

1. Do the decoded passages [12 separate locations but similar content & descriptions] show the mechanical parts/components ? .. AND ..

2. Do they show the general concept [or even detail] so that the parts could be arranged to give the OU effect ?

As everyone knows who has owned a mechano set, it is one thing to have a list of parts & its another to have the assembly instructions. You can do without the assembly instructions if you know the concept or have a picture. JC has said repeatedly that he understands the concept & that it is simple .. therefore .. we should be able to combine the concept & the parts to come up with a design to show the effect that the Prime Mover produces ?

It may seem difficult to understand how knowing both the concept & the parts can not lead to a successful design & build .. BUT .. for anyone who has tried to visualize a working wheel mech & then build it will testify, sometimes the practicalities are quite challenging. Bessler had enormous experience & skill in things mechanical.

Collectively though, I am sure we have some equally talented individuals here who could come up with 'work arounds' to solve the 'show stoppers' that any normal back yard tinkerer might encounter on their own.

P.S. I'm not suggesting JC has the calibre of a back yard tinkerer ;)

[wikiwheel]

Well, I'm sorry, but I'm not convinced.

Karl said it was easy to make, and that too makes me think these 12 ciphered passages are just another one of Bessler's security fences.

Everybody was ciphering back then so he made the document scream ciphers with all the "x" marks, etc. knowing someone would get the easy one.

The easy one may show all he thought he needed to show to get the credit after death, but not eough to build one. A sort of posthumous" FU."
"You people in the future would have been just as mean to me so, FU."


The priority code could have been known only to him and very detailed. He would'nt have had to broadcast its possible existance, just only solve the cipher if needed. I think that is what happened.

He put the "x" marks in our face when he didn't have too...and that's suspitious.

Mik

[Fletcher]

Well, I can't argue categorically one way or the other until we see what JC has.

What I am relying on is that JC is a consulting engineer IIRC with many wheel mech attempts under his belt. His experience should be both encouraging & good credentials from a practical & a theoretical view point.

I know from my own experiences that sometimes my ideas are based more on hope [a hunch] than fact. Usually that is because as I attempt to analyse a design I run into 'grey' areas where my mathematical or physics skills let me down & I am unable to proceed with confidence.

This doesn't stop me in my tracks, justs makes me more cautious about my expectations.

In this case JC says the concept is simple, as Karl said. That would imply that the concept is easily understood once you are on the right path i.e. you could take confidence in the expected result because there are not any 'grey' areas, other than the build constraints.

I certainly hope so. I look forward to the clarity [at long last] that JC will be able to provide, even if the build is more problematic.

Alternatively, I will not see the solution with the same confidence or clarity but nonetheless it will provide a way forward to draw my own conclusions & that at least will also be a positive.

[turulato]

Hi guys:

It has being a long, long, long time since my last post but I have to agree with JC and I think I can best prove what he is saying by revealing how to throw a heavy weight with a lighter one to any desired distance, I believe this is only part of the puzzle. The principle is simple but it has being very difficult to come up with a design that works. Most of you guys think that if you can lift 10lbs. with 1lb. and lift it 2ft. on a 4ft wheel you found the OB answer and the wheel will rotate freely. That is not true!
I'm at work right now but tonight when I get home I'll post a drawing of what I'm talking about.

Till then.....Turulato

[Jon J Hutton]

JC,

Do you think that bessler used weights, wind and water to run his machine....acording to his clues or strictly weights. I have been able to use a 1 pound weight to freely swing 32 2 lb hammers 360 deg. but can not seem to get it into a functioning wheel. Perhaps I need to look at the water or wind idea......who knows.

JJH

[John Collins]

Hi Jon. I don't think that Bessler used anything but weights - no wind nor water. I know that some on this forum have posed the possibility of other including other processes, but as far as I can tell nothing else was needed. According to the concept as I understand it, gravity was the sole provider of energy.

JC

[jim_mich]

According to the concept as I understand it, gravity was the sole provider of energy.

John, I tend to disagree with your statement. Gravity along cannot be the sole provider of energy. Even Bessler seemed to disagree with the concept of simply repositioning weights on a wheel in an attempt to produce an out-of-balance wheel. Modern science shows that the force of gravity upon weights shifted around on a rotating wheel always balances unless some other force is added. A working wheel concept MUST use some force other than gravity to power the wheel. The other force must move the weights out-of-balance and only then can gravity turn the wheel. Simple logic says that there are only a very few other forces available. Bessler said that the weights on his wheel gained energy from their own swinging. He said that as one weight moves closer to the axle another move farther away. This seems to me to clearly indicate that the motion of swinging weights produces the energy to shift the weights out-of-balance which then turns the wheel. The motion of the weights provides the energy to turn the wheel. Gravity is only in intermediary.

CF (or more precisely kinetic inertial momentum) is the only force that swinging weights are able to produce. Modern science and its conservation of energy law tell us that a weight in motion returns the same energy that set it in motion. It also tells us that a weight moving at double speed has four times the internal kinetic energy. These contradict each other. Most of the time science just ignores this topic. But if we devise a way to tap into the increased kinetic energy of swinging weights then ...

These are just my opinions. Sometimes I'm wrong, but not often.

[wikiwheel]

JC, since Karl didn't say the concept was simple, but rather, that it was simple to make, being a simple arrangement of weights and levers, my question is:

Do you think that Karl was fibbing or wrong in telling Fischer and his ministers that it was simple and easy to make?

A simple declarative sentence/statement would be much appreciated by all.

Mik

[rlortie]

John Collins wrote:
According to the concept as I understand it, gravity was the sole provider of energy.

Jim wrote:

John, I tend to disagree with your statement. Gravity along cannot be the sole provider of energy. Even Bessler seemed to disagree with the concept of simply repositioning weights on a wheel in an attempt to produce an out-of-balance wheel.

I tend to agree with J.C. and his statement. IMO Gravity can be the sole provider and yet agree that it cannot be done in an out-of-balance wheel.

Besslers canvas covered drum is just that, and to the eye we are instinctively drawn to the perception of a wheel with weights on both sides of the axle.

The posting of Victors scissor design is another fine example of an OOB wheel that will not work. The only other member I know of that works with the statement that one side is full and the other empty in mind is Steve. His concept and my latest venture with another member need not be covered or hidden on 1/2 the drum as there is nothing there to see.

These are just my opinions. Sometimes I'm wrong, but not often.

I readily admit that I and others can make mistakes, but he is not a failure until he blames some one else. Some make more mistakes than they wish to admit to.

Ralph

[jim_mich]

IMO Gravity can be the sole provider and yet agree that it cannot be done in an out-of-balance wheel.

Ralph, I must disagree with your statement also. Let me try to explain the logic.

First, in order for gravity to rotate a wheel the wheel must be out-of-balance. So when you say, "it cannot be done in an out-of-balance wheel" you exclude gravity!

Second, a raised weight always returns the same energy that was used to raise it. This is how gravity works. Unless we find some strange gravity quirk we are stuck with this fact. This is why main stream science tells us that gravity PM wheels aren't possible.

So where does this leave us? Obviously the weights must move in order to become OOB. The question then becomes, "How do they move so that they become OOB?" This "How" requires energy from somewhere as it can't come from nowhere. Gravity is a zero sum game. It cannot supply excess energy. If weights are lifted OOB as a wheel rotates then the lifting is what supplies the energy to turn the wheel, by way of gravity acting on the OOB weights.

A water turbine acts the same way. Gravity on the OOB water turns the turbine. But other forces lifted the water higher to produce the OOB. The energy from these other forces is what turns a turbine. Gravity in only an intermediary.

So logic says that some force other than gravity must lift the weights OOB so that gravity can turn the wheel. Can anyone find flaws in this logic?

[graham]

So logic says that some force other than gravity must lift the weights OOB so that gravity can turn the wheel. Can anyone find flaws in this logic?

In my humble opinion I believe gravity could have played little or no role in driving JB's wheels.
I remember reading somewhere in his publications that the wheels "Inner Force" was the motive power.
He could well be alluding to CF.

Graham

[Gregory]

So logic says that some force other than gravity must lift the weights OOB so that gravity can turn the wheel. Can anyone find flaws in this logic?

No! This is correct, exactly! I absolutely agree with Jim_mich!

In the past one year I tried dozens of OOB designs and even I tried to apply fully different logics than the usual, the most crazy ideas, and "everything"... But found no one which could work. Gravity does not able to lift the weights up, I think. I have 485 model files in my experiments folder. Of course there are a lot of variations on almost every one of my past models.

Up to this month, I had doubts that CF can be used efficiently enough to be useful... But... On the 25th of this month, I have created a machine in Wm2d which is accelerating to destruction very quickly. And it's CF driven.

I have to investigate it even deeper, but as I see it's not a computation error, at least not looks like one.


"The wheel's own inner force must come into being, without external momentum being applied."