the clues that fit and the unknown.

[beapilot]

Ir,

Your "secret" is as entertaining as Besslers "secret." I am stuck to know what your idea is for the "secret" of Besslers PM Wheel.
I read all post on this thread. I am interested on your conceptions of the 3 layers beyond out of box and 4D.

Joshua

[ruggerodk]

Jim:

I think that has pretty much been proven to only mean a 1:4 ratio of weight to weight.

If we are moving 4 weights a distance of 4 quarters it very much prove that it can only mean a 1:16 ratio.

Simple calculation...

ruggero ;-)

[FunWithGravity2]

IR and beapilot.

You have entered into step four and five of the newbie prophet stage.

Step one: declare you have the secret.
Step two: offer the world to play guess what i know with your secret.
step three: make absolutely no sense when people ask questions but claim you get it.
Step Four: Wonder why noone is responding to your genius.
Step five: Magic newbies appear that sound like you and have interest in your ideas, they might even have the same IP.

I would like to save you some time. Please progress to step six.

You have a working model and we all agree your a genius, you show your concept and we declare your a genius.

Or
1. admit failure and join into productive discusion about why with the forum.

2. fail and cower away and watch from a distance.

The sooner you do any of these the quicker you will gain legitimacy from anyone who has been here a while and they MIGHT actually help you further your learning if you accept help with less ignorance that purpot to offer it.

How come all the new guys say they have read all the threads and noone has figured it out yet, but still from reading all the threads they cannot see the ignorance of "the claim" without "the build"

[jim_mich]

Read what I wrote... "1:4 ratio of weight to weight"

Read what Bessler wrote! Never does it say a weight ratio of 1:16.

Nor does it say a distance ratio of 1:16.

It gives a one pound to four pounds ratio which is 1:4

It also gives a one quarter fall to a hike of four quarters. These might be distance or more likely rotation. Again this is but a 1:4 ratio.

There is no 1:16 ratio unless you read something extra into what is said.

[beapilot]

IR and beapilot.

You have entered into step four and five of the newbie prophet stage.

Step one: declare you have the secret.
Step two: offer the world to play guess what i know with your secret.
step three: make absolutely no sense when people ask questions but claim you get it.
Step Four: Wonder why noone is responding to your genius.
Step five: Magic newbies appear that sound like you and have interest in your ideas, they might even have the same IP.

I would like to save you some time. Please progress to step six.

You have a working model and we all agree your a genius, you show your concept and we declare your a genius.

Or
1. admit failure and join into productive discusion about why with the forum.

2. fail and cower away and watch from a distance.

The sooner you do any of these the quicker you will gain legitimacy from anyone who has been here a while and they MIGHT actually help you further your learning if you accept help with less ignorance that purpot to offer it.

How come all the new guys say they have read all the threads and noone has figured it out yet, but still from reading all the threads they cannot see the ignorance of "the claim" without "the build"

Please read my post again.
Thank you!

[scott]

IR and beapilot.

You have entered into step four and five of the newbie prophet stage.

Step one: declare you have the secret.
Step two: offer the world to play guess what i know with your secret.
step three: make absolutely no sense when people ask questions but claim you get it.
Step Four: Wonder why noone is responding to your genius.
Step five: Magic newbies appear that sound like you and have interest in your ideas, they might even have the same IP.

I would like to save you some time. Please progress to step six.

You have a working model and we all agree your a genius, you show your concept and we declare your a genius.

Or
1. admit failure and join into productive discusion about why with the forum.

2. fail and cower away and watch from a distance.

The sooner you do any of these the quicker you will gain legitimacy from anyone who has been here a while and they MIGHT actually help you further your learning if you accept help with less ignorance that purpot to offer it.

How come all the new guys say they have read all the threads and noone has figured it out yet, but still from reading all the threads they cannot see the ignorance of "the claim" without "the build"

Best post in this whole thread.

Thanks FWG.

-Scott

[ruggerodk]

Jim:

Please read my post again.
Please read your math textbook again.

You can't separate the elements like you propose, as they are interconnected.

I agree that if you DO separate the elements we involve 1 pound acting on one side that makes a reacting of 4 pounds on the other side. That's a 1:4 ratio.

I also agree – if we still separate the elements - that we involve 1 quarter (of unknown measurement/unit) on one side we have 4 four quarters on the other side. That's also a 1:4 ratio.

So it seems that both pounds-ratio and quarter-ratio are 1:4....but it doesn't give any reason when/as we are dealing with a function!
And Bessler was describing a function.

Put together it's: 1x1=4x4=16

ruggero ;-)

[Stewart]

OK, Stewart, I guess I need to make a long post to defend myself.

I'm staggered Jim! You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about in that post! I don't think there's any point me even trying to help you with this any further. You're clearly deluded in thinking you understand the German language and German grammar, when it's quite obvious from that post that you don't even understand English grammar! I just urge anyone reading your post to disregard it as it's complete nonsense.

I really feel like I'm fighting a losing battle on this forum. Time and time again I try to explain where there are errors in translations, and I try to correct them where I can, and yet here we are again for what seems like the hundredth time going over this damn "and when one pound falls a quarter" bit again - a part of AP that is quite easy to translate compared to others. There is only one correct translation for all of Bessler's writings, and I'm trying to get us as close to that translation as possible with as little guesswork as possible. There may be many possible interpretations of the right translation of some texts however, but that's an entirely different matter and down to each of us to make up our own minds. As I've said before I don't claim to be an expert in German, old or modern, and I never will claim such, but I've corrected mistakes and highlighted discrepancies in the translations of people who do claim to be experts in Old German. However I'm probably more familiar with the details of Bessler's books and documents than anyone, having done my own transcriptions and translations of a lot of them, and being able to easily read Bessler's handwriting now where most people see only an illegible scribble. This isn't necessarily anything clever - anyone could do what I've done given the thousands of hours of research I've put in over the years, but surely it gives me a bit more credibility than the average person just looking up words in modern online dictionaries and guessing at translations? Anyway, I've never asked anyone to just take my word for anything and that's why I've always been willing, and go to such lengths sometimes, to try to explain translations etc. here. I've also encouraged others to please show me if I'm wrong. I'd be more than happy to have someone correct any mistakes I've made if they can explain where I'm wrong - providing they can prove it from from a position of greater knowledge of course. The majority of my research and work I have yet to present to you though, and my long term plan has always been to collate all my research on my own website. It's all so time consuming, but I will be launching the new website this year even if it only has minimal content to begin with. My aim now and all along has been to try and help get as much accurate information about Bessler and his wheels collated together in one website with many useful tools that people can use to help them with their own research. All I want is a Bessler wheel to power my house, and to know that everyone else who wants or needs free-energy has one also. Anything I can do to make this happen I do gladly and just hope it helps someone, anyone, recreate a Bessler wheel. Fame and fortune are irrelevant and dreams of them only serve to distract - it's all about THE WHEEL and working together to make it a reality!

So, I now find myself questioning my involvement in this forum and struggling to see the way forward. I can't really see that there's any solution to this constant rehashing of inaccurate information, and that probably the best use of my time is not to keep responding to this type of thread but rather to work on opening my website as soon as possible where all my own translations and work can be seen in one place, and taken or left! If time was no issue I'd probably stick it out here - it has after all always been my favourite place on the internet (thanks Scott!) - but I'll probably from now on just observe and post occasionally and focus on my own website.

Jim - I have a lot of respect for you, and your skills and knowledge you put to good use here and are appreciated (translations are not your strong point however ;-) ). I don't want you to think my decision is because of you and these posts, they're simply the straw that broke the camel's back, so to speak. My time is so short I just can't justify explaining things over and over.

Good luck with the quest everyone - see you on my website hopefully soon!

All the best
Stewart

(*hands the torch over to Fletcher* - sorry Fletch!)

[ovyyus]

Stewart, however you decide to allocate your time please be aware that your efforts and knowledge here on this forum are appreciated by most, if not by all. Perhaps that is the best anyone can ever hope for? :)

[rlortie]

Stewart,

Ovyyus wrote;

your efforts and knowledge here on this forum are appreciated by most, if not by all.

May I add that I for one appreciate your efforts and indulgence very much. I accept your interpretations and rely on them quite frequently.

No! You will not see me involved in these discussions, questioning or attempting to read something that is not there. Therefore I rely on your interpretations. That is until some one can physically prove you to be in error which to my knowledge has yet to transpire!

Please do not let one bad apple spoil the barrel, Your are appreciated.

Ralph

[scott]

Hear, hear!

[james kelly]

And from a mostly silent one , STEWART you are appreciated very much.

[Fletcher]

All opinions are appreciated by me - jim_mich's & stewart's - I rely on stewart's stirling accuracy & knowledge & I can usually tell what is factual & what is his opinion, to which everyone is entitled.

It does get tedious to see the same stuff come up time & again, especially on the wiki without being updated with better information when it becomes available [usually thru stewart] - hell, I might even perpetuate the odd inaccuracy or myth myself from time to time ;) - not intentionally of course !

Open your web site as soon as you can stewart - it will be good for you & us - no disrespect to scott at all for the wonderful job he's done over the years in providing & maintaining this vehicle, also really really appreciated - & stewart, best wishes to Ed.

[beapilot]

From my idea, which is simple as Bessler said it is, I think I solved most of the clues in the idea. I am posting for the purpose so us, the people, can solve this wheel once and for all! Below is from the first post and I will answer comparison with my idea in color blue.

I wish you can get a full view of the image. The image allowed to be uploaded on here is to small to see the details and descriptions! Let me know if you want a full size.

I am a young adult, I do not know if this idea was thought of on here. Let me know. (not old so I don't know the history of all ideas thought of)

1 Machine was set in motion by weights. YES
Also it will run without giving it support when the break is released.

2 Weights gained force from their own swinging (or movement).
NO they do not swing
Exactly...
Weights gained force from their own movement. YES
I believe so.

3 Weights applied force at right angles to the axis YES
Would you think? I am not sure..

4 The machine's power was directly proportional to its diameter. YES (obviously)
Maybe you can help to keep it running when work is being done (lifting a load) But, the machine can only spin so fast.

5 all the inmost parts, and the perpetual-motion structures, retain the power of free movement, as I've been saying since 1712 YES
The weight balls come at rest on the bottom but freely moves all the time.

6 a work of this kind of craftsmanship has, at its basis of motion, many separate pieces of lead. These come in pairs, such that as one of them takes up an outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axle. Later, they swap places, and so they go on and on changing places all the time. YES
Right, the fulcrum and lever when the outter (the far out arm) and the one near the axis (the short arm) are in pairs as one go up while the other goes down with EXCESS WEIGHT! Now, for it to swap, there will be two of these machines. While one is down, the second one is already going down while the first one resets by itself. Just remember, width is not the matter in this machine. It can be in the 4" width range while both machines are about 2".

7 by making the true claim - that no weights hang from the axle of my wheel. TRUE YES
Right.

8 If one weight is giving an upward impetus, another one, at the same time, is giving an equal downward one. YES
Correct, but there will be "excess weight as he said before.

9 It must, simply put, just revolve, without being wound-up, through the principle of 'excess weight'. YES
Right, the further the ball is from the axis (the outter weight), the more excess weight applied.

10 it runs according to 'preponderance', and turns everything else along with it; as long as its materials shall endure, it will revolve of its own accord. YES
This is the balls...

11 On one side it is heavy and full; on the other empty and light, just as it should be YES
Correct, as shown in the picture, number three is the heavy side and full while the other end (outter) is light and empty.

12 reached the stage now where even a poor workman could put the thing together without a lot of head-scratching; and get it completed almost before you could notice" YES
I think a 11 year old can build this!

13 The clattering noise you refer to is, I assure you, a phenomenon caused directly by the real motive power of the machine, and nothing else YES
Right, when the ball is released, number three, the load weight pounds into the stopper to reset its place at the same time, number nine punches number eight to place the ball back on top.

14 In a true Perpetuum Mobile everything must, necessarily, go round together. There can be nothing involved in it which remains stationary on the axle. YES
If this is true, the wheel will not turn. The wheel itself is stationary to the axis. In my idea, there are stationary places. I guess he is fooling the mind.

15 When revealed, you will hear the wretches say: - "Just look at the thing properly, and you'll see that there isn't much artistry to it YES
Huh! You really think my idea has art in it?


16 For this concept, my 'principle of excess weight'" ... "these weights are themselves the PM device, the 'essential constituent parts' which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the PM principle) indefinitely - so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity. YES
of course! That is the whole purpose of the machine and what makes it work!

17 they are enclosed in a structure or framework, and co-ordinated in such a way that not only are they prevented from attaining their desired equilibrium or 'point of rest', but they must for ever seek it, thereby developing an impressive velocity which is proportional to their mass and to the dimensions of their housing. YES
Yup, but in my idea, there is "rest" but when the machine is stopped, the ball will be stationary in number 13, the side wheel is when the break is on, there will always be a ball in it.

18 Weights were cylindrical.
- Johann Christian Wolff, eyewitness account

Not that important

===============================================

Things that dont fit so nicely

======================

1 Weights came to be placed together, arranged one against another. NOT sure at all about the meaning of this
Take a look at my idea, you see weights that "came" to be placed together at the bottom..

2 Springs were employed, but not as detractors suggested
I do not have any springs at all but it may be that bessler used them.
Well, you can use them in my idea at number 8 to give greater lift.

3 Weights may have been pierced in the middle and attached by connecting springs (observer speculation).
- Acta Eridutorum, An Account of the Perpetuum Mobile of J. E. E. Orffyreus, 1715

THIS is possible but does not effect the reason it works.

4 Weights were heard hitting the side of the wheel going down
Again this means nothing.
Well, you know my idea has the same thing, but on both sides.

5 Machine (Gera wheel) made scratching noises, as if parts or poles moved over one another.
- eyewitness accounts

Again it must have made noise huh??
Umm... the axis. Needs greased up...

6 Weights may have been attached to movable or elastic arms on the periphery of the wheel (observer speculation).
- Johann Christian Wolff, eyewitness account
Yup. Only for a certain period then it falls off the lever.

NO NO NO not possible. (I think its possible)

7 About 8 weights fell during each revolution of the wheel, which took about 3 seconds. (Kassel wheel diameter ~ 12 feet)
- Joseph Fischer, eyewitness account
Its possible, you see, the slapping noises, it may not be weight, but see my idea, there is about 5-6 slapping noises which can all happen in 3 seconds.

Nonsense

[ovyyus]

Patterns in the chaos? Stewart's translation of s'Gravesande's, REMARQUES SUR LA POSSIBILITÉ DU MOUVEMENT PERPETUEL (page 9)...

...There are two bodies that I name A & B. I suppose that A weighs four pounds, & B one pound. B in descending from the height of four feet can raise A to the height of one foot, by means of a lever or some other machine; which is not contested. I assign one as the speed that a body acquires in falling from the height of one foot, & I suppose that A falls from this height of one foot to which it comes to be raised: it will have four degrees of force. Suppose again that A by its impact bends a spring, & that it applies there all the force of this impact. If this spring in unbending itself acts on B, it will communicate to B four degrees of force: that is to say, since the mass of B is one, four degrees of speed, which will make the body B reascend to a height of sixteen feet, four times the height from which it first descended...

Interesting connection (Stewart already mentioned this ages ago) to Bessler's rising/falling description and a possible explanation for his emotional reaction after s'Gravesande's visit?