Preparing To Go "Full Bessler".

[thx4]

We all go through periods of doubt, "but a faith that does not doubt is not a faith" (Jesus)
After the doubt in principle comes the right idea and here we go again. 😊
I retained two things from B, that the wheel really existed and that the solution was blown to him by god (double punishment) have not come out. 😊
I think that if nobody found it is that we are all in the wrong direction of research and especially that the real sharing is difficult despite the forum.
Fear of plagiarism, fear of x fear of Y, in short, the trust is not there because of this fear.
We really have to break through this barrier if we want to progress.
Yesterday hellish discussion with my friend from the south (Ronbinhood46) on B and energy, its origin, its transformation etc ...
The question is, if the wheel of B is constantly maintained, it has a mechanism that adds a fraction of joule to each turn, until it reaches a constant speed of 52 T/minute, ok for that ?
The problem is that I'm told that B put a load of X kilos on the axle during a demonstration and that the wheel slowed down a little, then it went back to its cruising speed, that is to say 52 RPM.... For me the wheel went back to 48/49/or50, but not 52, it's very important to see that, and I doubt that anyone at the time could really see the difference between 50 and 52 RPM precisely.
What does it mean? If the wheel is running at 52 RPM, it means that it has a mechanism that only dispenses what is strictly necessary, which means that it has reserves.
So, in my opinion, no risk to see one day an unbalanced wheel doing that...My friend thinks the opposite, I understand him, and I forgive him 😊
Some know I may have an answer, I'll drop it after my post.
Bonne cogite 😊

[WaltzCee]

It means Bessler dropping his pants and mooning everyone. Kind of a play on words of the "full moon."

A quick review of this thread tends to confirm that, Jubat.

• Note says it was uploaded successfully, hope you can see it. I can't.

• We cant see anything.

• Oh well.

To be perfectly clear, my only interest in anyone's ideas is to compare them to what I think. So far I have yet to see any idea that approaches my level of insanity.

Just sayin'.

Also, I keep my cards close to my vest. Always have. Never have pretended otherwise.

Yet if one wants to pretend they want to share their ideas then doesn't, well, what a disingenuous ass.

Looks like just another needy soul, starved for attention. PMS'in if you ask me.

ETA
You can have a the last word, Arch.

I'm sure your full on Bessler will turn out to be just as all the others before you.

Perpetual Motion Syndrome.

[ArchCalc]

@Walter. Nice try.

[WaltzCee]

A
.
.
.

IMG_20230504_232520.jpg (2.89 KiB) Viewed 1368 times

[thx4]

Yet if one wants to pretend they want to share their ideas then doesn't, well, what a disingenuous ass.

Looks like just another needy soul, starved for attention. PMS'in if you ask me.

[ArchCalc]

Ok, so in spite of the snide comments, I have completed one compartment and like Bessler said of one "crossbar," the wheel barely moves. The compartment is only counterbalanced by a weight. Another compartment built the same way will replace the weight.
So depending how that goes, then more and more compartments opposite each other.
Starting at the same rpm, it turns 3 more revolutions with the compartment than without however.

The picture I tried to post previously should have easily met the size requirements, but no go.

The post with a lone "A" was me trying over and over and there wasn't a way to delete the page, so I started a new one and the picture still didn't appear. The notice said it uploaded ok however.

I'm sure admin can find and publish.

It was of a 2+ year old monster, nothing like this elegant one now.

[JUBAT]

John Collins latest post on his blog said his solution uses lazy tongs. Further proof that I was totally phocked before I started. Tried them once and they were so riddled with friction I figure bessler meant a lazy tong principle and not literally.

The wheel is not a simple affair. Had it been, it would have been discovered years ago. I say a working wheel is worth millions of WCs clams, but I'm still skeptical over the whole deal. So far a lot of talk, but not much action.

Phock Bessler and phock his wheel. It ate up too much of my life and I'd have been better off with bunch of hookers and some cocaine. As is stands, I think Ill shove a bud light where the sun don't shine in Bessler's honour.

Yeah I'm bitter.

[ArchCalc]

This should be the Bessler theme song.

https://youtu.be/5_YsQu5tKEE

[Fletcher]

John Collins latest post on his blog said his solution uses lazy tongs. Further proof that I was totally phocked before I started. Tried them once and they were so riddled with friction I figure bessler meant a lazy tong principle and not literally.

The wheel is not a simple affair. Had it been, it would have been discovered years ago. I say a working wheel is worth millions of WCs clams, but I'm still skeptical over the whole deal. So far a lot of talk, but not much action.

Phock Bessler and phock his wheel. It ate up too much of my life and I'd have been better off with bunch of hookers and some cocaine. As is stands, I think Ill shove a bud light where the sun don't shine in Bessler's honour.

Yeah I'm bitter.

Bessler built a massive word edifice game of "Snakes and Ladders" - imo he was truthful when and where he wrote things publicly like in GB, AP and DT. Karl would read them. More reason to be so in MT where he still did not join the dots, but was less defensive and deflecting than in the general publications imo.

B. said there was something special "behind" the SB. A SB is just a lever by another name. It has an action, a cause and effect. Its principle is well known, and it has practical limitations "in the field". It is how he used the SB action that is what is special "behind" it imo. IOW's its physicality had a practical purpose that had an advantage over similar leverage applications that could do a similar job, like a pulleys and ropes system.

[ArchCalc]

@Fletcher and all. With all due respect I think SBs are a time consuming trap. I've made them with aluminum arms and thrust ball bearings at every joint. Nope. Not there.
I'm only going mainly with what the witnesses, Bessler and Karl said. Karl twice said it was simple, etc. SBs aren't simple. Actually, nothing in MT is simple.
Karl should be the inspiration. And then a couple things Bessler said.
And one drawing.

[gravitationallychallenged]

I can't think of any ulterior motive for Karl to lie when he said the wheel's mechanism was simple. I can understand the frustration JUBAT expressed of wasting money and hours on unsuccessful builds. I started to build a few prototypes over the past few years from surplus materials I had laying around so I don't have a lot of money and build time invested. I spend most of my time in thought, testing things in my mind. I try to re-purpose common items that are easily available to keep expenses to a minimum. I don't think of it all as a waste of time but as a hobby and an educational experience. When I first learned of Bessler's wheel I had no idea how complex the forces contained in a simple wheel could be to deal with! In the course of my studies I've learned there are definitely several laws of physics that must be recognized in order to avoid counter rotational forces. I've had numerous ideas regarding how the mechanism may have been configured but after spending countless hours thinking them over in my mind I've discarded a most of them as unworkable. I've shared most of my ideas on this forum using words since I'm not skilled at computer assisted drawing and limited to hand drawn illustrations. If I am successful I plan to post a hand drawn diagram but no working video. If others perceive any merit in my design they can build one and test it themselves. Regarding the MT drawings, I think Bessler intended them to provoke diligent work in the minds of those seeking the mechanical configuration of his device. It took him 10 long years and a huge amount of personal sacrifice to develop a working solution to the problem so he wasn't going to just give it away to those who were unwilling to perform the required work to learn it. I try to use eyewitness testimonies and Bessler's own words, however ambiguous they may be, to guide my designs, not as much the MTs. My current project is to configure lifting arms mounted to pivot points situated at the rim of the wheel. Between the 3 & 4 o'clock position, in a clockwise wheel, each arm should be able to lift a weight from the bottom towards the center of the wheel and another from the center to the top of the wheel. At the same time the arm lifts the weights it should pull the rim of the wheel downwards, inducing rotation. The axle of the wheel will consist of compartments with heavier prime mover weights which will rise and fall in order to power the lifting arms through the use of cables and pulleys. IMHO this mechanism has the potential to function at a fast enough speed to accelerate the rotation of the wheel.

[ArchCalc]

Sorry, I did the estimation of how far the one compartment would turn by comparison. It only goes 1/2 Rev more. Not 3.
The error occurred because I was just starting the wheel to turn by hand, and each time wound up different.
Now, more accurately since I drove a long nail in the wheel's rim and ground the head off so a weight can slide off at the bottom, after forcing the wheel to turn identically each try.
One additional thing. The wheel doesn't backtrack after coasting to a stop, like it does with every other way I've tried.
Am making four compartments now of higher quality.

[eccentrically1]

Preparing to go part Bessler.

[ArchCalc]

@eccentrically. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

[gravitationallychallenged]

No one will ever know if his design goes full Bessler because his clues were so vague.