Where was Bessler’s invention located?

[AldenPark]

I think that he basically answers that question in Apologia Poetica. I will quote three paragraphs that I posted 25 Apr 2019 on page 3 for the topic “WM2D Downloads Section�. What do others think about the location of Bessler’s invention?

Location of Bessler’s Invention. On a particular occasion within Apologia Bessler provided direct information about the location of his invention. The information can help us as we try to replicate his invention. As background, we know that the eminent Karl saw within the Kassel wheel prior to Apologia being written. Karl gave Orffyreus 4000 thalers (see p. 39 of Perpetual Motion: An Ancient Mystery Solved? 1997 John Collins ie. PM97) and swore an oath not to reveal the interior of the wheel until Orffyreus sold his wheel. Now let us remember Bessler’s later important words just following his little book, of section XLVI. In section XLVII (p. 296 English translation by John Collins of p. 105 German) Bessler wrote in Apologia Poetica for his first question and answer ‘ “Has it ever come about that a person of eminence has seen the interior of my invention?� To this I answer - no. ’ We know that the eminent Karl saw the interior of the wheel. Surely we should then know that Bessler’s actual invention was not to be found in the interior of the ruse wheel. Then where else could it be? There can only be one reasonable possibility and that is in the interior of the difficult-to-construct wonder bearing(s) that Karl never saw within, because their ends were closed off to help keep them clean and to prohibit viewing of their interior. Bessler explained how he built his bearings, though he used coded language in his little book (which I decode in GWU or BLBD). See the coded words in section XLVI of Apologia or see PM97 Appendix A pp. 225-227. Then at the end of Apologia if people still haven’t figured it out yet, he asked them the words of Jesus in Matthew 15:16 “Are ye also yet without understanding?� whereupon he provided his symbolic bearing figure. Don’t we get it? I figure that the figure contains 11 bearing specifications. See Table B.4 “Bearing specifications from Bessler’s final figure.� of my book GWU p. 535 within APPENDIX B ORFFYREUS’S LITTLE BOOK, which book you may download its 18 Mar 2019 .pdf file for free. Or see Table 4 “Bearing specifications from Bessler’s final figure.� of my book Bessler’s Little Book Decoded p. 80, which book you may also download its 18 Mar 2019 .pdf file for free.

Where Solution Resides. It is almost as if Bessler is telling us over and over again in Apologia where the solution resides, if we only have ears to hear his words. Wasn’t it enough that he always focused attention away from his bearings (to protect them), taking extraordinary steps, such as destroying wheels in outrageous fashion or writing poetry on a door? The poetry didn’t say one word about the bearings (PM97 pp. 118-119), even though it was apparently the inspection by ‘sGravesande of the bearings (see pp. 162 and 170 of PM97) without Bessler being present that upset Bessler so much that he destroyed the Kassel wheel and wrote the poem. Can we “see� the writing on the door with respect to actual intent (or rather what was specifically not written on the door)?

Poor Destruction Rationale. John Collins doubted (p. 119 of PM97) Bessler’s stated rationale (pp. 118-119 of PM97) for Bessler’s destroying the Kassel wheel. I agree with Collins that it was not rational. I think that it only begins to make sense, when one considers the unstated reasons of protecting the bearings from further examination. Karl had not protected the bearings from being examined. Karl had only promised not to reveal the interior of the wheel. Karl had not made any promise about protecting the bearings, which was/were the real invention(s). To protect the bearings, Bessler couldn’t tell Karl that greater protection should be given to the bearings than to the wheel. Telling that to Karl would destroy any portion of Bessler’s bearing protection plan that remained. It was time to destroy the Kassel wheel, since the bearings were now no longer being protected even indirectly through the protection of the wheel.

I think that Bessler’s actual invention was located in his bearings. Bessler’s actual invention was his wonder bearings.

I am currently not quoting these four paragraphs (which I posted 25 Apr 2019 on page 3 for the topic “WM2D Downloads Section�) entitled: (1) Wonder Roller Bearing, (2) Bearings Repaired While Used, (3) Repaired Bearings Might Be Better than Originals, (4)Power Produced within Wheel. I mention the paragraphs here, since they have relevance to the location of Bessler’s invention.

Distracting Interior Mechanisms Were Not Bessler’s Invention. If one had Bessler’s special bearings and a reasonable wheel, with or without distracting interior mechanisms inside the wheels, then one would have a Bessler wheel. As an example of the distracting interior mechanisms inside the wheels, the Kassel wheel had eight sliding cylinders that slid along wires on the interior edges of his wheel. See Fig. 31 of GWU or Fig. 12 of BLBD. The cylinders had holes going through the ends of the cylinders, along their axes of symmetry. To keep people distracted, Bessler wouldn’t let people feel the end holes through a handkerchief. See pp. 79 and 131 of PM97. Bessler specialized in distracting people away from both his wonder bearings and the actual Bessler principle source of extra rotational power. One was a universal rotational principle and the other was his invented ultra-low-rotational-friction mechanical-means to allow the principle to be easily manifest. The Kassel wheel would have worked perfectly well because of the Bessler principle, if Bessler didn’t allow the noisy-banging cylinders to slide along their wires. Because of the Bessler principle, the cylinders (as well as the rest of his wheel) would have still produced extra rotational kinetic energy, if the cylinders were firmly attached to the rotating wheel. Bessler’s invention was the same invention for all his wheels. The various distracting interior mechanisms inside the Bessler’s wheels were not Bessler’s invention, as spoken of in his first question and answer. AEP – 27 Apr 2019

[Fletcher]

Hi Alden .. I can see why you favour a universal 'special' almost frictionless Bessler bearing as your solution to Besslers' wheels. In that it neatly addresses the nagging issue of many of the MT's purportedly being able to be made to work. Therefore the reasoning being that if the mechanical dynamics and methods of OOB machines can change like the wind blows, then a common denominator must be the source of the wunder-machine.

Personally I think that common denominator is the Prime Mover.

Additionally I make the points, having read your material many years ago with interest, that sim programs today can have elective pin/pivot frictions added. Usually we build sims with near perfect frictionless environment, for optimal results, better than real world can supply. This would be similar to using your proposed bearing. Yet still the sims fail to accelerate and self sustain rotation. That's not because of too much internal frictions (there are none to speak of), but simply because Newton's Laws preclude torque asymmetry for OOB wheels.

To check your rationale further, I suggest that Besslers' wheels could do external work, over and above any heat and sound losses etc to other internal or bearing frictions etc. Quite a reasonable Load could be moved. Certainly enough imo to compensate for any bearing losses from well machined bearings available today, or the greased bearings he used then. External Work capability (energy, aka, force x displacement) is made up of Load moved vertically (f x d) + energy lost to frictions as heat etc. These two components can vary in proportion, say to allow for a sub-optimal bearing, or an extraordinary uber one.

Something for everyone to think about !

[Silvertiger]

Even with "wonder bearings," such a machine would at its best still be less than 100% efficient. By itself, it may turn for several months before stopping. But once a load was attached to it, it would take no time for it to stop.

[Georg Künstler]

The Roller Bearings are not more than only free rolling cylinders.
A cylinder from lead, rolling, is representing a weight and transferring a weight on a lever sidewards.
A Roller Bearing rolling in a hole is also representing a sidewards move and in addition a moving up.
Therefore you need a complete swinging of the carrier.
The moving axle, as discribed from Bessler.
The carrier has holes, the curved board, where the weights can land.
So you can reduce the Bessler wheel to a positive tilting feedback loop.
It needs no springs, only the moving, rolling cylindrical weights in a circle process.

Easy to build by a carpenter apprentice.

[ME]

Say you have a pendulum on perfect bearings and no air-friction etc.. and ideal situation.
Put it at the 12-o'clock position.
It remains there: dynamically balanced.
Now offset it 1 minuscule part (or whatever) to the right.
Eventually it will swing, until it reaches 1 minuscule part at the left.
To make it rotate you still need to overcome two minuscule parts: 1 part to reach the 12-o'clock position, 1 part to reach the offset position again.
So you still need something 'special' that generates that extra needed potential, and hopefully not losing potential at the other end while attempting such.

[AldenPark]

The evidence stated by Bessler plus my decoding of his little book plus the bearing specifications that he provided speak much of a very low friction wonder bearing. But that is only part of my solution. There is a universal physical principle that causes all matter rotating about horizontal axes to increase in rotational kinetic energy. I call it the Bessler principle. It exists because there are two discrete pull-downs by the two-part graviton, with the higher elevation pull-down typically occurring after the lower elevation pull-down, which allows the higher elevation mass to rotate further around the circle, during the time between the two pull-downs. Normally nearly ubiquitous rotational friction removes that acquired rotational kinetic energy and even prior existing rotational kinetic energy is also lost. Under very special conditions of very low rotational friction the angular speed can increase until it is in equilibrium with increased rotational friction. The principle produces more rotational kinetic energy as rotational angular speed increases. If the rotational friction did not increase, then there can be a runaway situation of greater and greater rotational angular speed. A mass so rotated would explode and I think for example that did occur with the two explosions of Papp gas. It also occurred with the explosions in certain cold fusion experiments. The seminal cold fusion paper seemed to warn of such greater than chemical reactions, since they had an explosion in their lab. They warned not to use cube-like cathodes. I think that was to avoid too much of an energy productive thing. Here is the reference to the paper.

"Electrochemically induced nuclear fusion of deuterium" by Martin Fleischmann, Stanley Pons, and Marvin Hawkins, J. Electroanal. Chem., Vol. 261, No. 2A, April 10,1989, pp. 301-308; Errata, Vol. 263, No. 1, May 10, 1989, pp. 187-188.

Other cold fusion researchers had to deal with greater than chemical explosions. I think that even now many don’t realize that what they were experiencing was runaway Bessler principle explosions of too many rotating nuclear-ground-states. Many of the cold fusion researchers still don’t realize that cold fusion is the interaction of rotating nuclear ground states initiated by the Bessler principle, but in my book, GWU, I try to make that clear in the cold fusion section. I think that there is a great amount of evidence for the Bessler principle. The subject area is not confined to cold fusion. Rather it applies to all wheels of all sizes that rotate about horizontal axes.

See my Page 2 post of Wed 17 Apr, 2019 9:54 am Post subject: re: Gravity
Under Some Evidences of Bessler Principle, I listed 18+19=37 different subjects providing evidences for the Bessler principle! The last listed one (the magnetic motor by Muammer Yildiz) is an example of a patented device with links I provided to the Internet. It is a perpetual motion device that continually produces power by repeated extraction of rotational kinetic energy from the two pull-downs of gravity. See what I wrote about it there on the topic “Gravity� and in what I wrote about it in my book, GWU, on pp. 429-430. The Yildiz motor is an example of a patented indefinitely moving object (imo) that continually provides power provided by the Bessler principle. Still, I think that the solutions to either of the two little books (which I decoded) would be much more cost effective for producing power in the long run than the motor by Yildiz. In all my 37 different subjects in my book, GWU, they all speak of sources of power coming from the Bessler principle. Please study the 37 different subjects all speaking of power being produced by the Bessler principle. Some of the sources of power are more useful than other sources of power but they all point to distinct sources of power coming from rotations of matter about horizontal axes. Maybe on another post I could quote those 37 separate subjects providing sources of power. Then I could ask, “Which of them do people think that power is not being produced?� Disagreeing people should state a particular subject and come up with an explanation why there is not evidence of extra power being produced. We are not only talking about the Bessler wheels being a source of power. We are not talking about zero sum energy games. We are talking about increasing energy in many separate cases. I think that all those many different subjects speak of power sources coming from the Bessler principle. Come on now. If you pick one of the subjects and you try to explain why you think extra power is not being produced by the Bessler principle, then you can hear from me why I think power is being produced. You can get an idea of my response by going to my book and reading about the subject at least according to the shown starting page number. I didn’t list the final page numbers on the first 18 subjects. If you agree with me that extra power is being produced according to these 37 subject from the Bessler principle, then you should agree that extra power is being produced from the Bessler principle for the particular subject of the Bessler wheels. Then you would see that we are not talking about zero sum energy games, according to power production within the Bessler wheels from the Bessler principle. Power is being produced within the rotating Bessler wheels by the Bessler principle but that is not the invention. A solid wooden cylinder for a rotating wheel would work about as well at producing power by the Bessler principle (if Bessler’s bearings were used) but that cylinder would not be where Bessler’s invention would have been located. Bessler’s actual invention was within his bearings so that the produced power of the Bessler principle in the wheel is not lost to friction, but allowed to accumulate and then at the larger angular speeds more power is produced within the wheel according to the Bessler principle. The real invention of Bessler was located in his special bearings that allowed the inherent power producing Bessler principle (within the wheel) to be easily manifest.

Personally I think that common denominator is the Prime Mover.

I was looking at commonalities between the “Prime Mover� and the “Bessler principle�.

AgingYoung PostPosted: Sat Nov 26, 2005 5:03 am Post subject: re: The Bessler Curse
on Page 11 was quoting someone else and part of the quote possibly without the yellow/orange colors showed:

But the weights which rest below must, in a flash, be raised upwards

Ovaron PostPosted: Sat Mar 16, 2019 3:52 pm Post subject: Prime mover
on Page 1 was also quoting someone else and part of the quote possibly without the yellow/orange colors showed:

Thus Besslers statement, "the weights which are resting below, they have to go up fast", also makes more sense.

I will try to show a perspective of how such thinking might make sense. I am thinking what is really going on is the Bessler principle. I will try to make some comparisons. If we think on a sub-microscopic, sub-atomic, sub-nucleus level, where everything is on a most fundamental opposite charge level. One can call it a spirit matter level where we have equally massive opposite charges (or rather the finest most-fundamental constituents of either matter or antimatter). For a wheel rotating about a horizontal axis (deep down within such a wheel), pairs of such finest fundamental opposite charges can rotate in extremely tiny circles about their centers of mass around horizontal axes. With the Bessler principle there is a slight pull-down of the lower elevation charge, then it rests as it keeps rotating as before (it is no longer active with respect to that graviton), and there is a tiny gap of time while the other opposite charge keeps rotating about the other side of the circle from the location opposite where the lower mass was, until suddenly (as in a flash) that higher elevation mass is slightly pulled down. The faster the angular speed means that the greater is the net torque which is typically delivered to the pair to increase their angular speed about their center of mass. See my Fig. 25, Fig. 26, and Fig. 27 of my book, GWU.

I am starting to think, if one wants to really understand how the Prime Mover works at the smallest of levels, then one needs to carefully study the Bessler principle. Because there are discrete-time-and-space-separated pull-downs of those tiniest of masses, it is as if after a resting pause there is suddenly a jump up or a higher elevation pull down of the now higher elevation other finest bit of matter.

I think that the common denominator is both the energy supplying Bessler principle and the ultra-low rotational friction situation that allows the energy to remain and accumulate (in particular to not be destroyed). Both those things are interdependent. The Bessler principle provides more rotational kinetic energy when the angular speed is greater. The angular speed is greater when less of the energy source is sent off to friction to not destroy the symbiotic relationship.

The Principle by Any Other Name ... I suppose one could call the principle the Bessler principle or the yin-yang principle or the ED.L. principle or the stone mason principle or the two columns of the temple of Solomon or “Jachin and Boaz� or “He will establish� and “In him is strength� or the two masonic columns or the prime mover. One can call the idea by a variety of names. Does that change its meaning? The idea may have appeared and disappeared many times in history, as it is discovered and later disappears, as it is rediscovered and later forgotten. The many variants of the same idea point to the idea that gravity is not a continuous substance but rather it comes with two discrete pull-downs (typically separated in both time and space). The mathematical proofs of gravity being an energy conservative force are inherently flawed (see my Appendix A), when one comes to understand that the graviton has two separate or distinct parts, which deliver two separate and distinct pull-downs. There are two distinct charge types and two discrete electric fields (traveling in straight lines) coming from each charge type. Gravity or the graviton is so very weak because there are five formation constraints and five absorption constraints for the two discrete electric fields of the graviton. See Chapter 2 “GRAVITY BASED ON DISCRETE ELECTRIC FIELDS� of my book. It is a quantum “miracle� in its formation and it is another “miracle� in its total absorptive-annihilation or total quantum destruction. Energy is never conserved during its two-part absorptions. Both absorptions for attractive gravity are attractive. Energy is never conserved in the single unpaired absorptions of discrete electric fields but for people imagining or assuming that the electric fields are smoothed out entities, they usually can’t see the discrete energy non-conservative disproof, according to their flawed hypotheses. Shouldn’t we have understood the discrete nature of both the gravity field and the electric field from their both falling off as roughly 1/(r^2) = 1/(r*r)? The fields don’t just get weaker and weaker and weaker as we are further away from their source, without any sort of lower limit on their weakness. Surely not in a quantized world. Both fall off as roughly 1/(r^2) = 1/(r*r) specifically because both fields are inherently quantized. There are fewer as we go further away from the source but we always have either all of a discrete entity or no discrete entity.

Certainly enough imo to compensate for any bearing losses from well machined bearings available today, or the greased bearings he used then.

I assume that “imo� or “IMO� stands for indefinitely moving object. Also, I have seen no validated evidence that Bessler ever greased one of his bearings. We might guess that he greased them based on current experience with normal bearings. I certainly thought so many years ago but not now. Bessler’s bearings were not normal. They surely had an iron exterior. See "iron bearings" on p. 110 of PM97 and see the discussion about them on the four indexed pages of my book, GWU. From the preponderance of the information that I see, he had very special wonder bearings that must never be lubricated to retain such wonderfully very low friction. There was no surface tension of lubricants creating friction. There was no friction created by a thin layer of lubricant to be pushed out of the way. There was only pure rolling without slipping of tiny finest-steel lobes rolling without slipping within finest-steel lobe-holes. See details in my book. With such ultra-low friction, there was no need for a lubricant to help carry away generated heat.

I suspect that the sims don’t include the Bessler principle source of power which is always present in all wheels rotating about horizontal axes but which is only most apparent in low enough rotational friction systems that don’t allow that power to be drained away to friction. The common denominator is to interdependently both have the ever present Bessler principle and to have the very low friction bearings that allow the ever-present power source to be easily manifest. I think that Bessler’s bearings were much more energy efficient than any non-Orffyrean bearings that are produced today. His bearings could not be machined. They had to be specially grown. They could support huge loads with very little rotational-mechanical friction. They were wonder bearings of a separate physical regime. AEP – 30 Apr 2019

[ME]

There is a universal physical principle that causes all matter rotating about horizontal axes to increase in rotational kinetic energy. I call it the Bessler principle.
It exists because there are two discrete pull-downs by the two-part graviton, with the higher elevation pull-down typically occurring after the lower elevation pull-down, which allows the higher elevation mass to rotate further around the circle, during the time between the two pull-downs. Normally nearly ubiquitous rotational friction removes that acquired rotational kinetic energy and even prior existing rotational kinetic energy is also lost.
Under very special conditions of very low rotational friction the angular speed can increase until it is in equilibrium with increased rotational friction.
The principle produces more rotational kinetic energy as rotational angular speed increases.

Sorry, I don't get it.

Could you please elaborate a bit more on this universal principle that would make our years shorter, without spending energy?

This is my starting point.
Our very own planet in frictionless space is rotating around the Sun. (I hope you agree)
We can calculate, experiment and measure what will happen when the orbit is not entirely circular: Keppler's law.
The same when our sun would actually be a binary system, which may produce those "high" and "low" elevation.
Those points of high/low elevations can be calculated (Lagrangian points) and are already actively used (=proof it works and exists).
Outside the binary the gravitational strength will average out as-if the binary is a single barycenter.
Though, things may wobble a tiny bit at a distance, though less and less.

Do you have a method on how this universal Bessler principle could be created in a mechanical way?

[AldenPark]

Maybe I should have changed the wording slightly to say more precisely, “There is a universal physical principle that causes all matter rotating about horizontal axes to increase in internal rotational kinetic energy. I call it the Bessler principle.� It doesn’t make the years go shorter. It doesn’t increase external rotational kinetic energy. It increases internal rotational kinetic energy, with that extra energy provided by the energetic two-part gravitons.

For more elaboration please read Chapter 2 “GRAVITY BASED ON DISCRETE ELECTRIC FIELDS� and Chapter 3 “BESSLER’S PRINCIPLE� of my book GWU, which (latest 18 March 2019 version) you can download its .pdf file for free.

The higher and lower elevations are on a very tiny scale (and at nearly the same time). See the figures 25, 26, and 27 of Chapter 3 of my book GWU (pages 69 and 70).

I decoded two little books (in Appendices B and D of GWU) that describe how internal rotational mechanical energy can be produced. The method of Appendix B is to produce the potentially dangerous to build Orffyrean roller bearing. It can be dangerous because vapor containing mercury is released during growth of the surface lobes and lobe holes made of finest steel. People could become extremely rich, if they can safely and efficiently using robots build such ultra-low friction mechanical-roller-bearings. The method of Appendix D is difficult but is doable. It uses three massive cylinders rotationally connected with ultra-low-friction magnetically-repulsive sprocket wheels. The smallest mass cylinder rotates the most rapidly internally (24/16 = 1.5 times faster rotationally than the other two larger cylinders) but has the lowest surface air friction due to its small size. One must be very careful not to rotate the cylinders too fast so as not to destroy the rotational connection between the rotating nuclear-ground-states and the surrounding lattice. AEP – 30 Apr 2019

[zoelra]

Alden, I don't have your document with me, but I thought I remember reading you thought it was the dropping of the pendulum bob that led to the extra energy?

[EDIT]
I did a Google search and found your document. This extract may be what I was thinking of.

"(B) The energy (and angular momentum) that my pendulum takes in does not lose its influence but spreads itself to every limb and moving part of the pendulum. For rotations with respect to the pendulum, the dark-never-visibly-internally-rotating dead-weight solid-anvil portion of my pendulum takes in energy according to its interaction with gravity and part of the energy is sent to the furthest rigid portion of the furthest limb of the pendulum, as the pendulum falls according to gravity. If that furthest portion of the pendulum is not allowed to move off on its own rotationally, then that energy is in part returned from whence it came, as the pendulum undoes its fall according to gravity. My pendulum pivots from side to side (crawling upward from the depths with each complete cycle) because it was soundly designed by God to do so, as a crab is soundly designed by God to crawl from side to side. Each comes to us from God. As that crab (in the depths) eats to the side according to its motion, my pendulum mouth eats (in microscopic depths) some energy from gravity as it falls to its side according to its motion. The energy would in part be given back if the process were not interrupted. As the anvil portion looks in static side view like a smiling open mouth, we learn from Matt. 15:11 that it is not that which goes into the mouth that defileth but rather that which comes out of the mouth. The energy in gravity goes through solid objects including into and out of my covering wheel. Gravity can penetrate locked rooms though some of its energy can be caused to remain if we can cause it to asymmetrically act upon objects within."

[ME]

Maybe I should have changed the wording slightly to say more precisely, “There is a universal physical principle that causes all matter rotating about horizontal axes to increase in internal rotational kinetic energy. I call it the Bessler principle.� It doesn’t make the years go shorter. It doesn’t increase external rotational kinetic energy. It increases internal rotational kinetic energy, with that extra energy provided by the energetic two-part gravitons.

Huh, what internal? Where is it, if not for the rotation itself? Can't you just describe for the lay-men?

This is what I can figure as the difference:
Say, thing A revolves around thing B.
Thing B may be the cause, but when that's not what's rotating.
So it is thing A that has rotational kinetic energy by its orbit.
While doing that, thing A may rotate by itself.

I see an opening here to name one of A's rotation as "internal" and the other "external".
So with this distinction I can imagine that "external kinetic energy" is about the orbit, and "internal kinetic energy" is about the self-rotation.
But it's your theory, you call it.


For the example:
You mentioned the necessity of frictionless rotation: So let's take the orbit of the Earth.
When rotation increases then I thought it was the rotation around the Sun: hence shorter years.
Perhaps you mean the self-rotation of the Earth. In that case the days get shorter.
So hopefully this makes it easier to point to "internal kinetic energy" and "external kinetic energy"?

[AldenPark]

I learned quite a lot since my paper of 24 July 2001. I suggest that you instead currently concentrate on my three recent books of 18 March 2019 that you may download for free and especially GWU. GWU is the overarching book and I made two separate books mainly out of its appendices B and D, since the decoded little books are important in their own right. You are welcome to download my free overarching book (.pdf file) of 18 March 2019 Gravity-Wheel Unveiled (GWU) at https://gravityunveiled.home.blog/. All three free .pdf books are available there namely: Gravity-Wheel Unveiled (GWU), Bessler’s Little Book Decoded (BLBD), and A Book in Every Home Decoded (BEHD). Also see https://gravity-wheel.neocities.org/ for some more comments, discussions, and active links. AEP – 30 Apr 2019

[AldenPark]

I see an opening here to name one of A's rotation as "internal" and the other "external".
So with this distinction I can imagine that "external kinetic energy" is about the orbit, and "internal kinetic energy" is about the self-rotation.
But it's your theory, you call it.

Yes, A=earth self-rotates internally approximately once a day with its axis of rotation somewhat perpendicular to a line going from the B=sun to the A=earth.

For the example:
You mentioned the necessity of frictionless rotation: So let's take the orbit of the Earth.
When rotation increases then I thought it was the rotation around the Sun: hence shorter years.
Perhaps you mean the self-rotation of the Earth. In that case the days get shorter.
So hopefully this makes it easier to point to "internal kinetic energy" and "external kinetic energy"?

Gravitons going from the B=sun to the A=earth (self or internally rotating about once a day) by the Bessler principle would try to cause the days to be shorter (more rapid internal rotations). Note that because of tidal frictional forces the days actually do not get shorter but without the help of the Bessler principle the days would sooner become longer. We can be thankful that there is a Bessler principle so as to somewhat help our days maintain their timing, despite the great frictional tidal forces. The days only slowly get longer rather than rapidly.

Those gravitons wouldn't directly do much directly with respect to changing the time of the year. AEP – 30 Apr 2019

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Alden Park,
I can agree with you that this principle is an universal principle.
Bessler has found the foundation with his mechanical construction.
As you had said, it can be transponded to many other areas.

I will try to make a construction in that way that the actual simulation programs can handle it.
I know, they cannot handle it perfect, but at least it will self accelerate in their simulation.
To harvest the gravity energy is then engineers work.

[AldenPark]

We do need to at least attempt to have approximate estimates of the Bessler principle in our simulations so as to improve their accuracy. Hopefully the simulations will improve with time and better show what is really happening under a variety of practical situations. Thank you for your efforts. AEP – 1 May 2019

[ME]

If I understand correctly then this "Bessler principle" is just balanced with "tidal friction".

So I still don't get it.
When in a frictionless environment (like space) there's an "increase in internal rotational kinetic energy." , "call it the Bessler principle.", yet countered by those "tidal frictional forces" then how can mechanically low friction bearings ever help to overcome such neat universally occurring balance in an environment where friction is a serious issue, like with rotating wooden wheels ??

(I'm trying to let you explain the basis of the universal premise in a simply way, without me wading through 1K pages of text)