Updated  2 - 3 - 2014

Bakersfield,  Kern  County,  California,  USA

email :  1@ZXC.CC

(661)  326 - 1640       Skype  Name :  LA126B

GravityMotor.net


Hypothesis (2 - 3 - 2014)

Updated Version (4 - 11 - 2014)

Two System Dynamic Force Creation
(Practical Use of Non-Dissipating Energy)

by Larry McCart

We say we have an energy problem because of increasing costs (environmental and economic) to continuously supply new energy to be used up.  A solution to this problem is a system that will use the same energy over and over again, and that will not require a continuous supply of new energy that will be used up.

I define energy as something having the ability or potential ability to exert pulls or pushes against basic forces of nature in a direction.  Energy causes action during the existence of dynamic force.

I define dynamic force as any influence that causes a free body to undergo a change in speed, a change in direction, or a change in shape.  A dynamic force exists when energy is causing movement.  A force has both magnitude and direction, making it a vector quantity.  Regarding this definition of dynamic force, dynamic force exists only during movement.

I define static force as any influence that causes a static (not moving) push or a pull in a direction.  A static force exists when energy is causing static push or static pull in a direction.  A static force has both magnitude and direction, making it a vector quantity.

In physics the amount of mechanical work done relates to the amount of energy and movement.  In physics we say work is the result of dynamic force.  Work occurs as a result of energy and movement — a definition of dynamic force.  Energy is used, and the amount of energy becomes less as work occurs, if the energy and force are in a dynamic force system, where force is dynamic force.  Work can continue until all energy is used; after all energy is used, work stops.

Work is what causes a diminishing of energy until all energy is used if work and energy are in the same force system.  In the case of two force systems (one opposite the other, one static and one dynamic) work occurring in the dynamic force system does not cause a diminishing of the energy in the static force system, since energy in the static force system is not in the dynamic force system where work occurs.

A static force in a static force system can be used to cause a continuous dynamic force in an adjoining dynamic force system if a copy of static force in the static force system continuously is transferred to the dynamic force system.  The copy of static force in the static force system immediately becomes a dynamic force as the copy enters the dynamic force system, without causing any loss of energy in the static force system.

In the case of two force systems (one opposite the other, one static and one dynamic) work can continue indefinitely, as long as elements of the mechanical apparatus remain intact, since work occurring in the dynamic force system does not cause a diminishing of energy in the adjoining static force system.  I refer to such a mechanical apparatus as a static force motor or a TSDF motor.

In the case of an electric motor, energy is used and used up (dissipated), so that the electric motor needs a continuous supply of new energy to continue working.  In the case of a static force motor, energy is used and not used up (not dissipated), so that a static force motor does not need a continuous supply of new energy to continue working.  In the case of a static force motor, dynamic force is used and used up (dissipated), so that the static force motor needs a continuous supply of new dynamic force to continue working.  New dynamic force is supplied to the static force motor as copies of static force in the static force system continuously enter into the dynamic force system and become new dynamic force.  New dynamic force in the dynamic force system is created as a result of energy contained in the static force system, without dissipation of energy in the static force system.

In one reality it is correct to assume that an item causing a static force (such as a compressed spring or compressed air or a magnet) can not produce actively rotating dynamic force while the item causing the static force maintains the same energy and static force it originally had.  However, if a second reality is mechanically developed that operates in conjunction with the first reality, it appears that a static force in the first reality can cause an actively rotating dynamic force in the second reality while the item in the first reality causing the static force maintains the same energy and static force it originally had.

Can force be duplicated like a copy machine can duplicate a page from a book?  This appears to be what is happening as static force in the first reality seems to cause dynamic force in the second reality.  It seems a duplicate copy of force continuously is produced, and that two forces identical in strength exist at the same time (one static in the first reality and the other dynamic in the second reality).

In 20 years US citizens probably will look back at 2014 as a time when silly internal combustion engines were used in cars.  In 2034 a bicycle tire pump could be all you need to pump up compressed air springs in your engine that would provide the energy for driving across the nation in a full-sized car.  A similar engine powered by compressed air springs could be attached to an electrical generator that could supply all the electricity used at your home or business.


Top View


Top View


Top View


Top View


Top View


Top View


Side View

These are not drawings of a static force motor that has been built.  These drawings are meant to show the basic operational principles of a static force motor.  Inside ring and outside ring same height if springs are used to cause static force.  If magnets are used to cause static force, inside ring 1.5" high and outside ring 3.0" high.

Click here for hypothetical static force motor action.

Click here for example of an element of a static force system (the part that is non-moving (static) in relation to the center of the axis of the static force system).

Click Here for Obsolete Previous Version

I hesitate to call myself "the inventor" of the static force motor (also known as the TSDF motor).  It is possible that this motor has been independently "invented" by over one hundred people around the world since 1885.  If this is the case, I wonder why these motors were not used on a mass basis since 1910 so that we could have avoided the loss of millions of lives because of pollution caused by gas and diesel vehicle engines and because of pollution caused by electrical generating plants using deadly nuclear materials or coal, and so that we could have avoided the global warming problem.

Since I do not know of any other person who "invented" the static force motor (also known as the TSDF motor) I will for legal purposes claim to be the "inventor" of the static force motor and I hereby declare that the information in this website relating to a static force motor is hereby put in the public domain as of February 3, 2014, and therefore is not patentable.

Take into consideration the political realities of free energy research, and remember that it has been documented that some free energy inventors have been threatened and harmed in the years between 1930 and 1992.  I have never openly and without restrictions said that I have built a free energy device that worked, and I have never been threatened or harmed during the many years I have been involved in free energy research.  Since I will not seek a patent on the static force motor, I do not need to have a working prototype that could result in a visit by the "men in black" or agents working for a foreign government.

The more widespread the information on the static force motor, the safer the situation becomes for me.  If "everybody knows", then the incentive to attack to inventor is not there.  What I would like is for thousands of persons all over the world to build prototypes that could be shown to local manufacturers so that the "High Cabal" will not be able to stop this, and so that thousands of persons all over the world can make money selling static force motors.




Interesting Videos

GravityMotor.net as it was on January 18, 2013

Pictures and descriptions from previous months

Information on attempts to build gravity motors:  Donald Simanek website

Making a prototype motor

Abundant Energy in All Nations







Hypothesis (4 - 13 - 2012)

Magnet Motor Design

 

 

Gear 1 does not turn.  The other gears turn.  Gear 2 is connected to gear 4.  Gears 5, 6, and 7 are free-turning on bearings.  The bearing of gear 6 is connected to gear 3, and gear 6 stays in the 6 o'clock position as gear 6 turns.  Gear 5 is pulled clock-wise by one magnet 1/32 inch from a stationary and thick steel ring 8.  Gears 6 and 7 are 48T gears; gears 4 and 5 are 144T gears.  Gears 1, 2, and 3 are 96T gears.     

   

Video of Prototype of Primary Mechanism

 

 

Two 48 external-tooth gears are inside a 144 internal-tooth gear at the bottom of the motor.  The magnet holder is connected to the 144 internal-tooth gear at the bottom of the motor.  The iron ring has a hole in the center with 10-threads-per-inch threads that connect with 10-threads-per-inch threads on the stationary base of the motor.  The motor is turned on by turning the iron ring into the area where the magnet is, and the motor is turned off by turning the iron ring out of the area where the magnet is.  The hub turns (at the top of the stationary base of the motor).  The 96 tooth gear in line with and above the hub does not turn.

 

W = Es
E = energy
W = work
F = force
s = path length of circular movement

In physics we say energy is an indirectly observed quantity.  One definition of energy is the ability a physical system has to do work on other physical systems.  This definition of energy defines energy as being equivalent to the ability to exert pulls or pushes against basic forces of nature in a direction.  Energy can exist without movement (static energy rather than kinetic energy).

Nikola Tesla investigated harvesting energy that is present throughout space.  Tesla said, "Throughout space there is energy.  Is this energy static or kinetic?  If static our hopes are in vain; if kinetic — and this we know it is, for certain — then it is a mere question of time when men will succeed in attaching their machinery to the very wheelwork of nature."  Tesla said that before many generations pass, "...our machinery will be driven by a power obtainable at any point of the universe".

It seems Tesla tried to build a working permanent magnet motor based on static energy of magnets, and failed.  Larry believes a working permanent magnet motor based on static energy (non-repelling static magnetic energy) would work because of static magnetic energy caused by kinetic energy — some of the kinetic energy that is throughout space.  It seems a magnet is a permanent dipole and a free energy generator, since it seems a magnet continuously gates static magnetic energy due to the asymmetry of the magnet in the energetic vacuum flux.

In physics we say a force is any influence that causes a free body to undergo a change in speed, a change in direction, or a change in shape.  A force exists when energy is causing movement.  A force has both magnitude and direction, making it a vector quantity.  Regarding this definition of a force, the force exists only during movement.

In physics we say work is the result of force.  Work occurs as a result of energy and movement — the definition of force.  In physics the amount of mechanical work done relates to the amount of energy and movement.

Work caused by torque can be defined as the result of energy and circular movement to a certain point (W = Es) where E = energy and s = path length of circular movement.  When E is a constant magnitude applied perpendicularly to a lever arm and when s is the path length of the circular movement (circular arc s) the work done is W = Es.

If a prototype permanent magnet motor not using repelling magnetic energy were built that had normal rotation regarding arms connected to gears and magnets, in order for the permanent magnets to stay in the middle between two circular rings during movement along a circular path between the two circular rings, circular movement regarding gears and permanent magnets must equal zero.  Work (as defined by the equation W = Es) does not occur without circular movement.

In the case of my magnet motor the primary mechanism allows permanent magnets on gear 5 to move along a circular path between two circular rings while gear 5 rotates in relation to gear 6.  In order for the permanent magnets to stay in the middle between two circular rings during movement along a circular path between the two circular rings, circular movement regarding gear 5 in relation to gear 6 can not equal zero.  In order for the permanent magnets to stay in the middle between two circular rings during movement along a circular path between the two circular rings, circular movement of gear 5 in relation to gear 6 must occur.  When there is energy (magnetic pull) and circular movement, work occurs.

If this design works, an experiment could be done to determine if power produced by one of these permanent magnet motors could be increased by adding electro-magnets to the non-rotating part of the magnet motor (the area where the iron screws up and down) that would be powered by an electrical generator connected to the magnet motor.  The rotating permanent magnets would rotate very close to the stationary electro-magnets resulting in a net pull force equal to the pull force of the permanent magnets and the pull force of the electro-magnets.  Another experiment could involve having opposite-polarity permanent magnets in the stationary position in place of the iron, so that the net pull force would be equal to the pull force of the rotating permanent magnets and the pull force of the stationary permanent magnets.

The normal problem with an attempt to build a permanent magnet motor not using repelling magnetic energy is that after the initial movement, there is not movement.  Work (W = Es) does not occur if there is energy (magnetic pull) without path length of circular movement.  The key to the success of my permanent magnet motor (assuming this design works) is the primary mechanism that makes possible both energy (magnetic pull) and path length of circular movement regarding gear 5 in relation to gear 6 during operation of the magnet motor.

When Tesla or Einstein would write about energy, the definition of energy they used apparently was closely related to the above definition of energy while not being the same as the above definition of energy.  Tesla did not believe that energy could be obtained from matter.  Tesla said there is not energy in matter other than energy received from environment.  Tesla considered his theory wholly inconsistent with the theory of relativity, and with modern theory concerning the structure of the atom and the mutual inter-conversion of matter and energy.  Tesla considered some of the work of Einstein to be invalid.  

Tesla also believed that much of Albert Einstein's relativity theory had already been proposed by Ruđer Bošković, stating in an unpublished interview:

"...the relativity theory, by the way, is much older than its present proponents.  It was advanced over 200 years ago by my illustrious countryman Ruđer Bošković, the great philosopher, who, notwithstanding other and multifold obligations, wrote a thousand volumes of excellent literature on a vast variety of subjects.  Bošković dealt with relativity, including the so-called time-space continuum ...."  (unpublished 1936 interview, quoted in Anderson, L., ed. Nikola Tesla: Lecture Before the New York Academy of Sciences, April 6, 1897:  The Streams of Lenard and Roentgen and Novel Apparatus for Their Production, reconstructed 1994)

Einstein was a relativist physicist.  Based on his theory of relativity, it would seem a magnet motor should not be able to produce useable rotational force over a long period of time, if it is assumed that energy from the magnet just comes from the magnet.  If Einstein theory is correct, it would be a waste of time to try to develop a magnet motor that can produce useable rotational force over a long period of time, if it is assumed that energy from the magnet just comes from the magnet.  Based on the assumption that energy from the magnet just comes from the magnet, it would seem a magnet creates energy out of nothing, in total violation of the conservation of energy law.  A magnet over time continuously has the ability to exert pulls or pushes against basic forces of nature in a direction — a definition of energy — while at the same time not giving up any mass.  Based on Einstein theory, energy must already exist or result from the conversion of mass to energy.  If a magnet continuously gates energy directly from the vacuum due to its asymmetry in the energetic vacuum flux, there is not a conflict with Einstein theory.

According to Tom Bearden, "The magnet, being a permanent dipole, is already a particular kind of 'free energy generator', since it continuously gates magnetic energy directly from the vacuum due to its asymmetry in the energetic vacuum flux."

The pull of a permanent magnet varies inversely with the square of the distance between the permanent magnet and the metal being pulled.  At 1/16 inch the pull of a permanent magnet is four times the pull of the same permanent magnet at 1/8 inch.

I bought a vertical lathe on Ebay for $2,600 in 2005 (including free loading).  The lathe weighs 33,000 pounds, and has a 48-inch chuck and a 54-inch swing.  The 1960 Schiess Model KE125 single column vertical turret lathe (made in Germany and purchased for $40,000 in 1980 by the seller) was said to be in good working condition when it was replaced by a CNC lathe in 2003.  I can make precise rings four feet in diameter with this machine.  With enough rigidity and stability along with precise rings, I hope to get down to a distance of .031 of an inch regarding the distance between magnets and steel rings.



I have seen pictures of Schiess machines much bigger than Model KE125.  A much bigger Schiess machine could have been used to make huge rings for a magnet-motor-powered "flying saucer" in the 1950's.







Hypothesis (9 -15 - 2011)

Magnet Motor Primary Mechanism

Blue gear 4 has a positive attachment to green gear 2 (welded to the same shaft), and both move together.  Both blue gear 3 and green gear 3 have free-turning bearings, and both are on a shaft with blue gear 3 high enough above green gear 3 to mesh with blue gear 1 and blue gear 4.  The free-turning bearing for blue gear 1 is attached to the outer edge of green gear 3.  The two green dots on blue gear 2 represent magnets.

The gear ratios among the blue gears would be such that blue gear 2 turns 360 degrees in relation to the touch point with blue gear 1 each time the arm of the primary mechanism completes a 360 degree movement — so that the two magnets on blue gear 2 stay in the middle between two circular rings as the arm of the primary mechanism moves 360 degrees.

       

 

    

To counter-balance forces, four gears could be used.

 

To counter-balance forces, five gears could be used.

 

Video of Prototype of Primary Mechanism

 

After years of research at the Lawrence D. McCart Research and Development Center in Bakersfield, California, Larry believes that he and his assistants are going in the right direction for developing designs for magnet motors that will work without repelling magnetic forces.  As of March 1, 2010, every prototype of a permanent magnet motor we made did not work.

Since 1957 when Larry was 11 years old he has wanted to invent an engine that would not produce the sickening smell that is produced by an internal combustion engine.  By 1992 Larry owned an established manufacturing company that has made possible the Lawrence D. McCart Research and Development Center that has as its primary objective the development of a pollution-free engine that does not use fuel.  Larry does not need to make money with the magnet motor project, and is willing to spend money to get pollution-free magnet motors in general use.

Frank Scully's book Behind the Flying Saucers, claimed that several crashed UFO's had been recovered by US officials and that these UFO's operated on magnetic principles.  C.D.B. Bryan notes the existence of a secret memorandum written by Canadian radio engineer Wilbert B. Smith, who had long worked for the Canadian Department of Transportation.  Smith wrote that his own "discreet inquiries" through the Canadian embassy in Washington D.C. had uncovered the fact that flying saucers exist and that information about flying saucers is the most highly classified information held by the US government.  Wilbert B. Smith wrote that power systems in UFO's are based on magnetism.  Following a famous close encounter with a 300-foot flying saucer while flying from Iceland to Newfoundland on February 10, 1951, Naval Reserve pilot Commander Graham Bethune relates that after returning to their base that he and the entire crew were immediately debriefed by persons from intelligence departments of the US Air Force and the US Navy.







Gravity Motors

    

    

Hypothesis (1 - 13 - 2013)

Gravity Motor Design (Alternative 1)

      

Everything in left picture rotates except for 

adjustable guide (3).  Handle (6) in right 

picture is for moving adjustable guide (3) to

cause wheel (4) to rotate left or to rotate right

or to stop rotating.

     

     

     

     

Hypothesis (1 - 13 - 2013)

Gravity Motor Design (Alternative 2)

      

Everything in left picture rotates except for 

adjustable guide (3).  Handle (6) in right 

picture is for moving adjustable guide (3) to

cause wheel (4) to rotate left or to rotate right

or to stop rotating.

   

    

    

    

Johann Bessler described the inside part of his machine as an "inner wheel-pendulum"

 

 

 

 

                                           

Pictures of Bessler drawing (136) of a gravity motor seeming to use magnets

 

 

Pictures of Bessler drawing (137)

 

Pictures of Bessler drawing (135)

 

The above four pictures of drawings by Johann Bessler seem to show hints about the design of the gravity motor that worked.  In his book Maschinen Tractate Bessler said, "...taking various illustrations together and combining them with a discerning mind, it will be possible to find a valid description of motion."

It seems the drawing (137) of the wheel in the upper two pictures has two views of the inner wheel-pendulum (the side view to the left and the front view to the right), and it seems the drawing (135) of the wheel in the lower two pictures represents the outer wheel.  In the drawing (137) of what seems to be the side-view of the inner wheel-pendulum in the upper two pictures the diameter of the shaft in the center is 17 mm (on my computer screen).  The shaft to the right in drawing 135 of the wheel in the lower two pictures is 7 mm (on my computer screen).  (17/7 = 2.428571)  Since the shaft would be the same size for both wheels, it seems the diameter of the grind-stone shaped inner wheel is about 7/17 (.411765) of the diameter of the outer wheel diameter (144 inches  x  .411765 = 59.2942 inches).  It seems the lines in the side view to the left in drawing 137 are there to indicate the diameter of the outer surface of the grind-stone shaped inner wheel since the lines are exactly in contact with the outer surface of the shaft, and therefore the size of the inner wheel diameter would have an exact ratio in relation to the diameter of the shaft.

In drawing 137 on the right side seems to be a front view of the inner wheel-pendulum.  Notice what seems to be a happy face of a Prince just below the black mark.

Notice a face in the upper part of the pictures of both the upper (137) and lower (135) pictures but with the wheel offset to the left in relation to the face in the lower (135) pictures of a drawing of what seems to be a gravity motor with a big magnet to the right; the offset seems to represent the offset of the inner wheel-pendulum in the gravity motor that worked.  On my screen the diameter of what seems to be the inner wheel-pendulum (upper-right picture 137) is 72 mm.  The diameter of the wheel in picture 135 to the right is 68 mm, and the offset in picture 135 to the right is 8 mm.  The offset seems to be .118 (8/68 = .118) of the diameter of the outer wheel,  and .222 (8(72/2) =.222222) of the diameter of the inner-wheel pendulum. 

In Das Triumphirende Perpetuum Mobile Orffyreanum by Johann Bessler the shaft in his biggest gravity motor is described as being about 8 inches in diameter, and the outer wheel in his biggest gravity motor is described as being about 12 feet (144 inches) in diameter.

As a confirmation that the offset is about .118 of the diameter of the outer wheel, in the lower-right picture (135) one will see a drawing of the shaft between the right side of the wheel and what appears to be a drawing of a big magnet, and that the diameter of the shaft  appears to be about the same as the offset to the left.  If the diameter of the outer wheel is 72 inches, the amount of the offset is indicated to be .118 of the diameter of the outer wheel (.118 x 72 inches = 8.496 inches).

  

 

Regarding the above picture of a drawing of a gravity motor, the diameter of the inner wheel is .72 of the diameter of the outer wheel; the offset to the left for the inner wheel is .129 of the diameter of the inner wheel and .093 of the diameter of the outer wheel.

 

Regarding the above picture of a drawing regarding basic principles of a Bessler-type gravity motor, the diameter of the middle of the path of the rollers is .50 of the diameter of the outer wheel; the offset to the left for the middle of the path of the rollers is .102 of the diameter of the middle of the path of the rollers and .051 of the diameter of the outer wheel.

 

From:   Das Triumphirende Perpetuum Mobile Orffyreanum by Johann Bessler, Kassel, 1719, translation and editing by Larry McCart [2]

Except for small changes in dimensions of the external wheel, I have organized everything together in accordance with the previous machine that was broken in pieces.  

The horizontal axle (or shaft) rotates in a disc (inside wheel or narrow cylinder) that resembles a grindstone.  My machine also has an external wheel (or drum) that is connected to the axle (or shaft) and that rotates with the axle (or shaft).  The external wheel (or drum) is 12 feet in diameter.  The width of the external wheel (or drum) is between 15 and 18 inches.

The internal structure of the external wheel (or drum) consists of weights (metal wheels) arranged in accordance with the laws of perpetual motion.  After the external wheel completes a single rotation, or after a single force is applied to the external wheel, the motion of the external wheel continues.  As long as the structure of the external wheel does not change, the external wheel continues moving without further outside assistance.

As long as the external wheel (or drum) remains out of balance, the external wheel (or drum) provides power and push.  Metal wheels and springs are part of the external wheel (or drum), and the metal wheels roll along the outside of the inside wheel that is offset to the side and that stays upright as the shaft turns, and therefore the external wheel (or drum) does not reach equilibrium (or point of rest), and is continuously out of balance, resulting in a force pushing down on the heavy side of the external wheel (or drum) proportional to the heaviness of the metal wheels connected to the heavy side of the external wheel and the distances (to the vertical line going through the center of the external wheel) of the points where the metal wheels make contact on the outside of the inside wheel.

The horizontal axle (or shaft) connects with center areas of the external wheel (or drum) and passes through the disc (inside wheel or narrow cylinder) at an offset location, and is 6 feet long and 8 inches in diameter.  While in motion the axle (or shaft) is supported by two almost one-inch-thick tapered metal pegs, one at each end of the axle (or shaft).  Each of the two pegs fits into a bearing on the support structure.

This mechanical wheel not only bears the name of the long sought perpetual motion machine; it deserves to be named for such motion.  It uses one of the best known implements for mechanical power, namely, a true circular wheel that rotates about a central axis.

Special trials have demonstrated for eyewitnesses that this mechanical wheel is a self-rotating system of several heavy bodies, and will be as long as the bodies remain heavy and the universe exists.

   

 

 

 

Clues to the design of the wheel of Johann Bessler:

Weights on one side were farther from the axle. - Jan Rutowski
Continual imbalance caused rotation. - Jan Rutowski
Once in rotation, wheel gained force from swinging of weights. - Jan Rutowski
Simple arrangement of levers and weights. - Jan Rutowski
Eight weights made hitting sounds each turn of wheel. - Jan Rutowski
Wheel had two parts:  One part rotated; the other part did not rotate. - Jan Rutowski

Weights acted in pairs. - Bessler
Machine was set in motion by weights. - Bessler
Weights gained force from their own swinging. - Bessler
Weights applied force at right angles to the axis. - Bessler
The machine's power was directly proportional to its diameter. - Bessler
Weights were pierced in the middle and attached by connecting springs. - Acta Eridutorum, an Account of the Perpetuum Mobile of J. E. E. Orffyreus, 1715

Weights were attached to moveable or elastic arms on the periphery of the wheel. - Johann Christian Wolff, eyewitness account
Weights were cylindrical. - Johann Christian Wolff, eyewitness account

Johann Bessler explained that by the grace of the Lord he had conceived a system whereby the weights on one side of the wheel were farther from the axle than the weights on the other side of the wheel, creating an imbalance that caused the wheel to rotate. - Dr. Ramesh Kumar Menaria

When the oiled cloth was removed, Prince Lord Charles (also known as Prince Karl) found himself gazing upon a simple arrangement of weights and levers.  According to Prince Lord Charles, there was an intricate system of weights and strings. - Prince Karl, Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel, eyewitness account  (from the book Strangest of All by Frank Edwards, and is pure fiction according to John Collins)

Weights were heard hitting the side of the wheel going down.
- many eyewitness accounts

About 8 weights fell during each revolution of the wheel, which took about 3 seconds. (wheel diameter ~ 12 feet)
- Joseph Fischer, eyewitness account

"... a carpenter's boy could understand and make it after having seen the inside of this wheel, and that he would not risk his name in giving these attestations, if he did not have knowledge of the machine...."
- letter from Joseph Fischer to J.T. Desaguliers, 1721

"The Landgrave being, himself, present during my examination of this machine, I took the liberty to ask him, as he had seen the inside of it, whether, after being in motion for a certain time, some alteration was made in the component parts; or whether one of these parts might be suspected of concealing some fraud; on which His Serene Highness assured me to the contrary, and that the machine was very simple...."
- letter from Willem Jacob 'sGravesande to Sir Isaac Newton, 1721.

 

"I conclude, not only from this but also from other circumstantial evidence, that the weights are attached to some moveable or elastic arms on the periphery of the wheel.  During rotation, one can clearly hear the weights hitting against the wooden boards.  I was able to observe these through a slit.  They are slightly warped.  When he put the wheel onto another support and reinstalled the weights in their previous positions, he pushed down on an iron spring that gave a loud noise as it expanded upwards.  I therefore presume that there is no doubt that the wheel is moved by an internal source of power, but we cannot necessarily assume that it is perpetual.  Furthermore, the machine may be of little value to the public unless it can be improved.  At the moment it can lift a weight of sixty pounds, but to achieve this the pulley had to be reduced more than four times, making the lifting quite slow.  The diameter of the wheel is about twelve feet, and as well, the bearing was quite thin, about one quarter of an inch and only a sixth of its length was subject to friction." - Christian Wolff, letter to Leibniz, examination of Merseburg wheel, 19th December, 1715.

 

"In this way, the wheel is put into rotation by the impact of the weights, that can be heard.  But the force that drives the weights, does not come from the machine itself, rather it comes from some fluid, invisible matter that causes the movement of the falling weights to become faster and faster.  Bessler's invention consists of an artful arrangement of weights, in such a way that they are lifted when at rest and acquire force during their fall, and in my opinion it is this that he keeps secret.  This is also consistent with what Bessler says, that anyone could easily understand his invention, as soon as he is allowed to look into the wheel.  It is possible therefore, that when the internal structure of the wheel has been revealed, some mathematicians may decide that the wheel is not a perpetual motion machine because an additional force is involved, namely the unknown substance that applies continuous pressure to heavy objects, and that adds to the force of their impact when they fall...." - letter from Christian Wolff to Johann Daniel Schumacher, 3rd July, 1722.

 

Based on statements of Johann Bessler:

Weights are arranged, never achieving balanced status.

Weights work by pairs.

Weights gained force by their own swinging.

Springs were employed, but not as decisive elements.

Within wheel is a simple arrangement of weights and lever arms.

Weights were heard hitting at side of wheel going down.

Machine made scratching noises.

Weights landed on slightly warped boards.

Weights were attached to moveable or elastic arms.

Eight weights seemed to fall during each revolution, about three seconds per revolution for a wheel about 12 feet in diameter.

Design of the machine is analogous to the solar system.  Eight heavy weights in the machine represent eight planets of the solar system.  The large axle of the machine represents the sun.  Heavy weights in the machine go around the axle and form an elliptical path, as planets go around the sun.  While moving around the axle, these heavy weights go farther from the axle on one side, and go closer to the axle on the other side.

 

Descriptions regarding the wheel of Johann Bessler:

Machine was set in motion by weights.

Weights acted in pairs.

Weights gained force from their own swinging.

Weights came to be placed together, arranged one against another.

Weights applied force at right angles to the axis.

Springs were employed, but not as detractors suggested.

The machine's power was directly proportional to its diameter.

Interior of the machine was a simple arrangement of weights and levers.

Weights were pierced in the middle and attached by connecting springs.

Weights were cylindrical.

Weights were heard hitting the side of the wheel going down.

Machine made scratching noises, as if parts or poles moved over one another.

Weights landed on slightly warped boards.

 

Unlike other mechanical devices such as clocks (involving springs or hanging weights) in the case of Bessler's wheel weights constitute the direct cause of the motion, since from them is received the gravity push; and when arranged one connected to the other so that the pair of weights can never obtain equilibrium, the two connected weights will cause a greater force (inch-pounds) on one side of the center of gravity compared to the other side of the center of gravity, causing a push down (parallel to the x-axis) that will cause the wheel to turn.  (x-axis equals the vertical axis that goes through the center of the circle)

After Bessler demonstrated his first wheel to the public in 1712, some suggested that he used a fraudulent, hidden means to power the machine. To counter the allegations, Bessler visited the court of the ruling monarch of the region, the Count and Countess of Reuss (in an area of Europe that is now part of Germany) to request an official test.

The request was accepted. The examination was performed by the Count and Countess themselves, along with many other doctors, professors, and various local noblemen and dignitaries.

The certificate does not describe the specific tests performed, or the details of the investigation. It relies largely on the belief that the examiners were men of impeccable reputation and therefore beyond criticism.

A total of 14 signatures attest to the following statements:

What we believe to be the long sought-after and desired wheel of perpetual motion has been invented and constructed recently, through God's grace, here in Gera. It is a unique and highly useful machine that rotates without any wind, water, or wind-up spring. It produces its own motion that not only maintains, moves, and turns it around continuously, but it is also able to easily drive other machines for which a great force is necessary, such as waterworks and mills...

The machine was first constructed in Gera by Johann Bessler, and put into its remarkable speedy rotation on the sixth of June in this current year 1712.

It was shown several times to Her Grace the Dowager-Countess and His grace the Count in person; and also, by their gracious consent and agreement, everything was shown and made available to us. Now we have undersigned this testimonial in confirmation of the above, and to attest to the fame and honor of the inventor, and for his special protection, benefit, recommendation, and promotion....

Signed and sealed by our own hands at Gera, 9th October, 1712.

 

 

 

 

 

Information from John Collins

There were several versions of Bessler's wheel, that ranged in size from his first that was approximately three feet in diameter and about four inches deep, to his largest that measured over eleven feet in diameter and about eighteen inches deep.  They all took the form of a wheel mounted on a large axle.

The first two wheels only could turn in one direction.  They had to be  locked or tied into position when not in use, as they spontaneously began  to turn as soon as the lock was released.  Following suggestions that his machine might be run by a clock-work mechanism, the inventor produced a new version that was capable of turning in either direction.  This new  capability was achieved at the sacrifice of speed and power.  Whereas the  early machines usually rotated at around 56 rpm, the later  bi-directional wheels rotated at around 26 rpm.  The largest wheel was bi-directional and turned at a speed of  around 26 rpm.  Bi-directional wheels were stationary until given a gentle push in one direction or the other; after a push a bi-directional wheel gradually would accelerate to normal speed.

Johann Bessler demonstrated that a simple and clever arrangement of “levers and weights” could continuously place the center of gravity of a wheel to one side of the axle, causing it to turn spontaneously.  In 1712 Bessler called it a perpetual motion machine.  Today, we would call this invention a gravity engine.  In the 1700’s gravity was not understood as a separate force that penetrated all objects; Bessler didn’t need to know this to make his machine work.  His experiments taught him everything he needed to know.  Bessler published over 140 designs of machines that he tested that did not work.  After many failures he claimed that he discovered a design that did work.  A systematic and patient approach to this research is needed because many failures can be expected before success is achieved.

Gravity is the force that caused Bessler's wheel to rotate.  A remaining problem is to discover the precise arrangement of levers and weights that provided the impetus for Bessler's wheel.  When considering the internal mechanism of Bessler's wheel, it should be remembered that Prince Karl (who had seen the inside of Bessler's wheel) said that Bessler's wheel was very simple, and that he could not understand why it had not been invented previously.  Simplicity is the key.  The successful machine will be simple, with an arrangement of levers and weights that will be easy to understand.

 

 

 

 

Edward Somerset, Sixth Earl and Second Marquis of Worcester (1601-1667) published in 1663 the book A Century of Inventions.  Somerset was a prominent public figure, interested in science, mechanics and mathematics, and made useful suggestions and improvements for them, especially for the use of steam as a motive power.  He has some claim to being the inventor of the steam engine.

In the 56th article of his book, he describes a perpetual motion wheel.  The original edition of A Century of Inventions does not have an image of the described machine.  The image frequently published as Somerset's overbalanced wheel was published by Desaguliers and dates from 1720.  The sketch does not reveal much, for it does not show more than a large enclosed wheel with a relatively small axle connected to a rope for lifting weights and performing other mechanical work. Somerset's description reveals these facts:

"To provide and make that all the weights of the descending side of a wheel, shall be perpetually farther from the center, than those of the mounting side, and yet equal in number and heft to one side as the other.  A most incredible thing, if not seen; but tried before the late King (of blessed memory) in the Tower by my directions, two extraordinary ambassadors accompanying his Majesty, and the Duke of Richmond, and Duke of Hamilton, with most of the Court attending him.  The wheel was fourteen feet over, and had forty weights of fifty pounds apiece.  Sir William Balfore, then Lieutenant of the Tower, can justify it, with several others.  They all saw, that no sooner these great weights passed the diameter line of the lower side, but they hung a foot farther from the center; nor no sooner passed the diameter line of the upper side, but they hung a foot nearer. Be pleased to judge of the consequence."

 

 

Click here for page 2 (when translating to another language)

 

 

Gravity Motor Design GM122507a

A picture of a drawing of a design for a gravity motor with springs that push rollers down by pulling on the other side of the turning points.  In this case there are two independent parts, the outer structure and the inner wheel.  The inner wheel does not need to rotate.  If the inner wheel is supported by a ball bearing and did rotate, the resistance of rollers in contact with the outer surface of the inner wheel would be less.  The rollers and the springs are part of the outer structure, and the outer structure would be the rotating part of the motor that produces the force of the gravity motor because of being continuously out of balance.  Because the inner wheel is offset to the left and since rollers are pushed against the outer surface of the inner wheel and follow the path of the outer surface of the inner wheel, the outer structure has more inch pounds of force pushing down on the left side than on the right side.  The difference between the inch pounds of force pushing down on the left side and the inch pounds of force pushing down on the right side is the net force.  If the net force is greater than the resisting force of rollers in contact with the outer surface of the inner wheel, the outer structure should rotate to the left.

 

 

Gravity Motor Design GM021908c

A picture of a drawing of a design for a gravity motor with springs that push rollers down by pulling on the other side of the turning points.  In this case there are two independent parts, the outer structure and the inner wheel.  The inner wheel does not need to rotate.  If the inner wheel is supported by a ball bearing and did rotate, the resistance of rollers in contact with the outer surface of the inner wheel would be less.  The rollers and the springs are part of the outer structure, and the outer structure would be the rotating part of the motor that produces the force of the gravity motor because of being continuously out of balance.  Because the inner wheel is offset to the left and since rollers are pushed against the outer surface of the inner wheel and follow the path of the outer surface of the inner wheel, the outer structure has more inch pounds of force pushing down on the left side than on the right side.  The difference between the inch pounds of force pushing down on the left side and the inch pounds of force pushing down on the right side is the net force.  If the net force is greater than the resisting force of rollers in contact with the outer surface of the inner wheel, the outer structure should rotate to the left.

The basic principle of this design seems to be the same as the basic principle of the Bessler design for gravity motors that worked; with the springs used as they are, a gravity motor based on this design seemingly can have much more power than any of the gravity motors built by Bessler.  With the springs on the outside, a roller can be 4 feet long and be supported by two support arms and two springs.  With springs that push rollers down by pulling on the other side of the turning points it seems the force applied to the rollers by the springs can be controlled better (amount of force and direction of force) than in the case of a gravity motor built by Bessler.

The inner wheel of a gravity motor based on this design can be moved to the center position of the outer structure so that the outer structure would be in balance, and the outer structure would stop rotating.  If the inner wheel were moved to the right of the center position of the outer structure, the outer structure seemingly would rotate in the reverse direction.  With this design Larry believes that a gravity motor could be built that would be practical (enough power and not too heavy) for use as a car engine, and would not need a transmission system, and could be used to reduce the forward speed of the car by moving the inner wheel slightly into the reverse position. 

 

 

Gravity Motor Design GM040508

A picture of a drawing of a design for a gravity motor with springs that pull rollers against the inner surface of the inner wheel.  In this case there are two independent parts, the outer structure and the inner wheel.  The inner wheel does not need to rotate.  If the inner wheel is supported by a ball bearing and did rotate, the resistance of rollers in contact with the inner surface of the inner wheel would be less.  The rollers and the spring-powered supports are part of the outer structure, and the outer structure would be the rotating part of the motor that produces the force of the gravity motor because of being continuously out of balance.  Because the inner wheel is offset to the left and since rollers are pushed against the inner surface of the inner wheel and follow the path of the inner surface of the inner wheel, the outer structure has more inch pounds of force pushing down on the left side than on the right side.  The difference between the inch pounds of force pushing down on the left side and the inch pounds of force pushing down on the right side is the net force.  If the net force is greater than the resisting force of rollers in contact with the inner surface of the inner wheel, the outer structure should rotate to the left.

The basic principle of this design seems to be the same as the basic principle of the Bessler design for gravity motors that worked; with the springs used as they are, a gravity motor based on this design seemingly can have much more power than any of the gravity motors built by Bessler.  With the springs on the outside, a roller can be 4 feet long and be supported by two spring-powered supports.

The inner wheel of a gravity motor based on this design can be moved to the center position of the outer structure so that the outer structure would be in balance, and the outer structure would stop rotating.  If the inner wheel were moved to the right of the center position of the outer structure, the outer structure seemingly would rotate in the reverse direction.  With this design Larry believes that a gravity motor could be built that would be practical (enough power and not too heavy) for use as a car engine, and would not need a transmission system, and could be used to reduce the forward speed of the car by moving the inner wheel slightly into the reverse position. 

 

 

Gravity Motor Design GM030908

Front and side-view pictures of drawings of a design for a gravity motor with small wheels with circular grooves (3) for guiding ball bearings on round pieces of metal (2).  In this case there are two independent sections, the big wheels (4) and the small wheels (3).  The small wheels do not rotate; the small wheels are supported by bearings on the upper shaft so the small wheels can be put in the forward position, the neutral position, or the reverse position; a mechanical adjuster could be attached to the bottom rod (6) for changing the rotation direction of the big wheels.  The big wheels rotate with the rotating center shaft and are welded to the rotating center shaft.  In the drawing eight precision-ground and hardened shaft rods go through sixteen linear ball bearings.  The round pieces of metal with ball bearings on each end, the linear ball bearings, and the precision-ground and hardened shaft rods are part of the big wheels (4).  The big wheels would be the rotating part of the gravity motor that produces the force of the gravity motor because of being continuously out of balance.  When the small wheels (3) are offset to the left and since ball bearings on round pieces of metal are guided by the circular grooves in the small wheels, the big wheels have more inch pounds of force pushing down on the left side than on the right side.  The difference between the inch pounds of force pushing down on the left side and the inch pounds of force pushing down on the right side is the net force.  If the net force is greater than the resisting force of the ball bearings in contact with the circular grooves in the small wheels, the big wheels should rotate to the left.

A round piece of metal with two ball bearings on each end could be four feet long and 2 1/2 inches in diameter.  The inner ball bearing on one end of the round piece of metal would be offset enough in relation to the outer ball bearing (with a smaller inside diameter) on the same end of the round piece of metal so that one ball bearing would contact only the outside part of the groove in the small wheel, and so that the other ball bearing would contact only the inside part of the groove in the small wheel.  On the inside next to the ball bearings on each end of the round metal would be a hole for a press fit for a precision-ground and hardened shaft rod; the shaft rod also could be welded after the shaft rod had been pressed to the correct position.  Two press-fit bearing surfaces (the outer bearing surface offset slightly in relation to the inner bearing surface and with a smaller outside diameter) and a thread for a nut to hold the bearings in place would be at each end of the round metal.

If a prototype were built based on the above pictures, a small wheel would be on the outside in relation to a big wheel, and the small wheel would have rigid supports (1) going on the outside of the big wheels; the rigid supports would connect with a small wheel on the other end of the gravity motor.  The prototype would have two big wheels connected by the central rotating shaft.  The prototype would have two small wheels that could be turned to the neutral position so that the big wheels would be in balance, and the big wheels would stop rotating.  If the small wheels were turned to the reverse position, the big wheels seemingly would rotate in the reverse direction.  The gravity motor would be supported by a stand (5) connected to the center rotating shaft with ball bearings.

The design for a gravity motor described above is based on the Bessler design for a gravity motor that worked.  The two small wheels on the outside of the two big wheels function the same as the inner wheel-pendulum in the Bessler design.  The two big wheels on the inside of the two small wheels function the same as the outer wheel in the Bessler design.

 

 

Gravity Motor Design GM120707

(1) Top of outer wheel
(2) Arm with bearing connection to outer wheel and with bearing connection to weight
(3) Weight
(4) Side of outer wheel 
(5) Arm with bearing connection to offset shaft and with tight connection to weight
(6) Offset inner shaft (controlled by forward-neutral-reverse lever)
(7) Forward-neutral-reverse lever 

A picture of a drawing of a design for a gravity motor with independent arms instead of an inner wheel, each arm connected to an independent bearing at the center of the circle formed by the eight weights offset to the left.

 

 

Gravity Motor Design GM120307

A picture of a drawing of a design for a gravity motor with eight separate inner wheels, each of the inner wheels for one weight and one linear ball bearing on a swiveling holder.  In the drawing eight precision-ground and hardened shaft rods that are part of the outer wheel go through eight linear ball bearings on swiveling holders, one linear ball bearing and one swiveling holder for each of the eight inner wheels.  The motor could be four feet in diameter and twelve feet wide, with inner wheels on each side and an outer wheel on each side.  Each square in the drawing can represent 544 lbs of 4" x 4" x 10' steel connecting an inner wheel on one side of the motor to an inner wheel on the other side of the motor.

 

 

Gravity Motor Design GM121407

A picture of a drawing of a design for a gravity motor with independent arms instead of an inner wheel, each arm connected to an independent bearing at the center of the circle formed by four weights offset to the left, and each arm connected to the outer wheel with a linear ball bearing in a swiveling holder.

 

 

Spring Motor

A picture of a drawing of a design for a gravity-effect motor; if the motor worked, the inner structure would rotate, and the motor could be stopped by pulling back the inner and outer surfaces on the outer wheel; (1) = stationary outer wheel; (2) = rotating inner structure.]

A prototype based on this design was completed on November 20, 2008, and did not work.  It seems the lines of force are through the center of the circle (the axis) through the centers of the wheels, and it seems each of the lines of force is perpendicular to the surface where a wheel makes contact, resulting in a straight-down push without any push to one side or the other.

 

 

Magnet Motors

A picture of a drawing of a design for a gravity-effect motor that uses magnets; if the motor worked, the center of rotation (green dot), the two length-adjusting arms, the two magnets, and the four wheels would rotate; the metal on each side of the magnets and the metal the wheels roll on do not rotate.  If the motor worked, the motor could be stopped by pulling back the metal on each side of the magnets.

 

This picture represents a hypothesis.  As of 7-18-2009 Larry believes this hypothesis is not correct.

A picture of a drawing of a design for a gravity-effect motor that uses magnets; if the motor worked, the center of rotation, the length-adjusting arms, the magnets, and the wheels would rotate; the metal on each side of the magnets and the metal the wheels roll on do not rotate.  If the motor worked, the motor could be stopped by pulling back the metal on each side of the magnets.

When the magnet is in the upper half of the circle, the magnet is pulling toward the inside area of the circle, and the inside wheel is in contact with metal, and the outside wheel has a space between the outside wheel and the metal.  When the magnet is in the lower half of the circle, the magnet is pulling toward the outside area of the circle, and the outside wheel is in contact with metal, and the inside wheel has a space between the inside wheel and the metal.

(If the motor worked) because the center of rotation is offset to the left, the inside wheel in effect is going down-hill when the magnet is in the upper half of the circle.  (If the motor worked) because the center of rotation is offset to the left, the outside wheel in effect is going down-hill when the magnet is in the lower half of the circle.  (If the motor worked) the greater the force of the magnet, the greater the force on the wheel, and the greater the rotational force on the center of rotation (the rotating shaft that stays offset to the left of the center of the circle).

Since there are not any opposing magnetic forces against the magnet, the millions of domains within the magnet stay lined up, and the magnet does not lose pulling force over time.  (If the motor worked) this motor would be a perpetual motion device since the device could run for years and continue to put out as much rotational force as when the device was first used.

 

Hypothesis (7-29-2009)

 

Hypothesis (8-23-2009)

This motor is to be in the horizontal or flat position in order to neutralize the effect of gravity caused by Planet Earth.

A picture of a drawing of a design for a gravity-effect motor that uses magnets; if the motor worked, the center of rotation, the linear bearing supports (a linear bearing support for each arm), and the magnets would rotate counter-clockwise; the metal on the side of the magnets and the metal the wheels roll on do not rotate.  If the motor worked, the motor could be stopped by pulling up the metal on the side of the magnets.

When a magnet is in the upper half of the circle, the magnet is pulling toward the inside area of the circle, and the wheel is in contact with the inside metal.  When a magnet is in the lower half of the circle, the magnet is pulling toward the outside area of the circle, and the wheel is in contact with the outside metal, and the wheel has a space between the wheel and the inside metal.

(If the motor worked) because the center of rotation is offset to the left, the wheel in effect is going down-hill when the magnet is in the upper half of the circle.  (If the motor worked) because the center of rotation is offset to the left, the wheel in effect is going down-hill when the magnet is in the lower half of the circle.  (If the motor worked) the greater the force of the magnet, the greater the force on the wheel, and the greater the rotational force on the center of rotation (the rotating shaft that stays offset to the left of the center of the circle).

Since there are not any opposing magnetic forces against the magnet, the millions of domains within the magnet stay lined up, and the magnet does not lose pulling force over time.  (If the motor worked) this motor would be a perpetual motion device since the device could run for years and continue to put out as much rotational force as when the device was first used.

 

Hypothesis (9-6-2009)

 

Hypothesis (9-6-2009)

This motor is to be in the horizontal or flat position in order to neutralize the effect of gravity caused by Planet Earth.

A picture of a drawing of a design for a gravity-effect motor that uses a magnet; if the motor worked, the center of rotation, the arms, the magnet, and the wheels would rotate counter-clockwise; the metal on the side of the magnet and the metal the wheels roll on do not rotate.  If the motor worked, the motor could be stopped by pulling or pushing to the side the metal near the magnet.

The center of rotation is not offset; the two wheels in effect are going down-hill.  Since the circles are concentric, full power is applied to the metal the wheels role on all the way around the circle.  (If the motor worked) the greater the force of the magnet, the greater the force on the wheels, and the greater the rotational force on the center of rotation (the rotating shaft that is in the center of the concentric circles).

Since there are not any opposing magnetic forces against the magnet, the millions of domains within the magnet stay lined up, and the magnet does not lose pulling force over time.  (If the motor worked) this motor would be a perpetual motion device since the device could run for years and continue to put out as much rotational force as when the device was first used.

 

Description of Force Direction

When an object (such as a wheel) is pushing on a point on a circle, and the center axis is the center of the circle; if the object (such as a wheel) is in motion (other than just turning), the force is in the direction of the motion; if the object (such as a wheel) is not in motion (other than just turning), the direction of force (going away from or toward the center axis) is along a line that goes through the center axis.

If this is true, the 9-6-2009 hypothesis is not correct.  Larry would like to build a prototype based on the 9-6-2009 design to find out one way or the other.

 

Hypothesis (10-1-2009, version 1)

This motor is to be in the horizontal or flat position in order to neutralize the effect of gravity caused by Planet Earth.

A picture of a drawing of a design for a gravity-effect motor that uses magnets; if the motor worked, the center of rotation, the arms, and the magnets would rotate counter-clockwise; the metal on the side of the magnets does not rotate.  The pulley at the center axis (blue) is attached to the shaft, and does not move; red lines represent pulley belts.  If the motor worked, the motor could be stopped by pulling or pushing up or down the metal on the side of the magnets.

Since there are not any opposing magnetic forces against the magnets, the millions of domains within the magnets stay lined up, and the magnets seemingly do not lose pulling force over time.  (If the motor worked) it seems this motor would be a perpetual motion device since it seems the device could run for years and continue to put out as much rotational force as when the device was first used (if the pulling force of the magnets stayed the same).

 

Hypothesis (10-1-2009, version 2)

This motor is to be in the horizontal or flat position in order to neutralize the effect of gravity caused by Planet Earth.

A picture of a drawing of a design for a gravity-effect motor that uses magnets; if the motor worked, the center of rotation, the arms, the power-stroke-rod gear, and the magnets would rotate counter-clockwise; the metal on the side of the magnets and the outer gear do not rotate.  If the motor worked, the motor could be stopped by pulling or pushing up or down the metal on the side of the magnets.

Since there are not any opposing magnetic forces against the magnets, the millions of domains within the magnets stay lined up, and the magnets seemingly do not lose pulling force over time.  (If the motor worked) it seems this motor would be a perpetual motion device since it seems the device could run for years and continue to put out as much rotational force as when the device was first used (if the pulling force of the magnets stayed the same).

 

Hypothesis (10-1-2009, version 3)

This motor is to be in the horizontal or flat position in order to neutralize the effect of gravity caused by Planet Earth.

A picture of a drawing of a design for a gravity-effect motor that uses magnets; if the motor worked, the outer 44-tooth gear (blue) (attach to the power-stroke-rod), the magnets, and the assembly attached to the magnets would rotate counter-clockwise; the metal on the side of the magnets and the inner 44-tooth gear (purple) (attached to the non-rotating shaft) would not rotate.  If the motor worked, the motor could be stopped by pulling or pushing up or down the metal on the side of the magnets.

Since there are not any opposing magnetic forces against the magnets, the millions of domains within the magnets stay lined up, and the magnets seemingly do not lose pulling force over time.  (If the motor worked) it seems this motor would be a perpetual motion device since it seems the device could run for years and continue to put out as much rotational force as when the device was first used (if the pulling force of the magnets stayed the same).

 

Hypothesis (10-1-2009, version 4)

This motor is to be in the horizontal or flat position in order to neutralize the effect of gravity caused by Planet Earth.

A picture of a drawing of a design for a gravity-effect motor that uses magnets; if the motor worked, the outer 120-tooth gear, the magnets, and the assembly attached to the magnets would rotate counter-clockwise; the metal on the side of the magnets and the inner 120-tooth gear would not rotate.  If the motor worked, the motor could be stopped by pulling or pushing up or down the metal on the side of the magnets.

Since there are not any opposing magnetic forces against the magnets, the millions of domains within the magnets stay lined up, and the magnets seemingly do not lose pulling force over time.  (If the motor worked) it seems this motor would be a perpetual motion device since it seems the device could run for years and continue to put out as much rotational force as when the device was first used (if the pulling force of the magnets stayed the same).

 

Hypothesis (10-1-2009, version 5)

This motor is to be in the horizontal or flat position in order to neutralize the effect of gravity caused by Planet Earth.

A picture of a drawing of a design for a gravity-effect motor that uses magnets; if the motor worked, the outer 120-tooth gears, the magnets, and the assembly attached to the magnets would rotate counter-clockwise; the metal on the side of the magnets and the inner 120-tooth gear would not rotate.  If the motor worked, the motor could be stopped by pulling or pushing up or down the metal on the side of the magnets.

Since there are not any opposing magnetic forces against the magnets, the millions of domains within the magnets stay lined up, and the magnets seemingly do not lose pulling force over time.  (If the motor worked) it seems this motor would be a perpetual motion device since it seems the device could run for years and continue to put out as much rotational force as when the device was first used (if the pulling force of the magnets stayed the same).

 

Hypothesis (10-1-2009, version 6)

 

 

Hypothesis (10-16-2009)

These magnet motors (if they worked) probably would work best in the horizontal or flat position in order to neutralize the effect of gravity caused by Planet Earth.

Regarding hypothesis 10-1-2009, version 6, if the motor worked, the outer 120-tooth gears and the magnets would rotate counter-clockwise; the metal on the side of the magnets and the inner 120-tooth gear would not rotate.  The magnets are attached to the outer 120-tooth gears.  All five gears (six gears in the case of hypothesis 10-16-2009) should be made of material not reactive to a magnet such as aluminum, brass, bronze, or 300-series stainless steel.  If the motor worked, the motor could be stopped by pulling or pushing up or down the metal on the side of the magnets.

The motor also could be set up in such a way that the four outside gears are stationary except for turning; in this case the center gear would turn, and the metal at the side of the magnets would rotate clockwise as part of the assembly that includes the center gear.

Since there are not any opposing magnetic forces against the magnets, the millions of domains within the magnets stay lined up, and the magnets seemingly do not lose pulling force over time.  (If the motor worked) it seems this motor would be a perpetual motion device since it seems the device could run for years and continue to put out as much rotational force as when the device was first used (if the pulling force of the magnets stayed the same).

 

(1) Hypothesis (10-16-2009)

 

(2) Hypothesis (10-17-2009)

 

 

(3) Hypothesis (11-6-2009)

 

 

(4) Hypothesis (11-7-2009)

Attempts to increase power:  (1) by adding more gears, (2) by adding sprockets and chains, (3) by adding rods attached to bearings attached to gears, and (4) by adding rods attached to bearings attached to gears and by adding more gears.

 

 

Drawing a design for a gravity motor on paper is one thing; actually getting a prototype made is something else.  In the past it is possible that an inventor created a design for a gravity motor that would have paved the way for mass production of powerful and pollution-free gravity motors — if a prototype gravity motor had been made to prove that the inventor's design was practical.  In the USA many individuals can afford to buy their own equipment for making a prototype.

A big lathe probably is the most important item needed.  Larry McCart bought a vertical lathe on Ebay for $2,600 in 2005 (including free loading).  The lathe weighs 33,000 pounds, and has a 48-inch chuck and a 54-inch swing.  The 1960 Schiess Model KE125 single column vertical turret lathe (made in Germany and purchased for $40,000 in 1980 by the seller) was said to be in good working condition when it was replaced by a CNC lathe in 2003.  The machine was located near Sacramento, California, and the shipping cost was about $300.  A 44,000-pound-capacity crane was used to lift the machine off the truck and to gently set the machine down in a patio area located inside one of the buildings at Larry's manufacturing company.  Since three machines were unloaded from the truck by the crane, the crane cost for the 33,000 pound lathe was about $300.  At this location Larry has 3 CNC milling machines, 12 CNC lathes, 3 manual milling machines, 18 manual lathes, and excellent welding equipment.

The lathe in the picture below was purchased from a manufacturing company near Sacramento, California, for $325.  Said to be in good working condition after being replaced by a CNC machine in 2003, this 1937 American lathe with a 21-inch chuck, a 24-inch swing, 14-foot ways, and Aloris DA-series super precision quick change tool post ($869 in the KBC catalog) was purchased directly from the Sacramento company after Larry telephoned to arrange shipping for the 33,000-pound Schiess lathe that Larry bought through Ebay.  Larry asked if they had any other big lathes they wanted to sell, and he said yes, and this was the lathe they had.  The estimated scrap value of the 1937 American lathe was $325, and this was the price of the lathe including free loading onto the truck.  The American lathe weighs about 15,000 pounds, and was delivered on the same truck as the 33,000-pound Schiess lathe.  The shipping cost was about $300 for the 1937 American lathe, and the crane cost was about $300 for putting the 1937 American lathe in Larry's factory.

 

 

 

Alternative Energy Today

   

by Larry McCart

   

Why are gravity motors and magnet motors not in general use today for producing electricity and for powering cars and trucks?  Is it a conspiracy of the oil companies as some believe?  The answer is no.  Larry is part of the US Oil Industry as the number one producer of some of the parts used in oil well pumps, and Larry is aware of the moral, honest, socially responsible behavior of those who run the US Oil Industry.  US oil companies have been active in a number of alternative energy areas including wind energy, solar energy, and hydro-electric energy.  US oil companies are well-positioned to develop, promote, and profit from better ways of providing energy, and are leaders in bringing new technology to the nation for providing energy.

The US Oil Industry would like to have "free energy" motors in order to save billions of dollars in electricity costs for oil well pumping units.  The oil industry would prosper if technology developed by Viktor Klimov were released to US citizens by the US federal government, since plastics, some fertilizers, pharmacy-related products, paints, cleaning agents, many different chemical products, nylon, lubricating oils, and lubricating greases are made from crude oil; demand for these products would go up as the US standard of living went up.

Most of the crude oil produced in California comes from Kern County, especially the Taft area and the Bakersfield area.  Many talented welders and engineers reside in the Bakersfield area.  Larry was told by one Bakersfield welder that he built a working gravity motor, and a reliable source told Larry that another Bakersfield welder built a gravity motor that produces about 500 horse power.

If someone were to try to make available to the general public a gravity-motor-powered car that had the potential of being mass produced, what would happen?  It has been reported that Nikola Tesla developed a "free energy" car similar to a "free energy" gravity-motor-powered car.  In 1931 with the help of Pierce-Arrow Manufacturing Company and George Westinghouse, the report says that Nikola Tesla replaced the gas engine of a new Pierce-Arrow with an 80-horsepower alternating-current motor.  While sitting in the driver's seat, the report says he pushed some rods into a 24" x 12" x 6" box, and said now we have power, and proceeded to test drive the car for a week, at speeds up to 90 mph.  According to the report, there were not any batteries connected to the electric motor, just wires from the box.  Where did the power come from?  According to the report, Tesla was attacked in the press.  As a result of  the problems, the report says that he removed his equipment and returned to his New York City laboratory.  During 1943 the FBI instructed the government's Alien Property Custodian office to take possession of his papers and property.  The US federal government declared his seized papers to be top secret.

As of September 30, 2010, there were 5,135 inventions under secrecy orders of the US federal government, according to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.  Under the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951, patent applications on new inventions can be subject to secrecy orders restricting their publication if US federal government officials believe that disclosure would be "detrimental to national security".  Patents for solar photovoltaic generators were subject to review and possible restriction if the photovoltaics were more than 20% efficient.  Energy conversion systems were likewise subject to review and possible restriction if they offered conversion efficiencies in excess of 80%.  Those who do not obey the Invention Secrecy Act of 1951 can be arrested, put on trial and convicted, and then fined $10,000 and locked up in a US federal government prison for 2 years.

Because of information from the internet regarding unknown factors and threats to "free energy" promoters, the commercial sale of magnet motors and gravity motors is not recommended; if you build one for yourself, keep it a secret.  Your life will depend on keeping your working motor a secret if some advisors are correct.  NSA (National Security Agency of the US federal government) is on the look-out for "disruptive technology", and, according to some advisors, if NSA information indicates the motor is a real threat to the world's energy cartels, the US federal government will arrange to have an assassination team steal the working motor and kill the inventor or promoter of the working motor to prevent this "disruptive technology" from causing severe financial damage to the world's energy cartels.  In California a popular idea is to generate electricity that the electric power supplier will accept back into the grid so that the customer receives a check each month instead of a bill.

 

Click here for recording of Larry talking

   

Making a prototype motor

   

Pictures and descriptions from previous months

   

An excellent source of information on attempts to build gravity motors:

Donald Simanek website

    

[1] From Apologia Poetica by Johann Bessler:  

"Though I acknowledge that my pride has many times caused great problems for me as I have yielded to the binding snares of the Devil, with my repentance I now do not believe that God requires that I reveal this thing from God to a greedy world by removing the covering over the inner wheel-pendulum without being properly paid for my invention."

[2] Editing includes the inclusion of additional information from Bessler from other sources, and deductions resulting because of studying information from Bessler from other sources.

Other Translations:

 

From:  Das Triumphirende Perpetuum Mobile Orffyreanum From:  Perpetuum Mobile by Dircks

"I put all in fresh order, and began work in all possible haste, doing everything in the manner of those I had already made and destroyed, with only a few changes in the dimensions of the so-named turning-wheel.  For as a grindstone may be called a wheel, so may the principal part of my machine be named.  The outward part of this wheel is drawn over or covered with waxed linen in the form of a drum.  This cylindrical basis was 12 Rhenish feet in diameter, the thickness from 15 to 18 inches, the middle axle 6 feet long and 8 inches in thickness.  It is supported in its movement on two pointed steel balance-pegs, each 1 inch thick; and the wheel is vertically suspended.  The movement is modified by two pendulums, as shown in the engraving at the end of this book.  The inward structure of the wheel is of a nature according to the laws of mechanical perpetual motion, so arranged that by disposed weights once in rotation they gain force from their own swinging, and must continue their movement as long as their structure does not lose its position and arrangement."

Re-Organized

"I put all in fresh order, and began work in all possible haste, doing everything in the manner of those I had already made and destroyed, with only a few changes in the dimensions of the so-named turning-wheel.  The outward part of this wheel is drawn over or covered with waxed linen in the form of a drum.  This cylindrical basis was 12 Rhenish feet in diameter, the thickness from 15 to 18 inches, the middle axle 6 feet long and 8 inches in thickness.  It is supported in its movement on two pointed steel balance-pegs, each 1 inch thick; and the wheel is vertically suspended.  The movement is modified by two pendulums, as shown in the engraving at the end of this book.

For as a grindstone may be called a wheel, so may the principal part of my machine be named.  The inward structure of the wheel is of a nature according to the laws of mechanical perpetual motion, so arranged that by disposed weights once in rotation, they gain force from their own swinging, and must continue their movement as long as their structure does not lose its position and arrangement."

 

From:  Das Triumphirende Perpetuum Mobile Orffyreanum Provided by Al Bacon Translation by Ted of Chicago

"Except for a small change in the external dimensions of the wheel for raising weights (or so-called "running wheel"), I have organized everything together in accordance with those structures of the previous machine which I had broken to pieces. These small changes occurred by chance and do not need to be defended.

Around the firmly placed horizontal axis is a rotating disc (low or narrow cylinder) which resembles a grindstone.  This disc can be called the principle piece of my machine.  Accordingly, this wheel consists of an external wheel (or drum) for raising weights which is covered with stretched linen.  The base of the cylinder is 12 Rhenish feet in diameter.  The height (or thickness) is between 15 and 18 inches.  The axle (or shaft) passing through the center is 6 feet long and 8 inches thick cross-sectionally.  While in motion it is supported by two almost one-inch-thick tapered steel pegs, whose two bearings (or sockets) with two curves around the axle provide the rotational motion of the whole vertically suspended wheel through application of pendula, which can be somewhat modified, as the attached figures at the end of this treatise clearly show.

The internal structure of this drum (or wheel) consists of weights arranged according to several a priori, that is, scientifically demonstrable, laws of mechanical perpetual motion. After the wheel completes a single rotation, or after a single force is applied to the wheel, the motion drives the wheel unceasingly.  As long as the wheel’s whole structure does not change, the wheel continues its revolutions without any further assistance from external motive power."

Re-Organized

"Except for a small change in the external dimensions of the wheel for raising weights (or so-called "running wheel"), I have organized everything together in accordance with those structures of the previous machine which I had broken to pieces.  These small changes occurred by chance and do not need to be defended.  Accordingly, this wheel consists of an external wheel (or drum) for raising weights which is covered with stretched linen.  The base of the cylinder is 12 Rhenish feet in diameter.  The height (or thickness) is between 15 and 18 inches.

The axle (or shaft) passing through the center is 6 feet long and 8 inches thick cross-sectionally.   While in motion it is supported by two almost one-inch-thick tapered steel pegs, whose two bearings (or sockets) with two curves around the axle provide the rotational motion of the whole vertically suspended wheel through application of pendula, which can be somewhat modified, as the attached figures at the end of this treatise clearly show.

Around the firmly placed horizontal axis is a rotating disc (low or narrow cylinder) which resembles a grindstone.  This disc can be called the principle piece of my machine.  [Note added by Larry McCart:  'Around the firmly placed horizontal axis is a rotating disc (low or narrow cylinder) that resembles a grindstone'.  Since the shaft rotates this means that this disc or inner wheel has the potential to remain upright and not rotate as the outer wheel rotates and as the shaft rotates within the inner wheel.  Bessler called this inner wheel an inner wheel-pendulum.  A pendulum hangs upright as the shaft within moves.] 

The internal structure of this drum (or wheel) consists of weights arranged according to several a priori, that is, scientifically demonstrable, laws of mechanical perpetual motion.  After the wheel completes a single rotation, or after a single force is applied to the wheel, the motion drives the wheel unceasingly.  As long as the wheel’s whole structure does not change, the wheel continues its revolutions without any further assistance from external motive power."