Blog Posts

Constructing Perpetual Lamps and Defense of Bessler’s Wheels

Within my https://gravity-wheel.neocities.org/OtherSites.html I provided some 20191030 comments about the 1977 book, Perpetual Motion: The History of an Obsession, by Arthur W. J. G. Ord-Hume (which book is available at https://archive.org/details/PerpetualMotionTheHistoryOfAnObsession). Often, because the idea of conservation of energy, I think that Ord-Hume wrote against the idea of perpetual motion, since it would violate the idea of energy being conserved. I refuted some of Ord-Hume’s analyses. I made comments, about how the energy non-conservative Bessler-principle could make perpetual motion possible. Within my comments about Ord-Hume’s Chapter 4, I made comments defending Bessler’s wheels. Within my comments about Ord-Hume’s Chapter 15 “Perpetual Lamps”, I suggested potential ways that someone might try to construct perpetual lamps, using the Bessler principle. 20191101AEP

Hints of My besslerwheel.com Posts 9 April to 8 May 2019

Here are some hints of posts that I (AldenPark) have made so far this year (from 9 April 2019 to 8 May 2019) at some discussions on the besslerwheel.com site (or on http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/) according to page number, date, my local time, (General Discussion: unless stated otherwise) topic, and brief/compact notes or comments or paragraph titles or main points of interest.  I removed many of my paragraph breaks in an attempt to make each “post-hint” as compact as possible.  Go to the discussions to read my full posts and the full posts of others.  Some of my posts are responding to posts of others.  The times that you see on besslerwheel.com may be in Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), though I am only showing local California time below.  I am thinking that I am clarifying the situations with respect to various Bessler wheel subjects.  Like a blog, I am listing my most recent condensed post hints first.  One can just skip or ignore these lengthy-compact hints, if one is previously aware of these discussions.  20190517AEP

(Page 3 Wed 08 May, 2019 9:56 pm WM2D Downloads Section)  Art wrote, “Have you done any physical experiments on your ideas ?”  I also tried to build a rotational-air-bearing.  My son asked me on the weekend of 4 May 2019 what a particular device was in my garage, which I had forgotten.  Long ago, I tried to build a very-low-rotational-friction air-bearing that might allow the Bessler principle to be manifest.  Air was supplied to a PVC pipe tube with some tiny holes in the top (and flared at their top) that would hopefully lift off from the tube a slightly larger surrounding tiny PVC ring so that the ring might rotate with very low friction about a horizontal axis.  If there had been an air delivery bias, then I would need to make sure that the Bessler principle was manifest for rotations in both directions, to be a reasonably valid confirmation.  I used my electric air pump as a source of air pressure.  It was a failed experiment only because I couldn’t obtain a great enough air pressure into the tube to lift the tiny ring up off from resting on the inner PVC tube.  There remained rubbing friction between the tube and the ring, so it failed to test out the Bessler principle.  But again with the Yildiz patent, a more important point (of continual practical power production) has been demonstrated.  It makes my failed experiment unnecessary.  I don’t need to try to obtain a larger air-pressure source, unless I want to.  Collins’ book Perpetual Motion: An Ancient Mystery Solved?  1997 John Collins (PM97)  mentioned connections between Bessler and both Peter the Great and Leibniz.  Chapter eight is “Peter the Great, Czar of Russia” pp. 125-146.  According to the index, Peter the Great is mentioned at least on pages 16, 50, 125.  According to the index, Gottfried Leibniz is mentioned at least on pages 49, 50, 53, 55, 56, 58, 64, 65, 69, 84, 90, 104, 118, 126, and 158.  Page 50 mentioned that Leibniz examined Bessler’s wheel on two times (in addition to writing many letters of inquiry).  Yes, I mentioned some things on the new topic of “Where was Bessler’s invention located?”  I also mentioned some things on a prior topic of “Gravity”.  AEP – 8 May 2019

(Page 2 Fri 03 May, 2019 3:29 am Where was Bessler’s invention located?)  The Bessler principle (because of two part gravitons coming mainly from the sun, the moon, and from within the earth itself) provides extra rotational kinetic energy which would cause the earth to spin more rapidly about its own axis (making the days shorter) but unfortunately (from a Bessler principle perspective), because mainly due to tidal force friction, it doesn’t spin more rapidly.  It slightly spins less rapidly with time but yes the “Bessler principle” energy increases just about balance out in that particular case (of the earth spinning) the energy decreases which come from “tidal friction”.  I supposed that if the earth were completely a solid steel sphere with no atmosphere rotating about once a day (with essentially no frictional tidal forces), then it would spin faster with time, making its days shorter.  The earth is not solid steel.  Simple Explanation.  For a simple explanation, please read the three consecutive paragraphs at https://gravity-wheel.neocities.org/ namely:  Smallest Building Blocks of All Matter, What Might Gravity Be?, and Bessler Principle.  Then look at the following three figures after those three paragraphs, which figures are somewhat like the three figures 25, 26, and 27 of Chapter 3 of my book GWU (pages 69 and 70).  Geometry.  Then about six paragraphs down, beyond those three paragraphs and those three figures at https://gravity-wheel.neocities.org/, I then show after the paragraph Geometry in Orffyrean Roller Bearings a couple of figures.  The first figure allows calculations of the geometry of the Orffyrean roller bearings and the second figure shows what the Orffyrean roller bearings looks like prior to the formation of the tiny surface lobes and lobe holes.  If those three or four paragraphs are not enough elaboration, then recall that above (Tue 30 Apr, 2019 11:06 am) I wrote, ‘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).’  Chapters 2 and 3.  Chapter 2 covers pp. 45 to 67 and Chapter 3 covers pp. 67 to 76.  That is 23 pages for Chapter 2 and 10 pages for Chapter 3.  There would be a total of 32 pages.  Starting with the two final summary section paragraphs, one could just read any other paragraphs that one is interested in reading.  Since I give titles to the sections and the most important paragraphs in my book, one could just skip over the portions that one doesn’t care about.  I should emphasize though that there is a quantum condition for the formation of the graviton and a quantum condition for the annihilation of the discrete quantum graviton.  That is why the graviton is so weak relative to the two unpaired discrete electric fields that constitute it.  Again one could start with the summary section paragraphs prior to considering portions of the chapters that may be of further interest.  The two summary section paragraphs (on p. 67 and p. 76) are 2.4 Summary of “GRAVITY BASED ON DISCRETE ELECTRIC FIELDS” and 3.4 Summary of “BESSLER’S PRINCIPLE”.  I tried to write my book so that if the summaries are good enough one can just consider them and one might only need to dig further into the book, if one wants more information.  Nearly Frictionless Environment.  Many satellites in a nearly frictionless environment of space begin to tumble or spin out of control, faster and faster, unless there is something to actively counter the growth of such rotations.  See pp. 138-139 of my book, GWU.  Many scientists just seem to scratch their heads with lack of understanding about the situations or just ignore the situations.  Still such out-of-control tumbling is not much different than the results of the 1968 McKinley low-friction-demonstration, which acted very much qualitatively like a modern-day Bessler wheel.  It would keep rotating (and creating some wind that is thrown outward perpetually) as long as you keep the lead cold enough so that it remains superconducting.  The wheel in the McKinley low friction demonstration increased in angular speed (starting at nearly zero angular speed initially, when the bearing formed by total exclusion of the magnetic fields within the superconductor) until there was equilibrium with the air friction.  There was not even an initial push by someone to get the wheel rotating for the McKinley low friction demonstration.  Increasing Internal Rotational Kinetic Energy.  Whenever there is internal rotational kinetic energy (for rotations about horizontal axes) there is an increase in internal rotational kinetic energy due to the two-part pull-downs of nearly each graviton.  If the internal rotational friction in a rotating wheel, which removes a part of the internal rotational kinetic energy, can be reduced so low that the portion of the internal rotational kinetic energy which is removed by friction is less than the amount of the internal rotational kinetic energy added by the Bessler principle, then the rotating wheel will increase in its angular speed until there is equilibrium or the situation is rotationally out of control.  Two Main Approaches to Perpetual Rotational Motion.  There are two main approaches to the production of perpetual mechanical internal rotation.  The first is the direct approach that Bessler used.   Bessler reduced friction sufficiently for particular angular speeds.  He would have not attained it on his own but he obtained assistance from God in the form of “a strangely invigorating dream”.  See p. 29 of PM97.  Given Bessler’s solution, I took my best guess (see pp. 524-525 of GWU) at reconstructing the dream, which Bessler received from God that explained how he could asymmetrically build up the finest steel lobe holes, while he concurrently dug out his finest steel lobe-holes to form the surfaces of his bearings.  Bessler had done a great amount of work to get to where he was at.  He just needed to know how to break the symmetry in the formation of his ultra-low-friction huge-load-carrying bearings.  The second approach consists of the methods that Leedskalnin and Papp used in their own particular physical domains, to increase the effect of the energy productive Bessler principle by having large internal angular speeds.  The effect of the Bessler principle increases in energy production as angular speed is increased.  The reason for that is simple enough.  At larger angular speeds, the higher elevation mass (on the opposite side of the circle from the lower elevation mass) goes further around the circle, after the time of the lower elevation pull-down, until the higher elevation mass is pulled down, thus creating greater torque for rotationally speeding up the pair.  Edward Leedskalnin increased angular speed so that the Bessler principle produced more internal rotational kinetic energy than was used by frictional forces at such angular speeds, which removed internal rotational kinetic energy.  The energy production was produced in the low-air-friction fast-small-massive daughter-cylinder and then the produced rotational kinetic energy was transferred (by means of extremely low friction) to the larger mother and father cylinders.  Still, Leedskalnin warned that the angular speed must not be so large that it destroyed the rotational connections between the internal rotating nuclear-ground-states and the surrounding lattice.  Papp greatly increased angular speed so that the Bessler principle produced more internal rotational kinetic energy than was used by frictional forces at such huge angular speeds, which removed internal rotational kinetic energy.  Josef or Joseph Papp Jr. didn’t need to worry about the rotational connections between the internal rotating nuclear-ground-states and the surrounding lattice, because he used individual nuclei or atoms of hydrogen (the nucleus with the greatest ratio of nuclear magnetic moment to moment of inertia) gas which protons could not be rotationally ripped apart, as evidenced by the hydrogen nuclei being extremely rapidly rotated at the far edges of the solar corona (and delivering mysterious extremely energetic photons when electrons were attracted to such rotating nuclear-ground-states).  Papp used noble gas to rotationally moderate his system.  If he had too much rotation, he could have a runaway explosion, as happened on purpose a couple of times.  AEP – 3 May 2019

(Page 1 Wed 01 May, 2019 1:56 am Where was Bessler’s invention located?)  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

(Page 3 Wed 01 May, 2019 1:06 am WM2D Downloads Section)  Art wrote, “Have you done any physical experiments on your ideas ?”  I’ve tried building a Bessler clock but I couldn’t get friction low enough.  I could try again, but with the Yildiz patent, a more important point (of continual practical power production) has been demonstrated.  I probably don’t need to try to build a working Bessler clock unless I am just interested in doing so.  I think that there is a great amount of evidence for the Bessler principle.  I have made many observations of many phenomena and many practical situations.  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.  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.  This World Needs The Solutions from The Two Little Books.  I have decoded two little books in my overarching book, GWU, which (latest 18 March 2019 version) you can download for free, as well as my two other books, within which I believe that I decoded the little books of Bessler and Leedskalnin.  I tend to be more theoretical but I think that the theoretical and practical-observed evidences are overwhelmingly in support of the Bessler principle.  Since I think that I have decoded both those little books I think I have much insight into those devices.  Orffyrean Roller Bearing.  Bessler’s device (Orffyrean roller bearing) is difficult and even dangerous to build, due to the vapor containing mercury, released during the production/repair of the bearings.  Mass safe production of his bearings would require specialized robots.  People could become extremely rich, if they succeed in that tough route.  The answer to Bessler’s eighth question in Poetica Apologia In section XLVII (p. 297 English translation by John Collins of p. 107 German) was that craftsmen could build a machine in four weeks which would take him half a year to build.  I would think that the bearings alone would take less time.  The use of robots and factory assembly techniques could greatly speed up the production of the bearings.  To optimize the production of power the rotating mass should be large but the radius should be small so as to reduce air friction.  The Gera wheel rotated the most rapidly and had the smallest radius.  Such considerations (large angular speed, large mass, and small radius) were implicit in Leedskalnin’s approach where he reduced friction in other ways.  He exploited large angular speeds, where the effect of the Bessler principle was greater, as long as it was not overdone.  Sweet Sixteen Family of Cylinders.  Leedskalnin’s approach is difficult but doable.  It requires following particular rules, which I tried to interpret correctly, when I decoded his little book.  The major rule is don’t rotate the cylinders too rapidly, since that would cause the nuclear-ground-states to rotate much too rapidly, which would permanently damage the rotational connection between the nuclei and the surrounding lattice.  He provided heuristics to balance slowly approaching a large enough angular speed, while retaining lattice “sweetness”.  Leedskalnin’s approach requires massive cylinders, extremely-low-friction magnetically-repulsive sprocket wheels to connect the cylinders, and ordinary truck roller bearings.  The fastest-rotating daughter cylinder has the least surface air friction because of its small radius (and size).  I won’t be able to try Leedskalnin’s approach (Sweet Sixteen family of cylinders) in the near future, but I was hoping that others might consider his approach.  Rotationally reinforced concrete might be used for the massive rotationally-new cylinders.  I assume that “IMO” means indefinitely moving object.  AEP – 1 May 2019

(Page 1 Tue 30 Apr, 2019 4:44 pm Where was Bessler’s invention located?)  ME wrote, ‘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. …’  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.  ME wrote, ‘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

(Page 1 Tue 30 Apr, 2019 3:08 pm Where was Bessler’s invention located?)  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 GWUGWU 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

(Page 1 Tue 30 Apr, 2019 11:06 am Where was Bessler’s invention located?)  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

(Page 1 Tue 30 Apr, 2019 1:14 am Where was Bessler’s invention located?)  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.  …  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.  Fletcher  wrote, “Personally I think that common denominator is the Prime Mover.”  I was looking at commonalities between the “Prime Mover” and the “Bessler principle”.  AgingYoung was quoting someone else,  “But the weights which rest below must, in a flash, be raised upwards”  Ovaron was also quoting someone else, “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.  Fletcher wrote, “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

(Page 1 Sat 27 Apr, 2019 1:47 am Where was Bessler’s invention located?)  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?  AldenPark wrote, ‘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

Alden E. Park, https://gravityunveiled.home.blog/ for free .pdf books: 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/

(Page 3 Thu 25 Apr, 2019 10:57 pm WM2D Downloads Section)  I didn’t vote.  I don’t have the software to use the mechs.  Is an eventual goal of using them to try to find actual solutions for the Bessler wheel problem?  I will assume that that is often a goal, with simulations to help the exploratory searching.  Correct guidance according to the simulations, would depend upon the accuracy of the simulation with respect to modeling of reality.  Simulate Bessler Principle?  Can the Bessler principle be simulated using the software that uses the mechs?   I think it is a universal property.  I gave an example calculation of the Bessler principle in my book, Gravity-Wheel Unveiled, (GWU).  See Section 3.2 “Example Bessler Principle Calculation” pp. 72-74 (associated with Fig. 28), within Chapter 3 “BESSLER’S PRINCIPLE”.  I think that implementing the Bessler principle requires simulations which depend upon the rotational motion that is involved.  If the Bessler principle is not somehow included in the simulation, then there would not be sources of rotational kinetic energy/power to overcome the actual energy/power drains/losses due to friction.  Are mechanical friction and air friction included in the simulations?  Simulate Orffyrean Roller Bearing?  For purposes of modelling to greatly reduce mechanical friction for rotating about horizontal axes, can the software simulate an Orffyrean roller bearing with a range of cylindrical surfaces (having a multitude of fine surface lobes and fine surface lobe-holes) with each largest surface lobe continually maintaining contact with its neighboring roller/cylinder surface lobe-hole while rotating through a relative angle of 25 degrees?  Attempting Solutions within Wheels.  It appears that people are often looking for partial solutions by arranging all sorts of things within wheels, as if that is what is needed to form a Bessler wheel.  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.  Construct Ruse Wheels?  Do we want to construct/simulate ruse wheels or do we want to solve the tough real problem, that Bessler abundantly provided answers for in Apologia  and even gave symbolic design specs for?  Wonder Roller Bearing.  We don’t have anything close to the Orffyrean roller bearing that rolls without slipping, maintaining each largest surface lobe contact for 25 degrees of relative rotation while always rolling in its corresponding lobe-hole until it lifts off.  The lobe and lobe-hole surface patterns were perfectly replicated throughout the roller bearings.  These are essentially unheard-of specifications or wonder specifications (that can’t be machined, that can only be grown asymmetrically, under special conditions and using special materials).  Close to zero degrees of continued contact for a point or a “lobe” on a normal cylinder is the usual case today.  A largest lobe has a contact angle of 25 degrees, which would allow massive loads to be carried/rotated with very little friction.  His wonder bearings had amazing mechanical support while being extremely low friction.  It was a totally different class or regime of mechanical bearing.  Bearings Repaired While Used.  Bessler was again telling the truth in Apologia  in section XLVII (pp. 297-298 English translation by John Collins of p. 108 German) when Bessler wrote in Apologia Poetica for his tenth question and answer regarding repairing.  He answered, “… if built properly, should remain serviceable for many years.  But, if something does go amiss, … it could be put right within the hour.  … the machine can continue to operate while being repaired!”  Bessler was quite correct in his truly amazing statement.  He really was telling the truth.  The bearings could be repaired within the hour but safety-wise he, without his understanding the full consequences, left out something extremely important.  If you were to spray/inject into an operating Orffyrean roller bearing (needing some repair) a slight amount of the formation mixture (composed of tiny gunpowder balls, very finely ground ferromagnetic metal “balls”, and mercury), then because of the repair you would be releasing vapor with mercury into the surrounding air, possibly causing many exposed people to begin to fall victim to the Mad Hatter’s disease.  Bessler was apparently a victim of the Mad Hatter’s disease because he was the person who was most exposed to the vapor with mercury, while he grew his roller bearing surfaces (so that he could better keep the secret of constructing his special bearings).  You could with proper technique rapidly repair the bearing to a new state, but you should almost never do that in practice unless you already have mercury vapor in the surrounding air and people are never exposed to that vapor containing mercury.  Bessler’s bearings would last for a long time as long as you kept them clean, kept them free of lubrication, and kept abrasive dirt out of them.  If with time or slight abrasives, the pure rolling without slipping interfaces, between the lobes and their corresponding lobe-holes, began to wear down, then the formation mixture in the working bearing could restore the lobes and lobe-holes to their pristine pure-rolling-without-slipping condition.  If one waited too long for such simple repairs to be done, say by waiting until the bearings completely failed, then it would be too late for such simple repairs using formation mixture on a marginally working roller bearing.  There might be some tricks of inserting end spacers between collided intermediate rollers and slowly re-growing the bearing surfaces, using formation mixture, but such procedures would not be as simple as repairing the bearings before there is a full failure.  Repaired Bearings Might Be Better than Originals.  There is a possibility that, with special care, repairing the Orffyrean roller bearings can cause the repaired bearings to be better than the original bearings.  During the original construction/growth of the Orffyrean roller bearings, there were inserted pieces of metal constraints that also prevented the intermediate cylinders from getting too close to each other that also prevented the lobe and lobe-hole patterns from growing too close to the edges of the bearings.  Upon being repaired, the constraining pieces of metal were no longer there, since the existing interior lobes and lobe-holes now automatically prevented the intermediate cylinders from getting too close to each other.  During repairs of the Orffyrean roller bearings, new patterns of lobes and lobe-holes could begin to extend outward into the edges of the bearings, which previously were barren of lobe and lobe-hole patterns because of the prior metal separation external constraints.  The repairs are done until there is a slight interference of some lobes with others.  There is a stop of the lobe and lobe-hole growing, whereupon the offending lobes are lopped off by use of the bearings.  That is the same stopping condition as with the original growth of the Orffyrean roller bearings.  Some slight water spray may help foreign particles to be cleaned out of the bearings so that they work best.  Power Produced within Wheel.  Sure (according to the automatically-present Bessler principle) the internally-rotating nuclei/matter within the Bessler wheel itself, by their internal rotations allowed two-part gravitons to produce more internal rotational kinetic energy, but so as not to have that produced rotational kinetic energy destroyed by friction, the necessary real invention was Bessler’s wonderful Orffyrean-roller-bearing.  AEP – 25 Apr 2019

(Page 2 Wed 17 Apr, 2019 9:54 am Gravity)  Building the Orffyrean roller bearing can be dangerous and difficult.  It is not something that is lightly entered into.  To asymmetrically grow the tiny-finest-steel lobes, while digging out the tiny-finest-steel lobe-holes, according to my decoding of Bessler’s little book requires very finely ground ferromagnetic materials, fine ignition gunpowder balls, and mercury.  Bessler exhibited external evidence that he suffered from the Mad Hatter’s disease, which I think was caused by too much exposure to vapor containing mercury because of his growing of his bearing surfaces.  It would now likely require the use of robots to build the Orffyrean roller bearings in a controlled environment that doesn’t expose people to mercury.  Small initial test Orffyrean roller bearings might, with adequate protection from the mercury vapor, be built with great difficulty.  There may be others who, assuming that they pretty-much agree with my decoding in Bessler’s Little Book Decoded (BLBD) of Bessler’s little book, might now be in a better position to build the Orffyrean roller bearing.  The world needs the Orffyrean roller bearing now, even if it will mean that I made some other people extremely rich.  Building the Sweet Sixteen family of cylinders would require massive low-air friction cylinders that were previously not rotated much.  Using stainless steel for the cylinders would be best but is quite expensive.  Leedskalnin used for his cylinders dirt-cheap previously-non-rotated limestone-rock that he obtained from underground.  Forming the massive cylinders out of reinforced concrete might be an initial approach.  The Sweet Sixteen family of cylinders would require many magnets (to construct the three magnetically-repulsive sprocket wheels), roller bearings suitable for trucks, and housing frames.  It also would be a lot of work.  I am not prepared to do such right now.  I think Ed kept his compact machine hidden under his trailer frame, on top of which he placed his items for moving to his new Rock Gate Park.  That way he always had access to his perpetual motion machine, at both locations during his move.  I will attempt to touch upon the much supporting evidence indicated in my book.  I, AldenPark, wrote:  ‘Bessler Principle.  Because of that there is an increase in rotational kinetic energy for any wheel (of any size) rotating about a horizontal axis, though nearly-ubiquitous friction almost always removes the acquired kinetic energy.  See Chapter 3 “BESSLER’S PRINCIPLE” of my book.  I provide much evidence in my book for the Bessler principle.  The many evidences for the Bessler principle suggest that we have come upon the correct explanation for what gravity is and how it works.’  I specifically listed on p. 21 of my book, Gravity-Wheel Unveiled, these evidences in my book, according to the shown beginning pages of my book for their discussion (which book you may download for free).  Some Evidences of Bessler Principle  76 Bessler’s Many Wheels, 77 Cars Somewhat Constant Miles per Gallon, 81 Railroad Freight Phenomenal Transportation Efficiencies, 82 Sun Temperatures Incompatible with Hot Fusion Source, 85 Huge Solar Corona Temperatures, 88 Earth not Frozen Ice Ball, 90 Jupiter Excess Energy Production, 93 Cloud Thermals, 94 Ball Lightning, 95 Origin of Snowflakes, 96 Jet Engine Roar, 101 Tornado Formation Conditions, 101 Tornado Freight Train Sound, 103 Rotating Kilns about Horizontal Axes, 138 Satellites Tumbling, 200 Many Cold Fusion Anomalies, 210 Leakage Currents in Magnetic Bottles, 224 Sunspots Cooler than Photosphere.  Here are some additional evidences of the Bessler principle from my book that I didn’t specifically put in that list of evidences:  the McKinley low friction demonstration (pp. 139-142-147), cold fusion initiation (pp. 199-204), explanation of GEET reactors (pp. 176-198), explanation of Papp engines (pp. 159-174), Saturn’s Warm South Pole Vortex (p. 91), Saturn’s Excess Radiation (p. 91), Venus Not Frozen (pp. 91-92), Mar’s slight atmosphere neither frozen nor liquid (p. 92), Mercury is not frozen even though its average surrounding temperature over all directions is 3 degrees Kelvin (p. 92), Excess Meteor Energy (p. 93), Airglow (pp. 95-96), Jet Engine Partial Power (p. 96), Turbulence Dependent on Attitude (pp. 96-97), Ranque Tube Temperatures Dependent on Attitude (pp. 97-100), Wind Shear (pp. 100-101),  BEC Avoidance of Bessler Principle (p. 101), Sonoluminescence (pp. 403-404), Walls of Water (pp. 404-405), and the magnetic motor by Muammer Yildiz (pp. 429-430 and see my words below about it).  If one doesn’t admit that these evidences are due to the Bessler principle, then the full weight of coming up with alternative explanations for these evidences rests upon any doubter who casts out a Bessler principle explanation for all these things.  If you want more evidences, then consider the following.  Because I maintain that the Bessler principle is a general principle for rotation of matter about horizontal axes, I think that if you look closely enough at the energy picture for any such rotation of matter about horizontal axes, then you will find evidence of the Bessler principle in every such situation in which matter rotates about horizontal axes.  The list of evidences for the Bessler principle is virtually unlimited but you must look very carefully at the data and not toss the data out.  You must not ignore the complete data.  On pp. 21-22 I list 40 tests under “Some Tests of Bessler Principle”.  One can do these further tests.  Some of the tests effectively refer to many tests that may be done.  We may not need to replicate the McKinley low friction demonstration (which I was a witness of) because of the magnetic motor example below.  It is a specific example of a patented perpetual motion device that continually produces power for rotations at low friction about horizontal axes.  You can study modern situations and I think you will be surprised by your findings, as we approach virtually frictionless conditions for rotations about horizontal axes.  The 1968 McKinley low friction demonstration (pp. 139-147 of my over-arching book, GWU) is a classic case (for ultra-low friction for rotations about horizontal axes caused by superconducting lead excluding all magnetic fields coming from the axle) but for reasons of greater practicality and availability I will defer to another case of perpetual motion (pp. 429-430 of my over-arching book, GWU).  Below is that particular case, in point, where we do now have perpetual motion (powered by the two-part gravitons).  Existing Perpetual Motion Device using Magnetic Bearings.  I think that the so-called magnetic motor built by Muammer Yildiz is effectively a very low-friction digital magnetic bearing that allows its rotor to rotate about a horizontal axis.  When its angular speed is sufficiently large, the rotor acquires rotational kinetic energy from the Bessler principle.  I think that it is a perpetual motion device powered by two-part gravitons.  For example, it can perpetually blow air by turning a fan.  It provides further evidence of the Bessler principle.  See the video at URL, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHW6b1aFPfU “Motor powered with neodymium rare earth magnets” (20 Apr 2010, 7 Aug 2012) for a demonstration of the motor rotating about a horizontal axis.  Also see the URL, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk2s8fHSP9k “Free Energy Generator, Working Patent! Muammer Yildiz Magnet Motor, Detail design!!!” (4 Jun 2017) for more details.  I can explain how the magnet motor built by Yildiz obtains its excess energy, by using the Bessler principle.  Can you explain how this perpetual motion device obtains its excess energy, without using the Bessler principle?  I think that they would need to increase the mass of its rotor to make it a more powerful “motor”.  Though the Yildiz Magnet Motor is quite valuable as a proof of principle demonstration showing much sustained excess energy production, I think that the perpetual motion solutions of Bessler and Leedskalnin will be much more cost effective (more MW/$) in the long run for obtaining energy from energetic gravity but someone or some people will need to pay the great price and build them to see the specific proof.  I think that the magnetic motors could produce more power if they increase their angular speed (say by adjusting the pitch angle of the fan blades), but there is a caution to taking that route.  If they increase their angular speed too much, then the lattice connections with the rotating nuclear-ground-states will be greatly hampered if not destroyed.  Edward Leedskilnin calls that situation loss of sweetness.  There is another caution associated with adjusting the pitch of the fan blades.  If it begins producing more power than can be removed by the fan blades, then one can have a runaway situation, with it having extremely large angular speeds.  It may be difficult to stop or it could explode or if it is somehow stopped, then the next time it might not work very well due to prior loss of sweetness in the rotor.  One then would need to build a new rotor so that it would work again.  The two-part gravitons are a weak source of internal rotational power because of the separate times and locations of the two pull-downs from each graviton.  The lower elevation pull down almost always occurs first.  The higher elevation mass point moves further around the circle between the times of the lower elevation mass point being pulled down and the higher elevation mass point being pulled down.  See in my book Fig. 25, Fig. 26, and Fig. 27 on pp. 69-70.  That is what causes the internal rotational power source but for normal situations friction removes that extra obtained power and more.  For zero angular speed there is no source of extra rotational power.  The excess power source increases as angular speed increases but for wheels rotating at very large angular speeds, the especially rapidly rotating nuclear-ground-states (at extremely high temperatures) destroy their surrounding rotational lattice connection bonds, between the wheel and the nuclei.  These power productive things are the Bessler principle and some constraints on using it to produce mechanical power.  AEP – 17 Apr 2019

(Page 1 Mon 15 Apr, 2019 10:30 pm Off-Topic: universe expansion rate increasing?) Dark Energy.  I think that there is a reasonable explanation for the mysterious dark energy.  See the section “Dark Energy” on p. 383 within section 15.6 “Solutions to Prior Unsolved Problems” of my book, Gravity-Wheel Unveiled.  You may download its 18 March 2019 free .pdf file, at https://gravityunveiled.home.blog/.  The explanation depends upon understanding several other things first, which were explained much earlier in my book than in the last chapter 15.  Gravity.  I explain what I think gravity is (and how it works) within my book, Gravity-Wheel Unveiled.  Consider details in Chapter 2 “GRAVITY BASED ON DISCRETE ELECTRIC FIELDS”.  There are two parts of the discrete graviton made up of two discrete electric fields, coming from discrete finest fundamental opposite charges.  I explain why the graviton (or rather gravity) is so weak relative to the ordinary discretely-unpaired electric-fields.  It has five formation conditions/constraints for the two discrete-opposite electric-fields to pair-up to form a special quantum graviton.  It has five absorption conditions/constraints for the two discrete electric fields of the quantum graviton to be attractively absorbed by finest fundamental charges that are opposite the finest fundamental charges that gave them origin.  I explain that there are two attractive pull-downs produced by a graviton, with the lower-elevation pull-down almost-always applied first.  Bessler Principle.  Because of that there is an increase in rotational kinetic energy for any wheel (of any size) rotating about a horizontal axis, though nearly-ubiquitous friction almost always removes the acquired kinetic energy.  See Chapter 3 “BESSLER’S PRINCIPLE” of my book.  I provide much evidence in my book for the Bessler principle.  The many evidences for the Bessler principle suggest that we have come upon the correct explanation for what gravity is and how it works.  In my book, in separate appendices (B and D), I speak of two particular very-low-friction perpetual-motion devices, which made use of the Bessler principle.  The devices were previously coded in books.  Tests and observations regarding the Bessler principle provide evidence that the two-part graviton is able to provide extra rotational kinetic energy to the two finest fundamental charges that absorb it.  Light, New Matter, and New Space.  Gravity often pulls down on light because gravity pulls down on finest fundamental opposite charges temporarily appearing in light.  Light consists of many discrete electric fields traveling together.  Discrete electric fields consist of speed-of-light waves traveling in straight lines of finest fundamental charges appearing and disappearing.  There is not any matter moving at the speed of light.  There are only speed-of-light longitudinal-waves of finest matter appearing and disappearing.  When a graviton pulls down on a pair of finest fundamental opposite charges temporarily appearing in light, then energy from the graviton causes the pair of finest fundamental-opposite-charges to remain (and not disappear) after the light has departed.  The new finest-fundamental-charges or new matter comes along with its new space.  The finest fundamental charges may be called spirit matter to be consistent with the scriptures.  The new space, coming along with the new matter, keeps the universe in a sort of cosmic balance.  Sufficient collections (of the new finest-fundamental-matter) allow the new finest-fundamental-matter to condense into ordinary matter (ordinary hydrogen atoms).  That is essentially the origin of dark matter.  I think that the new space, which came along with the new matter, is the so-called dark energy.  It is not a force.  It is not anti-gravity.  It is just the new space that came along with the new matter.  There is one new particle of space because of the new finest fundamental particle being inserted.  The universe increases in both matter and space.  A large enough collection of the obedient new spirit matter condenses into matter rather than into antimatter, according to the will of God, which is effectively an infinitely old established convention/law.  Various related phenomena are discussed in my book.  My book provides many experimental tests to determine the correctness of many proposed ideas.  No Big Bang.  If one were to base calculations of expansion upon a false assumption of microwaves coming from a hypothetical Big Bang, then one should not wonder about discrepancies relative to more direct measurements of the expansion.  The cosmic ray data suggest an infinite universe or that there was no Big Bang.  See section “Ultra-high-energy Cosmic Rays” on p. 399 within section 15.6 “Solutions to Prior Unsolved Problems” of my book, Gravity-Wheel Unveiled.  See chapter 10 “COSMIC RAYS EXPLAINED” starting on p. 280.  Also see section 11.2 “Cosmology” starting on p. 294 within chapter 11 “COSMIC FUTURE” starting on p. 291.  The unbounded energies of the cosmic rays require an infinite size for a cosmic accelerator for gravitons to preferentially increase the energies of the cosmic rays.  The scriptures support the idea of an infinite universe.  There would appear to be an infinite everywhere expanding universe.  The universe does not expand faster than it should be expanding.  It is not the expansion of matter in an unchanging volume universe.  Rather it is the expansion of a universe, where new space volume is finely inserted at the same time that the new matter is finely inserted.  The universe expands at approximately the same rate at all locations within the infinite universe.  There are local variations near the centers of galaxies, for example, which have much light and gravity.  In such places, there is much new matter and new space coming forth.  As new space causes new expansion, such expansion variations get smoothed out with time.  Discrete Theory of Everything.  In my book I propose a discrete theory of everything.  See within Appendix A the section A.6 “Unification Attempt for Electromagnetics-Strong-Weak-Gravity” starting on p. 458.  Matter is composed of the finest fundamental charges.  Opposite finest fundamental charges are equally massive.  Discrete electric fields originate from the finest fundamental charges.  The finest fundamental charges can absorb both types of discrete electric fields.  Little Decoded Books Available.  Also at https://gravityunveiled.home.blog/, one may download 18 Mar 2019 free .pdf versions of both Bessler’s (1717) and Leedskalnin’s (1936) decoded little books.  My decoded books are, Bessler’s Little Book Decoded and A Book in Every Home Decoded.  Both authors curiously called their own original coded book by the same term, “little book”, as if their little books were meant to be greatly expanded when finally understood.  The little books spoke of separate perpetual motion inventions though in different physical regimes.  Both Bessler and Leedskalnin used the same encryption key of the Bessler principle (which may also be called the ED.L. principle or the yin-yang principle or the stone mason principle).  I used that decryption key for decoding both little books.  By apparently common expectation of both Bessler and Leedskalnin, when people eventually were to discover or rediscover the Bessler (meaning ED.L.) principle, then the people would hold the decryption key for decoding each little coded book.  Build a Perpetual Motion Machine.  Bessler told how to build his ultra-low-friction roller bearings, which could turn almost any wheel into a perpetual motion machine.  Leedskalnin told how to build his rapidly-rotating Sweet-Sixteen-family of massive limestone cylinders using ordinary roller bearings, for example those used to rotate truck axles and wheels.  I think that Ed’s Sweet Sixteen family of cylinders was his actual perpetual motion holder or his mechanical perpetual motion machine powered by gravity.  Ed’s cylinders would need to be rapidly rotating but not too rapidly rotating.  Ed rotationally connected his father, mother, and daughter cylinders by using three ultra-low-friction magnetically-repulsive sprocket-wheels.  The 24/16 times faster daughter cylinder had less air friction because of its much smaller radius and size.  If we build one of these devices (Orffyrean roller bearing or the Sweet Sixteen family of cylinders), if we use the device according to its decoded instructions, and if the device works as expected, then this would provide much further evidence that we have come upon the correct explanation for what gravity is and how it works.  I am not saying that it would be easy to build one of these devices but it is possible to build one of them, if we want to see another example of a perpetual motion machine, which is powered by two-part attractive gravitons.  Existing Perpetual Motion Device using Magnetic Bearings.  I think that the so-called magnetic motor built by Muammer Yildiz is effectively a very low-friction digital magnetic bearing that allows its rotor to rotate about a horizontal axis.  When its angular speed is sufficiently large, it acquires rotational kinetic energy from the Bessler principle.  I think that it is a perpetual motion device powered by two-part gravitons.  For example, it can perpetually blow air by turning a fan.  It provides further evidence of the Bessler principle.  See the video at URL, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHW6b1aFPfU “Motor powered with neodymium rare earth magnets” (20 Apr 2010, 7 Aug 2012) for a demonstration of the motor rotating about a horizontal axis.  Also see the URL, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sk2s8fHSP9k “Free Energy Generator, Working Patent! Muammer Yildiz Magnet Motor, Detail design!!!” (4 Jun 2017) for more details.  They would need to increase the mass of its rotor to make it a more powerful motor.  Though the Yildiz Magnet Motor is valuable as a proof of principle demonstration showing some initial energy production, I think that the perpetual motion solutions of Bessler and Leedskalnin will be much more cost effective in the long run for obtaining energy from energetic gravity.  AEP – 15 Apr 2019

(Page 1 Thu 11 Apr, 2019 10:57 am Gravity) Gravity.  I explain what I think gravity is (and how it works) within my book, Gravity-Wheel Unveiled.  You may download its 18 March 2019 free .pdf file, at https://gravityunveiled.home.blog/.  Consider details in Chapter 2 “GRAVITY BASED ON DISCRETE ELECTRIC FIELDS”.  There are two parts of the discrete graviton made up of two discrete electric fields, coming from discrete finest fundamental opposite charges.  I explain why the graviton (or rather gravity) is so weak.  It has five formation conditions/constraints for the two discrete electric fields to pair-up to form a graviton and five absorption conditions/constraints for the two discrete electric fields of the graviton to be attractively absorbed by finest fundamental charges that are opposite the charges that gave them origin.  I explain that there are two attractive pulls down in a graviton, with the lower-elevation pull-down almost-always applied first.  Bessler Principle.  Because of that there is an increase in rotational kinetic energy for any wheel (of any size) rotating about a horizontal axis, though nearly-ubiquitous friction almost always removes the acquired kinetic energy.  See Chapter 3 “BESSLER’S PRINCIPLE” of my book.  I provide much evidence in my book for the Bessler principle.  The many evidences for the Bessler principle suggest that we have come upon the correct explanation for what gravity is and how it works.  In my book, in separate appendices (B and D), I speak of two particular very-low-friction perpetual-motion devices that made use of the Bessler principle.  The devices were previously coded in books.  Little Decoded Books Available.  Also at https://gravityunveiled.home.blog/, one may download 18 Mar 2019 free .pdf versions of both Bessler’s (1717) and Leedskalnin’s (1936) decoded little books.  My decoded books are, Bessler’s Little Book Decoded and A Book in Every Home Decoded.  Both authors curiously called their own original coded book by the same term, “little book”, as if their little books were meant to be greatly expanded when finally understood.  The little books spoke of separate perpetual motion inventions though in different physical regimes.  Both Bessler and Leedskalnin used the same encryption key of the Bessler principle (which may also be called the ED.L. principle or the yin-yang principle or the stone mason principle).  I used that decryption key for decoding both little books.  By apparently common expectation of both Bessler and Leedskalnin, when people eventually were to discover or rediscover the Bessler principle, then in both cases the people would hold the decryption key for decoding both the little coded books.  Build a Perpetual Motion Machine.  Bessler told how to build his ultra-low-friction roller bearings, which could turn almost any wheel into a perpetual motion machine.  Leedskalnin told how to build his rapidly-rotating Sweet-Sixteen-family of massive limestone cylinders using ordinary roller bearings, for example those used to rotate truck axles and wheels.  I think that Ed’s Sweet Sixteen family of cylinders was his actual perpetual motion holder or his mechanical perpetual motion machine powered by gravity.  Ed’s cylinders would need to be rapidly rotating but not too rapidly rotating.  Ed rotationally connected his father, mother, and daughter cylinders by using three ultra-low-friction magnetically-repulsive sprocket-wheels.  The 24/16 times faster daughter cylinder had less air friction because of its much smaller size.  If we build one of these devices (Orffyrean roller bearing or the Sweet Sixteen family of cylinders), if we use the device according to its decoded instructions, and if the device works as expected, then this would provide much further evidence that we have come upon the correct explanation for what gravity is and how it works.  I am not saying that it would be easy to build one of these devices but it is possible to build one of them, if we want to see another example of a perpetual motion machine, which is powered by two-part attractive gravitons.  AEP – 11 Apr 2019

(Page 6 Tue 09 Apr, 2019 4:57 pm low friction mechanical roller bearing) Bessler Principle.  My Free Books.  18 March 2019 book, Gravity-Wheel Unveiled  https://gravityunveiled.home.blog/ a free .pdf file of my book may be downloaded (as well as free 18 March 2019 .pdf files of my decoded versions of the little books by Bessler and Leedskalnin  Very-Low-Friction Orffyrean-Roller-Bearing.  See 9.1 Low Friction Orffyrean Roller Bearing of my book.  See Fig. 58 and Fig. 67 (or see below) for the primary geometry of his bearings.  Also see APPENDIX B ORFFYREUS’S LITTLE BOOK.  Bearing Production.  My Table B.4.  “Bearing specifications from Bessler’s final figure.” provides 11 bearing specifications from his symbolic final figure.  Further Bearing Evidences.  In section XLVII (p. 296 English translation by John Collins of p. 105 German) Bessler wrote in Apologia Poetica ‘ “Has it ever come about that a person of eminence has seen the interior of my invention?”  To this I answer – no.’  But the eminent Karl saw within the interior of Bessler’s Kassel wheel.  The interior of his wheel was not his invention.  AEP – 9 Apr 2019

Image073.gif Orffyrean roller bearing with example containing-cylinder thickness.

My downloadable book solves many issues within BesslerWheel.com

Comment: This is a comment that I am sending to myself through “Contact”, as a test to help see how submitting comments works. I can also try to import this comment onto the blog to better see how the blogging works. I downloaded my 18 March 2019 .pdf version of my book (gravwheelunveiled-1.pdf). Then with the .pdf file open in the browser, I clicked on the browser’s Download button to save it to my local computer. I created a couple of extra local computer copies of the .pdf file. With one copy I could leave it at the CONTENTS or FIGURES and on another I could use it to search for a desired figure (for example “Fig. 1.” without the quotes). Then I can change tabs on the PDF reader so that I not lose my place that I am reading in the .pdf file. I think that my book, Gravity-Wheel Unveiled, solves many issues that have been brought up at http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/ within the BesslerWheel.com discussions. 20190321AEP