Bessler's Wheel and the Orffyreus Code

The Italian Orffyreus documentary and the Pentalpha.

2012-01-26T07:16:00.000Z

RAI, the Italian state owned public service broadcaster who commissioned the "Orffyreus" documentary, have said that FarmStudios cannot send me a DVD of the finished documentary as they don't want anyone outside of production to see it before it's aired, which is fair enough in my opinion. But it does mean that I won't be able to offer copies to anyone for the time being. Of course should pirated copies appear at some point in the future, then there is nothing one can do about that. I am to be given a preview in the next few days, so I'll report about it as and when I can.

My current position with the Bessler build is stationary, like the wheels I've built so far! I've got the flu. I have a plan mapped out for when I can get back to work and it is looking promising - how many times have I heard myself say that before? I am still working with the same basic concept which I worked out some eighteen months ago and I'm still convinced that it is the way to go. It answers all the questions raised and I'm confident it will work. The mechanisms are complex in a way that would not be obvious to a spectator, such as Karl. I can see why he described them as simple. It's one thing to see the finished article and how it works - but quite another to work out how to get it to do what you want it to do, when you don't know the exact design or the dimensions.

In answer to my previous post about the pentagrams and the number 5s, in Bessler's works, I've come to the conclusion he was trying to point us to the alternative word for pentagram, reputedly used by the Pythagorians, which was pentalpha. Some people think of the pentagram as three interlaced triangles, but others describe it as having five upper case interlocking letter As, and that seem to me to be the more in line with Bessler's thinking. We have seen the interest in the besslerwheel forum in the famous 'A with legs': THE primemover? thread and this supports the idea.

It is well-known that Bessler used alternating letter As throughout his "Maschinen Tractate", sometimes with a straight cross-bar and sometimes with a bent one. He did not do this for any other reason than to point to its importance. I'm sure that this simple lever design is incorporated within the mechanism, and the successful design will require it.

That ubiquitous number five again, the Freemasons, Alchemy and Hermeticism!

2012-01-24T17:13:00.000Z

As we all know, one thing that Bessler's codes has thrown up is the frequent appearance of 5, 55 and 555. I have suggested that it either points to chapter 55 of Johann Bessler's Apologia Poetica - and/or it is a hint that five mechanisms are needed in each direction for the bi-directional wheel. But nothing is certain and I would not wish to become so dogmatic that I miss an alternative meaning.

I would be the first to admit that the evidence that there were five mechanisms is non-existent, and if I'm wrong, then one must assume that the large number of coded number 5s only points to Chapter 55 in Apologia. If it is connected with the presence of a coded message hidden in chapter 55 of Apologia Poetica, the evidence for which is undeniable, why did he choose the number 55? Was it chance? I think the presence of hidden pentagrams, hinting at the same number in all the drawings in other books rules out chance. He left so many other pointers to that Chapter, within the Apologia, not forgetting the strange list of 141 bible references, that the pentagrams seem to be superfluous.

In support of the idea that the chapter number 55 was not the only reason for the presence of the pentagrams, remember that none of the drawings containing the pentagrams appear in Apologia Poetica but rather, in the later publication Das Triumphirende, which came out four years later in a much more professional publication. if they were pointing to the chapter 55 in Apologia Poetica one would think there would have been included, some kind of link to that former publication, or did he think people would remember the earlier one and make the connection themselves? Very doubtful, and probably most people would not have even heard of the Apologia, since Bessler had only just started on his journey when it was published.

So the choice to use chapter 55 was deliberate, not chance; the pentagrams while pointing to the chapter 55 are not necessarily exclusively for that purpose, and the need for five mechanisms is not proven. We are left with the mystery of why 55 and what does it mean?

I did a little surfing on the matter. A random query into google led me to the Washington Monument and its extraordinary measurements. Now there are a considerable amount of spurious facts attached to this structure and it is hard to distil the truth from them but this is what I believe is correct.

Several heights have been specified, in the past, but the consensus seems to be 555 and half feet and one eighth of an inch. Let us suppose that the intended height of the Washington monument was meant to be 555.5 feet above ground - that is equal to exactly 6666 inches. A nice round figure and far more likely to be the right number than some figure plus an 1/8 th of an inch as is suggested. Mind you, there are reports that the aluminium capstone on top of the pillar has been struck so many times by lightning that it has lost just under half an inch in height which, if we include the important eighth of an inch, would give a height of 555.55 feet! And that would give us 6666.6 inches!

At ground level the sides are 55.5 feet (666 inches) long. Ok so there appears to be an obsession with the number 5 (or its inch equivalent, 6) - but why? I'm well aware of the 5's ubiquitous associations with alchemy, hermeticism, the Kabbala and freemasonry, and in particular the frequent association of the Washington Monument with the Freemasons....but not why that particular number! Yes there are numerous references to the number in freemasonry etc, but no one has come up with any good reason as far as I can tell why the number 5 is so important to them. The pentagram is the most obvious geometric figure associated with the number five and that seems to have been in Bessler's mind too. It has links with the planet Venus because the path is (very) roughly pentagonal...so what? The skull, book and jar in Bessler's portrait also have links to Venus in symbolic art....and to Mary Magdalen...and she too has links to Venus! We're going around in circles here (sorry!) and perhaps that was intentional. But why five? What was it that Bessler was hinting at? If we really knew why the freemasons were so captivated by the number 5, 55 or 555 etc, maybe we could get a glimpse of what Bessler was trying to tell us.

These different features of Bessler's books - the skull, jar and book, the hidden pentagrams, the various encoded 5s - all seem to point towards some kind of arcane belief system, but what it is, I don't know.

I have searched and searched for years and there is nothing of practical use for our purposes to be found in the inclusion of the the number 5, so the 5s are hinting at something else. But what?

If anyone has any ideas about why Bessler included the number 5s I'd be pleased to know. I understand, technoguy, your conviction that the design incorporates a pentagram within it - and you may be right, but I don't rule out anything else.

JC

The Orffyreus Code - were others aware of it in the 18th Century?

2012-01-19T06:39:00.000Z

I passed on my copy of Bessler's 'Das Triumphirende' to a fellow Bessler admirer, David, with some regret, but pleased that he also has an interest in this particular copy. Inside the frontispiece is a label which reveals that the book came from the library of Emmy Destinn, a world famous Czech opera singer (1878 - 1930). Destinn's close links with the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden in London are shared by David, a fine violinist with the same company.

Destinn's talents were many and varied - and not only musical. She also wrote plays, novels, short stories, librettos, and poetry; painted on canvas and porcelain; and translated and composed songs. She wrote her first play at the age of 16, and by 18 had followed that with three more. She spoke five languages fluently and wrote her literary work in Czech and German. But David had the same questions as I had - how did she come to own this particular book?

It seems that at the peak of her career she bought the beautiful castle at Stráž nad Nežárkou in Southern Bohemia. Since she moved in, in 1914, Destinn furnished the castle with a great collection of art, antiques and books on all subjects, bought while touring the world. One might be tempted to think that she acquired a copy of Das Tri during her travels, but in my opinion it is more likely to have been collected by the previous owner, Baron Adolf Franz Leonhardi, a man with a keen interest in the occult who held a number of seances at the castle. He accumulated a huge library of esoteric books, many on the subject of hermeticism and alchemy as well as freemasonry.

If the book was acquired by Leonhardi then it may be that he was aware of certain traditions attached to Bessler's books. I have never accepted that I was the first and only person to discover the existence of the pentagrams and hence the other coded items included in the books. If others were aware of secrets within the books and made their own interpretations of the mysterious features of the double portraits, for instance, then they may have recorded their findings somewhere or corresponded with others to share their knowledge. In some archive, museum or private collection there may well be a record of these findings.

It's fun to speculate but I don't want to start down the slippery slope of conjecture - and without evidence there is nothing to base an opinion on. I merely pass on my thoughts for entertainment purposes!

Unable open or edit blog in Internet Explorer thank google - for nothing!

2012-01-15T13:28:00.000Z

I am unable to read comments in Internet Explorer (IE) because google chrome have made alterations to the blog. I can still read them through firefox and, of course, chrome - but I don't like chrome because I can't have my norton identity-safe toobar. I'm not used to firefox although I could do I suppose.

I have opened up another blog at http://besslerswheel.wordpress.com/ but I'm not sure whether to abandon this one or stay. I can of course use chrome but I object to the way they've done this, and I am not alone.

Can people still comment here? Try and let me know, should I stay or should I go?

JC

Remote Viewing, Psychometry and the 'sixth sense', as a way to get more information?

2012-01-09T19:19:00.000Z

I have always tried to maintain an open mind to everything and yet I remain deeply sceptical of the possibility that one can retrieve information from a previous time by remote viewing (Rv). But there are certain aspects to an episode of Rv which was carried out on my behalf in 2008, which have left my wall of disbelief slightly dented. I can however provide a possible explanation for the particular report which does at least allow the retrieval of information by some as yet unknown mechanism, in real time - the notorious sixth sense?

Six remote viewers were set the task of attempting to 'see' what Bessler was doing on 6th June 1712. All they were required to do was try to retrieve something, anything, relating to Bessler, Gera, etc, but they were not actually given anything other than an eight-numbered file reference - no names, no dates,no places and no object information - no information at all. This was a highly professional set-up which it was hoped might offer some convincing evidence of its usefulness, so the strictest protocols were applied to the process.

The six reports which I read were disappointing to say the least. I saw nothing in them to grab hold of and I regretfully filed them and forgot about them. Recent discussions on the subject prompted me to read them again and I was astonished to discover one report which I had somehow overlooked. I was looking at this particular one and noticed for the first time that a simple drawing of a house looked a bit like one of my photos of Bessler's windmill. Adjacent to the drawing was a handwritten comment which said "somewhat ornate structure? Top is wrong!" My first thought was that Bessler never finished his windmill, but it was finished later as a simple building without the windmill superstructure. Perhaps the remote viewer had sensed the top was unfinished or altered. But the most extraordinary thing about the report was the prostrate figure lying on the ground at the foot of the house, with the words next to it, " trip - fall" and nearbye the word,"surprise!"

Could the R-viewer really have 'seen' Bessler's fall to his death?

Elsewhere there are several references to the letter "W" and words such as "w unbuckled" which could be interpreted as the letter 'w' split into two 'v's. This, as many, who are aware of my work on the 'Orffyreus Code' know, is one of the most ubiquitous examples of his code.

The problem I have with this is that one cannot really go back in time, in my opinion, but one might be able to retrieve information from someone such as myself in real time. If the latter proposition is possible then we shall find nothing other than that which is in my head or someone else's. This is not to say that it is not an amazing feat and certainly it would prove useful for finding missing persons for instance, but it is doubtful that it will prove of any use to we who seek further information about Bessler.

There is one even remoter possibility that has been suggested to me in the past. Psychometry is the ability or art of divining information about people or events associated with an object solely by touching or being near to it. Wikipedia says that it is a form of extra-sensory perception characterized by the claimed ability to make relevant associations from an object of unknown history by making physical contact with that object. Supporters assert that an object may have an energy field that transfers knowledge regarding that object's history.

It was suggested that my copy of Das Tri might prove a suitable subject for this process, so I sought help in finding a recognised practitioner - I failed to find one who was prepared to do it for nothing other than one elderly gentlemean who unfortunately lived too far away for an appointment to be possible. I have since then passed my copy onto another more careful owner so I can no longer attempt to obtain information this way, but it still seems that if information can adhere to an object and that information be retrieved at a later date then all is not necessarily lost.

I have no opinion about the validity or otherwise of this subject but I can point to a fascinating study carried out in 2007 which appears to support the theory that objects can retain some kind of information which can be read by those with that particular ability. http://psychometry.psican.org/news.html does seem to give a balanced report on a unique experiment which supports the possibility. Given the probability that the mechanism involved in remote viewing and psychometry are probably closely related, I would imagine that the right person might be able to 'read' the information available in my old copy of "Das Tri"- and my other books - without actally being in its presence!

An uncovered working wheel is easier to build.

2012-01-04T18:35:00.000Z

When Johann Bessler exhibited his wheels, they were of a certain depth or thickness, being covered on both sides of the wheel. I assume that the cross-bars or pivots upon which the levers or weights turned, ran across the internal depth of the wheel and each end was fixed to a piece of timber on each side of the wheel. Witnesses report that the sides of the wheel were covered with oil cloth and others that there were gaps in some thin timber planks that covered it. This suggests that the wheels were built in a skeletal framework with easy access from both sides as well as the circumferential edge, then the interior was hidden by the oil cloth or the thin wood deals - not as in my prototypes which consist of a single wood disc mounted on a removable axle.

Its hard to explain without a drawing but its a simple to understand; I call Bessler's wheel a three dimensional build having depth as well as height and width. For simplicity, my prototypes are built in a two dimensional way having height and width but not really any depth. By that I mean that the same cross-bars or pivots I referred to above are only attached on one end, in my case, to a single side disc, or back-plate, thus dispensing with the need for any kind of structure on each side of the wheel and allowing easy access and adjustment.

From Bessler's perspective his wheel had to built as a framework of pieces of timber rather than two discs because of the increased complexity of fitting the cross-bars and any associated mechanisms, in-between two discs, but I'm sure his experimental models were built in a similar way to mine because at first he only needed to make a proof of principle wheel for his own satisfaction, and then build something that would keep the internal mechanisms safe from prying eyes.

I had thought that if I was to succeed in making a working version I would need to either rebuild it with two solid discs, one for each side, to mount the mechanisms on, or try to attach to the open, uncovered side, some kind of covering to hide the internal workings. However when I decided that I wasn't going to keep the workings secret it was obvious that I could just go with the first working prototype. But now I'm aware of what a mess the basic disc I use to mount everything on is! Its got more holes in it than a hunk of Swiss cheese! The metal levers are similarly riddled with holes of assorted dimensions. What to do! In the end not much. I might apply a little paint to the disc to make the mechanisms show up against the background of the disc..... but I'm getting ahead of myself - first I have to build that working model!

A HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL

2011-12-31T18:24:00.001Z

I wish everyone a prosperous and successful 2012, but above all a HAPPY one.!

157 days to go to the 300th anniverary of Bessler's first wheel. Professor Hal Puthoff wrote in an email to me yesterday to say that he was "still standing ready to provide opportunity for globalizing a useful technology. May 2012 be the year!"

When I replied, I mentioned the 300th anniversary coming up and he said, "what a wonderful way to celebrate the 300th anniversary - to announce it had finally been replicated! I'll keep my fingers and toes crossed!"

I believe circumstances are driving us towards this anniversary and a successful replication of Bessler's wheel. Pollution from fossil fuels, increasing cost of recovering dwindling oil resevoirs, the lack of good alternative energy solutions - and the knowledge that the real solution lies almost with our grasp!

I believe it will happen in 2012 and I hope it will be me, but if anyone else does it I shall still be as happy as a dog with two tails!

Holiday Greetings!

2011-12-24T16:49:00.000Z

To my small but loyal band of readers and to the much larger number of anons who, according to my blog statistics, drop in, in their hundreds each week, to test the water ....

Have a great holiday and please accept my best wishes for a happy, healthy and prosperous new year.

As technoguy said in a comment,

I have a feeling of impending revelation growing stronger within me!

Thanks for that thought, technoguy, I share your anticipation, although I take the meaning of the word 'revelation' as ...the act of revealing or disclosing the internal workings of my finished Bessler's wheel to the whole world!

6th June 2012 - end of the great cycle - beginning of a continuous cycle!

2011-12-21T12:27:00.000Z

John Worton's comment about Venus transiting the Sun on 6th JUne 2012 got me thinking about the date some more and I googled it.

It seems that there will indeed be a transit of Venus across the Sun on that day, a wednesday. This is when the planet Venus passes directly between the Sun and Earth. During a transit, Venus can be seen from Earth as a small black disk moving across the face of the Sun. The duration of such transits is usually measured in hours, the most recent one, in 2004,lasted six hours. Six previous such events have occurred since the invention of the telescope (1631, 1639, 1761, 1769, 1874 and 1882).

But there are people who view such events with alarm or excitement, I'm not sure which. There is one group which is gathering people together at well-known sacred sites around the world to celebrate this event. I note Glastonbury is one; another is Belukha Mountain? I'd never heard of it but apparently it is in the Katun Mountains, and is the highest peak of the Altay Mountains in Russia. It is part of the World Heritage Site entitled Golden Mountains of Altai.

Belukha is a twin-peaked mountain massif that rises along the border of Russia and Kazakhstan, just north of the point where these two borders meet those of China and Mongolia. There are several small glaciers on the mountain. Of the two peaks, the eastern peak (4,506 m, 14,784 ft.) is higher than the western peak (4,440 m, 14,567 ft.). I cannot imagine how or why hoards of people plan to gather there! I don't know which peak they plan to meet on but they'll need oxygen and some mighty warm clothing!

According to their blurb, 'in many cultures this Venus Transit is considered a very special occasion. In one of the early Mayan books, the Dresden Codex, the beginning of the Great Cycle in August, 3114 BC is referred to as the "Birth of Venus". The Year 2012 is the end of this Great Cycle. Many American Indians from North and South America call 2012 the Year Zero. The Hopi Indians refer to this time of the coming of the Fifth World, and many prophecies have heralded this time of transition. Also in the ancient Vedic and Egyptian trandition Venus has a major role in the historical events on planet Earth. It's not surprising then that the second Venus transit of this decade falls in June, 2012, just six months from the end of the Mayan calendar in December 2012.'

Apparently....on June 6th 2012; the Sun, Moon, Venus and Earth will stand in one line in the Universe. All prophecies are referring to this specific moment in time. Many people all over the world are aware of that and will decide to go to sacred places to connect with each other, in order to transform the world to a higher level of existence...and many Evangelicals across America are convinced the 'rapture' is coming and the date is June 6th 2012.They say that many were against naming an exact day for fear of looking foolish if nothing happens but Wednesday, 6th June 2012 is becoming the day nominated for cataclysmic events across the globe during which the 40 odd million "saved" in America will literally "rapture " into heaven... leaving the rest of us to burn in hell ... !

I'm more than a little sceptical about all this ancient history prediction stuff but it certainly looks like an extremely apposite time for the second coming of Bessler's wheel! Let's do it!

6th June 1712 to 6th June 2012 300 years or 109,573 days.

2011-12-17T10:58:00.000Z

Someone has pointed out that the Gregorian Calendar was adopted in Germany in or around Bessler's time and can we accept the date of the 6th June as applicable today?

As we know, the 6th June 2012, will be the 300th anniversary of Bessler's first exhibition of his so-called Perpetual motion machine in Gera, Germany. Some of Bessler's accounts seem to suggest that he first set the wheel in motion on the 6th June 1712,as in his Apologia Poetica, "For, in 1712, during his stay at Gera in the Voigtland, he hit upon the genuine Prepondium, and so it was that on 6th June of that year he set in motion the first model of his Perpetual or self-moving Mobile, three and a half Leipzig Ell in diameter and four inches in thickness, for the very first time."

Whether that was the date of his first exhibition or the day he actually discovered the secret and set the wheel in motion for the first time doesn't really matter as we only have the date of the 6th June 1712 available. What might be important in determining the correct date for our anniverary is to discover whether this date incorporates the so-called 'New Style' dating or the 'Old style' dating. In England, dates in the Julian calendar that occur before the introduction of the Gregorian calendar in 1752 are termed Old Style. The initials 'O.S.' appearing after a date indicate it is in the Julian calendar. The initials 'N.S.' or the phrase 'Stylo novo', indicate the Gregorian calendar.

The Gregorian calendar, is the internationally accepted civil calendar.It was introduced by Pope Gregory XIII, after whom the calendar was named, by a decree signed on 24 February 1582. Although it was slow to be taken up even by Catholic countries, it eventually spread across the world, the last European country to adopt it was Greece in 1923.

The motivation for the Gregorian reform was that the Julian calendar assumes that the time between vernal equinoxes is 365.25 days, when in fact it is presently almost exactly 11 minutes shorter.The error between these values accumulated at the rate of about three days every four centuries. This is the basis for the use of the leap year. Every year that is exactly divisible by four is a leap year, except for years that are exactly divisible by 100; the centurial years that are exactly divisible by 400 are still leap years. For example, the year 1900 was not a leap year; the year 2000 was a leap year.

Because of the Protestant Reformation, however, many Western European countries did not initially follow the Gregorian reform, and maintained their old-style systems. Eventually other countries followed the reform for the sake of consistency. So despite the prudence of Pope Gregory's correction, many Protestant countries, including England, ignored the papal bull. In the Protestant states of Germany it was officially adopted in 1700 and the day following 18 February 1700, became 1st March 1700. So despite the factthat Britain did not adopt the new calendar until 1752, it is clear that we can accept the date of 6th June as according with the new style calendar.

I note that there are 172 days left between today and the 6th June next year - or 5 months and 20 days.

There have been since 6th June 1712, 299 years, 6 months, and 11 days - or 109,401 days. (thanks to http://www.convertunits.com/dates/)

Bessler's simple wheel bearings

2011-12-12T06:14:00.002Z

I think that discussions about the bearings on the forum have become too convoluted. There is nothing complex about them, in my opinion. If you have a load-bearing shaft rotating in a bearing shell, you have two components. The journal which is the end of the shaft, made of steel, iron or brass - and it rests in a bearing shell of a similar metal which, in Bessler's day, was filled with a thick grease, pig or goose fat or even bear grease. It is usually covered by the other half of the shell to protect it from ingress of dirt, which if it wasn't included, might add friction and thus wear to the moving parts. Bessler routinely removed the upper shell so that the spectators could examine and see that there was no possible external connection. The bearings (journals) were slightly tapered to control the axle's lateral movement and keep it centred within the shell.

This, from an account of the history of watermills. "Watermills utilised wooden axles and these generally had metal gudgeons held in place on the ends of the shafts using wedges and steel hoops, which allowed the wood axle to have a small metal tip on the end. These metal tips or 'journals' would then ride on an iron half-shell liberally greased with animal fat."

Finally this from wikipedia, "A plain bearing, or a friction bearing is the simplest type of bearing, comprising just a bearing surface and no rolling elements. Therefore the journal (i.e., the part of the shaft in contact with the bearing) slides over the bearing surface. The simplest example of a plain bearing is a shaft rotating in a hole."

There is only one place where the so-called 'curved' pieces which were said to extend outwards from the bearings on the end of the axle, are reported,and at is in Das Triumphirende - as per Stewart's translation which follows, 'They rest in their motion on two almost 1 inch thick, {am Ort} somewhat tapered steel pivots horizontal in the two sockets or bearings, [the pivots are] equipped with two curves, about which the rotary motion of the whole vertically suspended wheel can be somewhat modified by applying pendula on both sides, as the attached figures at the end of this treatise clearly show'. In other words there are no witness descriptions of these strange curved pieces because they never existed outside Bessler's imagination. He introduced them into Das Triumphirende for good reasons that I shall explain at a later date.

The Orffyreus documentary

2011-12-10T17:38:00.000Z

I returned from Rome on Thursday night having been invited to take part in an Italian documentary for RAI 2, a part of the government television network. The documentary is about Orffyreus or Bessler as we tend to refer to him. They have already filmed actors in period costume telling the basic story of Bessler and they wish to end it with an interview about him. The director had sent me a series of topics which they would ask me to comment on.

Bear in mind the questions were translated from Italian, so the phrasing is a little awkward.

The topics included:-

What is the perpetual motion?

Can you describe the character traits of Orffyreus?

Can you describe the first Orffyreus’s wheel?

Can you give us an overview of the writings of Bessler? What do they contain? Are they logical and comprehensible to the eyes of whoever? What messages have you succeeded in deciphering? Describe how the name Orffyreus is fruit of a manipulation.

Which rivalries did Orffyreus’s increasing reputation raise up? And Who were the most persistent opponents of Orffyreus and what actions did they put into practice?

Can you tell us what happened in Merseburg?

Which tests were done on the wheel exhibited in Kassel after the 54 days of isolation?

Who was interested in the Orffyreus’s discovery following the exhibition in Kassel?

We would like also for you to comment on the following: many people are wondering how the world would be today, if the professor Gravesande had not yielded to the temptation to spy on the secret mechanism of the wheel of Orffyreus. Already, because this gesture, which proved inadequate to understand the essence of the mechanism of the wheel, determined the end of every possibility that the secret of the invention was finally released. Orffyreus, in fact, cannot tolerate such an insult. Went rapturously, and in a gesture of baleful wrath destroyed violently also his last creation under the bewildered eyes of those present.

The Royal Society dropped each contact believing that they were dealing with a madman and the Landgrave quickly found an excuse to remove that visitor now deemed unpredictable and dangerous.

Not difficult subjects for me to comment on and yet, sat in front of a two cameras, the director, a sound man, two cameramen, an interpreter and the director's assistant plus the two owners of the house where it was filmed.... I froze! I got it together on the third or fourth take for the first question though! They will send me a copy of the finished product when it's ready and it is budgeted to be finished by December 31st!

I added some additional information concerning the coded material but I don't know how much, if any, they will include as it wasn't in the original specification.

I've included some pictures for your amusement!

Why gravity is a source of energy for continuous motion.

2011-12-02T16:16:00.000Z

Following some comments on my last blog, I thought I'd make my case again here rather than adding to the 60 or so comments already in.

I realise that the vast majority do not accept the possibility that a gravity-wheel can be driven continuously just by the force of gravity alone as, I believe, Bessler's was. But if I state my case often enough, maybe enough people, cleverer than I, will take it on board and devise a better explanation. Until then...

My analogy that the force of gravity was similar in its action to the wind or a current of water, and it was therefore perfectly reasonable to believe one could use it as a source of energy, is routinely scorned by most people. They have taken exception to the above analogy, ignoring the fact that is just an analogy. An analogy is an inference based on the idea that if two different things show a similarity in one sense, it may be possible to draw conclusions about other aspects of the thing. It is a way of looking at something differently to try to understand it. I was not suggesting that gravity was in fact either a 'wind' or a 'stream'.

The argument against, goes something like this. Air is a collection of gases, flowing molecules - and water is similar - and when they impact on certain surfaces we can make use of them to drive machinery - but, on the other hand, because gravity is an attraction between two masses, and there are no physical particles available (such as molecules of gas) to impact on the machinery in a way we can use, it is said that it is not capable of supplying energy in the way that Bessler seems to have done. But Bessler did not know about molecules or the laws affecting gravity; he could only observe and experiment. His empirical evidence gave him the answer, and as he said, "these weights are themselves the PM device, the 'essential constituent parts' which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force derived from the PM principle) indefinitely - so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity."

How anyone can read that sentence and not understand that it means he used gravity, is beyond me. But of course as some have suggested he might have been lying or incorporating hidden meaning within the text - or he didn't mean gravity alone. But for me it is plain and simple and he used gravity alone to drive his machine.

What gravity is, and what air and water are, is not relevant to my argument; the only thing that matters is that wind can move objects of mass, a current of water can move objects of mass and gravity can move objects of mass. It doesn't matter how they do it, just that they do.

One of the arguments used against the possibility of gravity as an energy source is that gravity represents potential energy. It's there if you've already put in the work. There's potential energy in a book on a shelf because you've lifted it and placed it there. Once you use that energy, when the book falls to the floor, it's gone until you lift it back up again. This is true - and it also applies to wind and water currents. Again, the work has to be put in first to gain the energy output. Release a balloon in the wind and watch it get carried along by the wind, and then grab it and take it back to the starting point (upwind) to release it again. Or put a toy boat in a stream and the same thing applies. It will float downstream and you can pick it up and take it back upstream again. Just because we have found a way of obtaining work from wind and water streams that converts the force of wind and water to rotational energy output, does not necessarily rule out the same potential conversion of the gravitational force.

And that defines a conservative force. Since the work done by wind and water currents can be reversed, i.e. the object moved can be taken back upstream, or upwind, to be released and able to be moved again, they are conservative forces, as is gravity. Notice the word up in upwind and upstream, its a clue.

I might not be able to add any comments for a day or two next week as I'm off to Rome on Tuesday and I'm busy writing some notes for the interview. I'll post a blog when I get back and tell you about it.

Bessler's Gravitywheel, the Bessler-Collins Project, an Italian Documentary and the five mechanisms discovery.

2011-11-23T10:11:00.000Z

Now that I've got the alternative theories about Bessler's wheel out of the way, we can return to my own theory that it was driven solely by gravity and that this does not violate any laws of physics. I know that not all of my readers agree totally with me but I'm certain that I will prove to be correct.

I'm writing a lengthy document, called the 'Bessler-Collins Project' which sets out my case and I will publish it when I'm happy with it. It incorporates all the clues, both graphic and textual, as well as the work I've done so far. I'm doing this just in case I drop off my perch prematurely!

I'm pleased to say that the Italian documentary is still on, and I'm just waiting on a date to travel to Rome.

I am back in the workshop and in the process of building the mechanism again and still making further discoveries in Bessler's papers - I've found further verification that he used five mechanisms and I know in this instance it does not refer to codes.

This implies that there is a sound reason for needing five mechanisms and I think I know why. Many people have suggested that one mechanisms would suffice to prove the wheel and I agree that it should certainly be able to initiate some rotation, but in my opinion it will be shown that it can only rotate the wheel so far and regardless of being in balance elsewhere it will not rotate further. I know why - or at least I think I do, but I prefer to keep quiet about that for now.

The Leiden Jar, static electricity, a solenoid and some springs!

2011-11-19T13:57:00.000Z

This is in response to a long email I received about the Leyden (Leiden jar). It is not my opinion, in fact I don't think it has anything to do with Bessler, but in case I'm wrong I thought I'd air the views of another, no matter how wacky - he's aware of my opinion of his ideas.

I mentioned in my biography on Bessler, the coincidence of Pieter van Musschenbroek, a professor of physics at Leiden University, inventing the Leiden jar, an early method of storing static electricity, in 1745 - the year Bessler died, (it was also discovered by Ewald Georg von Kleist in Germany the previous year). I had previously examined the remote possibility that Bessler used static electricity in some way to provide the additional force often suggested as necessary, to make a gravity-driven wheel complete a full rotation, and recently the idea has reappeared in a couple of emails.

The story of the first test of the Leiden jar and its effect on van Musschenbroek's student helper, Andreas Cunaeus, is well reported in wikipedia. He was virtually knocked out by the strength of the electric shock he received and was unwell for two days following. Van Musschenbroek went on to arrange some spectacular demonstrations of the power of the device, and after having experienced the shock himself he wrote, in a letter to his French colleague Réaumur, that the whole kingdom of France could not compel him to repeat the experience. The French priest Jean Antoine Nollet, a great popularizer of electrical phenomena, learned of the Leiden experiments via this letter and lost no time in contriving even more spectacular demonstrations. They culminated in one involving 700 monks joined in a circle to a Leiden jar!

It was suggested that if 's Gravesande, being a close friend and colleague of Musschenbroek, was so intently examining Bessler's wheel perhaps it was because he suspected some electric component at work within the wheel.

The static electricity stored in the Leiden jar was generated in the first place by transforming mechanical work into electric energy, usually by means of friction against a glass. Jan Ingenhousz invented an electrostatic machine made of plate glass - in 1746.

It will be recalled that Pieter van Musschenbroek, was the guy who was contacted by Daniel Schumacher, Peter the Great's librarian, charged with buying experimental equipment for his universities and of course it was Schumacher who negotiated with Bessler to buy his wheel for Peter.

My correspondent wondered if, perhaps Bessler had already discovered how to generate and store static electricity in a capacitor, or something akin to the Leiden jar. This he might achieve by including glass plates within his wheel, as per Jan Ingenhousz's method. The capacitor would have to be fully charged before he began. However I have questioned whether it is possible to temporarily power a magnet by discharging a capacitor suddenly. I suspect that the resistance in the magnet's coils might be too high for the sudden discharge of static electricity to overcome, but I'm not knowledgeable about this.

He went on to suggest that if it were possible then it might lead one to suspect that Bessler had designed an electromagnet or even a simple solenoid, powered by sudden discharges of static electricity which could be used to deflect weights on springs, thus overcoming the wheel's reluctance to continue to turn. Bessler, you will recall, said that he used springs but not in the way you think.

I know - it's crazy, but I like it!

Update - and the Conversion of Centrifugal Force Into Linear Force and Motion

2011-11-16T16:24:00.000Z

Well it seems to me that the Italian interview has gone the way of previous offers from the media. I had an email a couple of weeks ago saying that they were unable to obtain permission to film within the Trivulziana library at Castello Sforzesco, which doesn't surprise me, so an alternative date has been promised for an interview in Rome. I won't be holding my breath in anticipation, but if something concrete does materialise I'll let you know.

My own efforts to reconstruct Bessler's wheel progress at a snail's pace because of frequent calls on my time from other commitments. I'm busy trying to make my garden (yard?) fox-proof at the present. We have a problem with urban foxes and they seem to be living next door - you should see the holes leading to their dens! Now back to matters Bessler.

Some years ago David E. Cowlishaw produced an invention he called a Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster, this was a way of the mechanically generating a unidirectional force, with which it was hoped one could direct a vehicle or a boat, in any direction, or indeed drive a space ship. It would replace gear trains, propellers and jets, as a device for generating thrust

It was said that this device was a consequence of the variable inertia property of matter. I would suggest that it was an example of parametric oscillation.

If Bessler's wheel is successfully built, it too will rely on parametric oscillation, (see my article on 'kiiking') and might show the way to a successful inertial propulsion engine - providing the correct configuration is used, to swing weights around, in such a way that the circular movement ends up producing a unidirectional thrust. In much the same way that an electric motor reversed becomes an electricity generator, so Bessler's wheel reversed, or driven, could be designed to produce a unidirectional force from weights rotating about the wheel axle.

There have been a number of claims to have successfully built an inertial thrust engine but I am not aware of any reliable examples - although someone may correct this impression. The point I am making here is that, just as in theory one could reverse the direction of energy in Bessler's wheel to produce linear force and motion and this would prove that inertial propulsion engines were a valid area of research, so on the other hand would the successful construction of an inertial propulsion engine also prove that Bessler's wheel was a valid area for research.

There would be enough energy output from Bessler's wheel to power every home in the world.

2011-11-10T07:28:00.000Z

Sorry to bang on about this but it is important in my opinin. There's been some discussions on the forum about how much power Bessler's wheel could generate and it has been argued that Bessler's wheel will never be of any practical use. I quoted some of Bessler's words and one particular sentence that struck me afresh was, "If I were to place, next to a 12-Ell wheel, one of 6-Ells, then, if I wanted to, I could cause the smaller one to revolve with more force and useful power than the large one. I can, in fact, make 2, or 3, or even more, wheels all revolving on the same axis."

I know there are many, both here and on the forum, who are sceptical about the amount of power which would be available from a modern gravity wheel. I have a sanguine disregard for this scepticism and ask you to consider this.

There are two conclusions to be drawn from the above quote; firstly that the inventor could make his wheels more or less powerful, regardless of the apparent external dimensions; and secondly by placing more wheels on the same axle he could increase the power output.

The Kassel wheel was able to lift a chest of stones weighting 70 pounds on the end of a rope, but I have argued that it was designed to turn more slowly to increase its chances of surviving the longevity test. Now picture two or more Kassel wheels, both mounted on the same axle. Together, they should be able to lift 140 pounds or more, depending how many are added. Applying the first conclusion from the above quote means that the 140 pounds lifted could be increased - elsewhere he claims a fourfold increase. So possibly, the 140 pounds lifted could be increased to 560 pounds, or a quarter of a ton. Given due consideration, I am sure that there is enough potential to run a home electricity generator, and overcome the maximum possible load, as long as there are enough wheels of the optimum configuration on each axle.

By 'optimum configuration', I mean a wheel which can only turn one way. Two-way wheels were balanced and needed a push to start them, therefore I do not subscribe to the idea that the mechanisms could turn the wheel in either direction. My idea of mirror image mechanisms is more logical to my mind, in which case removing the reverse-turning mechanisms would reduce an unnecessary additional load imposed on them, and remove their extra weight. This configuration would be less complicated, less likely to suffer problems and probably have more power available.

So I am confident that when it is finally built, Bessler's wheel will provide electrcity for every house - everywhere.

Why the Kassel wheel turned so slowly and what this could mean for us today.

2011-11-04T07:22:00.001Z

I posted this thought on the Bessler forum but I think the message got lost in the argument I was trying to make, so I repeat the point here.

If Bessler was able to make his first three wheels turn at 50 RPM regardless of whether they were one or two-way wheels, why would he make his final and most robustly built one, only able to turn at about half the speed of the others?

My suggestion was that it was done in anticipation of the the long endurance test, so he could be sure that it would suffer less wear and tear because it would only have to to turn half the number of times, compared to the Merseberg wheel.

We know he claimed to be able to make wheels that could turn slowly or faster, so the slow rotation inherent in the Kassel wheel was deliberate. But there was a disadvantage to this decision, the slower RPM was less powerful, in my opinion, so he added extra weights on either side of the existing ones to give the wheel a little more power, and that is why the Kassel wheel was thicker than the Merseberg one, which was the same diameter, but only two-thirds the depth. It seems to me that a slower turning wheel might produce less power than a faster turning one? If so that would explain the extra depth to his wheel when compared to the Merseberg one - he needed to add some extra weights.

On the above understanding I suggest that it would be possible to produce a much faster turning wheel complete with extra weights that could generate the kind of power we seek for our modern electrical requirements.

Could Bessler's wheel be the answer to the global recession?

2011-11-01T06:44:00.001Z

I had a dream last night that inspired me greatly. I dreamed that I had finished the wheel and it worked! I posted a video on youtube showing the wheel with all the detail about how it worked clearly revealed, and when I awoke the next morning (still in my dream) and looked out the window, the road in which I live was filled with photographers, reporters and TV vans etc, all waiting for me to appear.

I was interviewed and said that this discovery would end the global recession and create growth and employment through out the globe, and would prove to be the greatest invention of the century.

Then I really woke up - what a disappointment to know it was only a dream! But I must have been thinking along those lines even if only subconsciously, and I think perhaps there is an element of truth in the dream - I think this machine could have a major impact on unemployment.

I looked up "global recession" on google and found this statement in the first link I looked at "The biggest threat to the global economy is the dearth of growth and jobs rather than the size of government budget deficits."

So I return to the hunt for a solution with new determination, and so should we all - and anyway, I don't want acres and acres of windmills and solar panels covering the English countryside and that could happen unless we can find the answer.

6th June 1712 + 300 years = 6th June 2012

2011-10-30T15:24:00.000Z

In my last post I tried to make the point that without a small additional force we cannot make the wheel turn a full circle, and since no other force has been found that accomplishes this simple fact, I maintain my belief that there was only gravity required to drive the wheel. To my mind, believing that there is this other mysterious force available is far less believeable than that two bites at gravity were taken by each mechanism. I respect other people's opinions but I can't help feeling that there are going to be some people with egg on their faces when the solution is found.

I have just read an excellent explanation as to why these other forces such as centrifugal and the other ones associated with a spinning wheel cannot ever be sufficient to supply that extra force. See the Besslerwheel forum response to my post entitled, "A theory about why the number five is so prominent in Johann Bessler's works." by nicbordeaux. The link is at http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=93780&highlight=#93780

Thanks to technoguy for reminding me about next year's 300th anniversary of Bessler's first exhibition of his gravitywheel at Gera. I hadn't forgotten but these things have a habit of creeping up on you and all of a sudden it's here and nothing has been done in preparation. Somehow we must find a way to celebrate it, ideally with a working version of Bessler's wheel. While I am optimistic that this will be achieved by then, I have to be realistic and admit that after 300 years of failures, the odds are against us succeeding, so we might just miss that date!

Nevertheless, I'm confident that someone will succeed in the next couple of years and I intend to do something to draw people's attention to this significant date - why? Because if a working wheel has not been made by then I think we shall need more publicity to attract new minds to the problem. Maybe none of us 'oldies' familar with the story will succeed and it will take someone with a completely fresh outlook to finally win the prize. How can we grab some headlines? I don't know and I'm not really into making a public spectacle of myself,at least not deliberately - however....

From 27 July to 12 August 2012 the London Olympics will be taking place and the eyes of the world will turned this way, and maybe with all the journalists and other media present and probably looking for stories to send home, before the Olympics start, perhaps I can grab some media attention? I don't have any ideas yet but I'm working on it.

Gravity can be used to power gravitywheels continuously because it is a conservative force.

2011-10-28T17:43:00.000+01:00

Many people believe that Johann Bessler's claims were genuine, in which case an acceptable theory which fits in with modern science, has to be found which will allow a gravity-driven (or gravity-powered) wheel to work. There is strong scepticism against such a device for good reason. It appears to go against everything we have been taught. Putting on one side, for a moment, the statement which says you can't do it because gravity is a conservative force, there is the seeming impossibility of raising a weight again once it has fallen, causing a wheel to overbalance. That energy appears to be lost and therefore an additional energy source is sought which will bridge the gap or close the circle.

Various methods have been suggested such as using ambient temperature changes or static electricity or even a solenoid valve on a spring. The truth is that no one has come up with a viable additional energy source - except for me! We know Bessler said his weights worked in pairs; I have suggested that the secondary, 'shifter', weight fell and in doing so moved the primary or 'shifted' weight into a position which unbalanced the wheel. The additional energy source is therefore also gravity. There are two weights, one falls and has no effect on overbalancing the wheel but the second weight is moved by the action of the first weight and it is that one's position which overbalances the wheel. There are two pieces of gravity used separately,

I have, in the past compared the force of gravity to the wind in an attempt to show that it may be a conservative force but that does not mean it cannot be used to drive a weighted wheel continuously. The wind is used to drive windmills, waterwheels and boats, why not gravity?

Because my argument rested on the theory that wind was a conservative force I sought support for the idea from the internet. Surely I would find either a definitive statement that wind was conservative or nonconservative. Imagine my surprise therefore to discover the extraordinary fact that I am unable to find a single web site which definitively states that wind is either conservative or nonconservative! Nobody discusses it - or nobody is able to say one way or the other.

I did find one fleeting reference which stated that "wind drag is friction and therefore non-conservative". The example referred to a racing car and the effect of wind drag which was therefore friction and so a nonconservative force. I agree in that context, but let us consider some simple definitions secured from the internet.

"The work done by a conservative force in moving a particle between two points is independent of the path taken." This also applies to the wind, we only measure the strength of the wind by seeing how far it moves something from A to B, the path is irrelevant.

I can lift a fallen rock against gravity and allow it to fall again. I can also catch a balloon blowing in the wind towards me and carry it back upwind and allow it to blow downwind again. There is a clue in the words "UPwind" and "DOWNwind".

"A conservative force can be thought of as a force that conserves mechanical energy. Suppose a particle starts at point A, and there is a constant force F acting on it. Then the particle is moved around by other forces, and eventually ends up at A again. Though the particle may still be moving, at that instant when it passes point A again, it has traveled a closed path. If the net work done by F at this point is 0, then F passes the closed path test. Any force that passes the closed path test for all possible closed paths is classified as a conservative force". When the wind causes a windmill to rotate, the blades travel a closed path so the wind is a conservative force.

"For non-conservative forces, the mechanical energy that is lost (not conserved) has to go somewhere else, by conservation of energy. Usually the energy is turned into heat, for example the heat generated by friction. In addition to heat, friction also often produces some sound energy. The water drag on a moving boat converts the boat's mechanical energy into not only heat and sound energy, but also wave energy at the edges of its wake. These and other energy losses are irreversible because of the second law of thermodynamics." The windmills provide useful and usable energy - it is not 'lost' - which can grind flour and pump water etc. So wind is not a nonconservative force.

"Conservative Forces are reversible forces, meaning that the work done by a conservative force is recoverable, i.e. you can get out any work you put in or vise versa." Wind is a reversible force. Not only does the wind drive windmills but, for instance, you can electrically drive a windmill and produce wind. The wind is a reversible conservative force. use an electric fan and place a small windmill in the path of the wind. The windmill will begin to turn.

Saying that gravity cannot power a gravitywheel because it is a conservative force is incorrect. However this does not solve the problem of how to make it work for us but it does show that it is not impossible just because it is a conservative force.

Why is the number five so prominent in Johann Bessler's works?

2011-10-27T07:18:00.000+01:00

I wasn't sure whether to place this on the Bessler forum or just put it here on my blog, and certainly previous experience has taught me that many people either deride the theories expressed or argue forcefully against them, but I hope to gather some more support to my own view. I know I tend to be in a minority when expressing my belief that Bessler's wheel was gravity-driven, even here, but perhaps it will help me if I give my thoughts an airing. Any way I'll probably post it on both because it seems to me to be too important to ignore.

Most people are aware of the ubiquity of the number 5 encoded in all of Bessler's publications and many don't see any significance other than perhaps a nod to some kind of mystery school teaching designed to hint at the inventor's knowledge of ancient wisdom. I don't believe that theory, I'm convinced that Bessler was passing on information.

I have always thought that there were two hard facts established about the internal workings of Bessler's wheel and one of them was that there were five mechanisms. The other was that the weights worked in pairs. All else is open to conjecture. But one certainty is that Bessler thought that this piece of information was extremely important and even encoded it in his name right from the moment he adopted the pseudonym, Orffyreus.

I believe that five mechanisms were required because for me there is no other sensible interpretation to be taken from the clues - the number five is indicated by both the numeral five in text and code and by the presence of the pentagram in the drawings. I cannot think of any other reason for its presence so here I try to understand why it's a necessity to a working wheel.

Five mechanisms would need the wheel to be divided into five equal parts of 72 degrees each. Although I understand the argument that even one or maybe two mechanisms should be enough to demonstrate the principle, I think more will be required to achieve a useful rate of rotation. Let's suppose that each mechanism only produces a mechanical advantage (or overbalance) once in each rotation; then each one must be able to produce it sufficiently to turn the wheel at least 72 degrees, but less than, say 90, otherwise four mechanisms might suffice. Maybe it can just about reach 90 degrees but perhaps that isn't enough to maintain rotation? There would have to be an overlap of mechanical advantage (or overbalance) for each mechanism in order to maintain rotation and the greater the overlap the faster the acceleration.

Bessler wrote that "one cross bar makes the machine revolve slowly, just as if it can hardly turn at all. But on the contrary when I arrange to have many crossbars, pulleys and weights, the machine revolves much faster". (from Apologia Poetica - published by John Collins). If the mechanical advantage (or overbalancing effect) only amounted to a little over 72 degrees, and this happened only once in a single rotation, and there was only one such mechanism on the wheel, then the rest of the turn would have to take place with the wheel in a condition of balance. One can see how such an arrangement would produce a wheel which could hardly turn. Two, three, or four mechanisms would have little different effect if the overbalance only amounted to just over 72 degrees as there would be no continuity between each mechanism's action. An overlap of overbalancing would be required and if the mechanisms can only achieve an overbalance for, say 80 degrees of any single rotation, then anything less than five mechanisms will result as Bessler has described.

But if five mechanisms were introduced, then with more than a 72 degree portion of the full rotation for each mechanism, you would get the required overlap and an accelerating and continuous rotation.

This argument presupposes that the reader accepts the possibility of a gravity driven wheel - as I do! ;-)

Bessler's defence statement

2011-10-24T09:35:00.000+01:00

It has often been suggested that perhaps Bessler was not as innocent as he claimed, otherwise he would have done more to defend himself against the claims of the maid. Well he did, but the records of his defence are unpublished as yet.

On New Year's day in 1728, shortly after the maid's accusations were made, Bessler began writing a 60 page statement concerning the claims of his maid and others and answering all accusations with a strong and righteous defence. I have a copy which, unfortunately, is largely illegible (for me at least) as it is the version Bessler kept for his records. The clean copy is undergoing restoration currently and may not be available for some time to come.

The little I have been given reveals that he complains frequently about the 'evil maid' and also about a large group of conspirators who have acted against him. They include several of his first wife's in-laws, including his former mother-in-law, his sisters-in-law and their husbands and other hangers on. His father-in-law was dead and therefore his wife was left to her own devices and she had little or no money and so she headed for Kassel to ingratiate herself with her daughter, Barbara, who unfortunately died in May 1726. Apparently the mother-in-law, also called Barbara, tried to manipulate Bessler to her financial advantage. His official title of Commercial Councellor gave him access to a number of schemes, some of the funding of which, she tried to divert for her own purposes. It seems that the accusations of the maid may well have been instigated by Barbara senior in an effort to threaten/blackmail Bessler into giving in to her coercions.

If this seems unlikely, remember that the maid had already served two prison sentences - and Barbara senior was the subject of a thirteen year long investigation into an infanticide in which herself, her maid and two of her daughters was involved. The legal investigators had been searching for the maid who was 'lost', and it is suggested that with Barabara senior's husband's death and therfore the withdrawal of his protection as Mayor of their towm she had to flee, and so she headed for the maid's home and her recently deceased daughter. The baby in question might have been Bessler's, conceived on an earlier visit, but there is no evidence yet to prove or disprove that possibility.

I look forward to the day when the cleaned document is available and we can at last get the other side of the story.

Johann Bessler's Hydrostatic balance.

2011-10-20T07:10:00.002+01:00

In 1720 Johann Bessler is recorded as having made a hydrostatic balance for Johann Adam Cass. I have included a picture of it, as it still exists in the Landesmuseum in Kassel. I don't know how much of the whole instrument was down to Bessler, but looks well made.

This picture is from a book written by Henri Michel, called "Scientific Instruments in Art and History" Viking 1967. He writes:-

"The balance shown here was made in 1720, by Johann Ernst Elias Bessler (1680- 1745), (known as Orffyreus, and notorious for his "Wheel" or perpetual motion machine) for the military engineer Johann Adam Cass of Kassel".

There is also a picture of the same instrument in "Die Naturwissenschaftlich-Technischesammlung" by Ludolf Von Mackensen (Kassel: George Wenderloth Verlag, 1991).

It will be recalled that Johann Adam Cass was a witness and one of the signatories and chief examiner of the Gera wheel. It seems that he moved to Kassel shortly after Bessler, to be in charge of military engineering there there.

In 1720 Cass published a book called "Neu verbesserter Ingenieur" which means "New Advanced Engineering", In 1722 he published "Nouveau corrige ou par des demostrations guide de l'ingenieur à la veritable mathematique",meaning "New or corrected by demonstration, Engineering Guide to mathematical truth". These publications were sponsored by Karl, the Landgrave.

The hydrostatic balance was a frequent component of perpetual motion designs and is still sometimes introduced as part of the mechanism. Bessler seems to have included them in some of his Maschinen Tractate designs

I have also included the concept in my own designs from time to time but in the end I prefer the simplicity of weights, but are we denying the potential benefits of a the hydrostatic balance? I don't think so.

JC

A real Bessler documentary on the cards?

2011-10-13T17:01:00.000+01:00

Wow! You guys have been busy, it's taken me an hour just to catch up on all your comments. I hate to interrupt the flow with a blog but perhaps you can continue here or on the previous blog?

I'm back after a delightful week in sunny Spain, and among the emails awaiting me, I received an interesting one from an Italian documentary maker, who wishes to produce a film about Johann Bessler.

They say that they would use me as the main narrator (God help them!) and intend to film in the Trivulziana Library of the Castello Sforzesco in Milan. Interestingly for me, somebody on the Bessler forum kindly brough to my attention the existence of another copy of Das Triumphirende which is held at that this particular library. I was able to obtain high definition copies of their portraits from the library. This is the only other example that I'm aware of which includes the double portraits with the hole in one as did my own copy, which I used to have but which I passed on to another, safer pair of hands.

I assume (at this early stage I have no details) that if we are to film in this famous library, that I shall be able to see and examine this copy and I am delighted at the prospect.

The company, FarmStudioFactory, are an Italian film and television production company, but appear to make films for other people so it will be interesting to try to get some background on this to see where the idea originated. I scraped up a few details on the library as I was so interested in it and this is what I found:-

"Along with the Cathedral - Milan's most famous and much beloved monument - the big Castle is linked to the vicissitudes and dramatic events that the city has experienced over the past centuries. For many years, in fact, it has represented a symbol of the power in the hands of the Dukes, as well as of the foreign dominators. Only at the beginning of the 20th century the Castle assumed its distinctive role, becoming a place of culture, which hosted numerous Lombard art collections. The Castle was named after Francesco Sforza, who transformed it into a ducal residence in 1450. But its origins date back to the second half of the 14th century, at the time of Galeazzo II Visconti.

Hosted inside the Castello Sforzesco is the revered Trivulziana Library. The library can be accessed to examine parchments, documents, records and prints. The Historic Archive preserves all the acts of the Municipality of Milan and of the Duchy dating back as far as 1385."

I also would like to know the history, the provenance, of this particular copy of the Das Tri and how it came to reside in Italy. I have always believed that the other countries of Europe might hold some further accounts of Johann Bessler and it seems to me that a documentary about him could engage the attention of the right people to bring such information to the surface.

I'll tell you more when I know more. I should not get too excited as this kind of thing has happened to me before, more than once, and the project has always gone out like a damp squib!

Pendulums again.

2011-10-03T06:51:00.002+01:00

Still trying to find the time to make my latest mechanism, unfortunately another week in Spain looms close, so it looks as though I'll be delayed again! Who am I kidding, I love it there! This week has seen the hottest October since records began, with temperatures of 29 degrees Celsius( that's 84F deg in real money!) - I know that's not particularly hot but for October its just amazing. It's all going downhill again on Tuesday so it looks as though my trip is timed to perfection. I will be connected there so I can keep any eye on things and maybe even write a blog about the wine, beer and sangria!

I'm tangled up in thoughts about the second drawing in Das Tri at the moment, and trying to discern exactly what Bessler was trying to tell us with the double drawing. The large triangular pendulum is intriguing and the three different angles seem to point, in my opinion, to the thirty degrees at the bottom - maybe its critical? I have the thought that a weight about to fall through 90 degrees ( a quarter) would need to be leaning a little in order to begin its fall as soon as possible. Each number on the clock is seperated by thirty degrees, so one o'clock is thirty degrees from twelve o'clock. Should we start the fall at one o'clock to stop at three o'clock?

Do the pendulums regulate or obfuscate?

2011-09-26T17:36:00.000+01:00

Many among we 'Bessler's wheel' researchers have our own pet theories about different aspects of our self-appointed task, and they can be as diverse as the numbers of people involved. So it comes as no surprise to find my own theories treated with as much indifference as I treat many other people's - no offence intended and none taken. But one theory I have subscribed to, among a couple of others, for most of my life is the one about the pendulums indicated in two of Bessler's drawings; I refer to the drawing in Grundlicher Bericht published December 1715 and the one in Das Triumphirende published in October 1719. Both depict Bessler's Merseberg wheel and include a complex pendulum and according to Bessler they could be used to regulate the speed but, if not required, could be dispensed with. However as at least two reports comment on the extreme eveness and regularity of rotation of the wheels, there seems little or no requirement for their use.

My very first thought was that they were included to add interest to what was after all, pictorially a pretty dull subject matter without them. This thought was supported by the later drawings in Das Triumphirende which show an archimedes screw being turned. However not content with that drawing, Bessler also added another one which shows a large triangular pendulum with three bobs. As we have already dismissed the need for pendulums to regulate the wheel's speed why would he include yet another one, four years after the first?

I therefore dismissed the idea that they were there as mere decoration. I took the view that they were intended to convey information about the inner structure of the wheel; the mechanism in fact. I have expressed this thought elsewhere but my opinion has been largely ignored and it seems that most people attempt to make the case for their use as governors, something I would argue against.

Following my belief in the true purpose of the pendulums, I have over the years, played with a number of mechanisms designs loosely based on the pendulms, several with interesting properties, but nothing that subscribed to the concept which I have favoured for some years now - the actual way that gravity alone was able to drive Bessler's wheel.

But, as I've been unable to get on with my Bessler wheel experiments for the last few weeks, due to other commitments, I have been restricted to just thinking about it and studying the drawings - and I think I have discovered something interesting in his main wheel drawing. It's extremely obscure and I'm fairly confident that you are unlikely to find it unless you've followed my own train of thought over the last three or four years. Having said that I wouldn't be surprised to learn that others have made the same connection, but I should think that if I am right then so should they be and therefore we would surely have heard about it by now - in which case either I'm wrong about this particular aspect of ther drawing - or no one else has made the connection.

I hope to make an experimental mechanism to test my thinking next week and if it works I'll follow it up with a full prototype - and that may test my basic hypothesis to destruction!

Disenchanted with Bessler's wheel? Energize - Invigorate - Revitalize!

2011-09-18T12:28:00.000+01:00

I'd be interested to know how people became aware of, and interested in, Johann Bessler.

I fear that the enthusiasm for Bessler's wheel is waining. I don't mean those who are already 'on board' so to speak but 'newbies' seem to be few and far between. I note that the majority of those who frequent the websites devoted to Bessler with an open mind are retired or approaching retirement, I apologise to those to whom retirement is still a long way off, but there does seem to be a lack of interest in this puzzle among younger people. I assume it has something to do with the public perception of 'perpetual motionists', as we are seen to be. The facts about Bessler are completely swamped by negative opinion and a humorous/scornful approach to descriptions of those who are dedicated to finding his solution.

When I began this journey in 1997, by publishing "Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?", I was pleasantly surprised by the amount of interest worldwide, I don't mean that it became an instant best seller (I wish!!!) but there were emails from all around the world and lots of interest from academics as well as engineers and people from many varied professions and as well as educated amateurs. Now there is nothing. I see that posts on the forum have largely dropped to armchair discussions - few people have any input on possible solutions any more. Do we think we have we exhausted every possible concept or design? I know I haven't and in fact I'm working on something that I feel more confident about than I have for some time.

Of course I was helped in the early days by articles about my book, appearing in Nexus magazine, Infinite Energy magazine, the Journal of Free Enery and others. This may have triggered interest in my book - I don't know. But I do think that this subject does not appeal to younger people and I regret that. When you look back at the history of great scientific discoveries, many were made by people in their intellectual prime, usually their twenties and thirties, and the majority were not 'professional' scientists but educated amateurs. Some, such as Michael Faraday, had only the most basic education yet his achievements in the fields of chemistry, electricity and magnetism were huge. I feel that we need to find some way of attracting the interest of younger people to inject some new thinking into this ancient topic.

When I finally get around to finishing my book on Bessler I will court the advertising media again as I did in 1997 but I have nothing to offer them at this point so there is nothing to new to engage them. I don't know how we can engender new interest but we must keep trying.

PS. Note the American spelling in the title - I love all those 'z's! As did Bessler.

Another bunch of clues interpreted

2011-09-14T10:18:00.000+01:00

Recently I said that I would comment occasionally on one or two of Bessler's clues, so here is another one I've been working on. This one is my interpetation of the strange passage which follows:

“He will be called a great craftsman,

who can easily/lightly throw a heavy thing high,

if one pound falls a quarter,

it shoots four pounds, four quarters high.”

Firstly, the most obvious point is that if one pound falls a quarter and lifts another four pounds then we have a total of five pounds and those who are familiar with my work in decoding Bessler’s clues will at once recognise the presence of the ubiquitous number 5 again - which I have suggested refers to five mechanisms.

Secondly, he implies that there are five one pound weights (one plus four), but one of them is falling. Since one of the falling weights is one pound and the other four being lifted are also one pound each, all five of them are of equal mass - one pound each.

Thirdly it follows that if one of the weights was falling and four were rising, then there were either five one pound weights in total, alternately falling and being lifted again - or there were ten one pound weights, operating in pairs within the five mechanism, five falling and five rising. I suggest that there were in fact five pairs of similar weights, and the reason I think this, is because elsewhere he says,

“... a work of this kind of craftsmanship has, as its basis of motion, many separate pieces of lead. These come in pairs, such that, as one of them takes up an outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axle. Later, they swap places, and so they go on and on changing places all the time.”

This description supports my contention that there must have been ten one pound weights operating in five pairs.

Fourthly, if "..it shoots four pounds, four quarters high,” then one pound is shot one quarter high, which is no big deal from a similar weight falling the same distance.

Fifthly, "...if one pound falls a quarter, " it means it falls 90 degrees. If a pendulum is placed upside down against a clock face with the weight at twelve o'clock, then it can only fall in total, 180 degrees, or half way around the clock to the six o'clock point. If it falls a quarter then it only falls from twelve o'clock to three o'clock, 90 degrees.

It should be also be remembered that when the bi-directional Kassel wheel was started from a stand still it required only the smallest of pushes from two fingers for it to begin to accelerate, BUT it was also reported that rotation did not begin until a single weight was heard to fall, hence the phrase "...if one pound falls..." , meaning that it only takes one pound weight to fall for the whole wheel to begin to rotate and therefore cause the other weights to move.

There is one more piece of information in the passage which I am still working on but I don't want to discuss it at this time.

The above quotation is an extremely clever piece of text containing a wealth of information and I believe there are other pieces which may also contain additional information if we only knew how to extract it.

Updates and words that unintentionaly offend

2011-09-10T07:27:00.000+01:00

Recently, I intimated that I had a small revelation to make - and now I have written it up on one of my websites. I haven't published it yet, but now I'm wondering if I'm right, and if I am, should I be broadcasting it, and if I'm wrong do I want to stick my head up above the parapet to get shot at again?

Its not much of a revelation, I think that word was used by another blogger who used it when I mentioned that I had something else to discuss. I had what I think was a moment of clarity just before I went on holiday and nothing I have done since has dispelled the feeling I have that I'm right - but as I always say, I've been there before - and been wrong before! So I'm making a video to show the effect which I have described on my web site (not published yet) and I'll include it there. I mention this now because I've had a couple of emails asking me when I'm going to reveal it, but I'm not ready yet.

On another subject, writing blogs and responding to comments can be a tricky business, and I am as careful as I can be not to upset people and if I discovered that someone had taken offence at my words I would be extremely sorry. I have always requested that people moderate their language and try to do myself. Recently I discovered that someone had felt personally insulted at my words and I regret that, I therefore offer my sincerest apologies - they know who they are. May I say that having read and reread my words I can find nothing to take offence at, in fact they appear to me to be supportive of that person's view so I am at a loss to understand where I have overstepped the mark. Perhaps a private communication to explain would assist my understanding?

J.E.E.Bessler -> W.R.R.Orffyres

2011-08-30T18:31:00.002+01:00

Having time away from all things Bessler while on holiday, allowed me time to think and mentally review many things I had speculated upon. One of them was Bessler's use of his pseudonym - Orffyreus.

I have spoken about the fact that Bessler was born with just one forename, Elias. About the time he invented his working wheel he adopted the pseudonym, Orffyreus, using the 'Albam' method - at the same time he added two additonal forenames, Johann Ernst. I think that the Hebrew 'Albam' method of encoding these names is familiar to everyone interested in this story. I had always thought that having two 'E's as his initials was meant to point to the numbers '5' or '55' which are present in encoded form seemingly throughout his publications. However there has always been a disquieting feature to this idea which has caused me some doubt as to my interpretation of it.

For a start in this case, the fact that Bessler used the Albam alphabetic substitution rather than alphanumeric susbstitution to obtain his pseudonym, suggested that the former is to be used and not the latter, in which case the fact that 'E' is the fifth letter of the alphabet is no more than a fortunate coincidence.

In addition, converting the intials J.E.E.Bessler through 'albam' results in W.R.R.Orffyres, and the 'W' is formed from two V's which, in Roman numerals, produces the number '55' again and to suggest that the two 'E's represent the '5's too, seems almost tautological (if there is such a word!). Seriously is it likely that Bessler would have used the letter 'J' for any other reason than as part of an albam code? He could have left the 'J' out and used alphanumeric substitution to get '55'. So the letter 'J' is important but so is the letter 'R' which is derived via the 'albam method from 'E'.

You can see Bessler's own version of the letter 'W' above left, which differs from those used in the fraktur font - except when used to point a finger at his enemies, Gartner, Wagner and Borlach, taken from Apologia Poetica, the metaphorical passage!!! It is definitely two 'V's.

So the letter 'J' leads us to the letter 'W' which points to 55. Now if the letter 'E' is not deliberately included to point to 5, then it points to 'R', its albam equivalent. Bessler routinely signed his name with a large 'O', presumably short for Orffyreus; he included a dot in the middle so it could also represent his wheel. But then he added two letter 'R's, one on either side of the 'O', the left one pointing the wrong way. This appeared to represent a wheel supported by two 'R' shaped figures.

Artistic as this may seem, there has to be more to it than sheer artistic vanity. It was important enough to add new forenames to his pseudonym, and the number 55 was of great importance to him as is clear from the many occurences of it, so one must conclude that the letter 'R' was of at least equal importance. The only thing I can conclude from my own research is that it has to refer to the path of the weights. One weight moves through a short curved circle and the other one moves through a longer less curved circle.

I have my own theory about how this helps and I am writing my ideas out in detail and I will post them when they are done. I'm considering doing another video to explain graphically what I mean, but if anyone else has any thoughts about the letter 'R' and its meaning I'd love to hear it.

Planes that go bump in the night - when skimming a hurrican.

2011-08-26T15:45:00.001+01:00

Three weeks away in sunny Florida and no access to my workshop - and my wheel! But now I'm back and eager to bring a fresh approach to the task thanks to some imaginitive thinking while away.

Although I love roller coaster rides I suffer from a fear of heights, motion sickness and a compressed disc which gives me pins and needles in my left leg, so by the time we had come to the end of our stay I had had a surfeit of thrill rides, so when we discovered that hurrican Irene was bearing down on us just as we were due to board our aircrafte, my wife and daughter expressed their doubts at the wisdom of flying through the middle of a hurrican, in rather colorful language actually!

We were assured by the aircrew that we would be flying around Irene and not through her and there were, therefore, no grounds for concern - huh!!! A sudden drop of 200 feet without warning, may not seem much, but when you add in the air speed of over 500 miles an hour it acquires considerable significance - my head bears the bruises to show for it, as I had just risen from seat in my usual gentlemanly fashion to allow my wife to partake of the facilities provided by means of a restroom. That was just the beginning and we suffered about an hour and half of something not so different, I should imagine, from trying to stay on board a bucking bronco!

Tough devices these modern aircraft! Despite the wings flapping like a demented duck landing on a pond, we all arrived safely if somewhat bruised and were politely informed that we had made up some time despite taking a longer course due to the sling-shot effect engendered by skimming the edge of hurrican Irene! Hhhhmmmm - as my seven year old grandaughter is wont to say, "I smell a porky, grandad!"

Actually the sling-shot idea came up in conversation aboard the bronco and we thought it had merit, but then we had taken a few medicinal drinks to calm my wife's shattered nerves - not mine of course you understand.

Open for comments again and hopefully I shall have some interesting information to share with you all that miiiiiiiiight just lead to a break through - unless you prove me wrong of course.

Gravity-alone is all that is required for Bessler's wheel

2011-08-05T08:53:00.000+01:00

This isjust a parting shot as I'm going away for a couple of weeks and all comments will be hidden until I return.

The source of energy for Bessler's wheel has to be gravity and nothing else, for some pretty obvious reasons. Bessler certainly implied that it needed only gravity, but even if you stick to the physics we have been taught, that such a device is impossible, and that Bessler was toying with us, then you need an additional force to assist the wheel to complete one rotation. So what forces are available to us?

Ambient temperature changes might have been used to make changes in the weight positions - too slow to react in my opinion and perhaps not enough of a movement to generate overbalance. Centrifugal force is another posited force but it would be difficult to regulate when to apply its theoretical movement. Magnets? Too weak and too difficult to switch on and off. Compressed air? It has to be compressed first and that would use up precious energy before it can apply itself to moving a weight. Springs? These are delayed reactions created by compressing them a some other stage in a rotation thus using up energy again. Electrostatic forces? The Leiden Jar was invented in 1745 by Dutch scientist Pieter van Musschenbroek of Leiden, who some will remember featured in my book, "Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?" Again too weak a force and it would take too long to build up sufficient force to move a weight in several rotations let alone a single one.

There are others which are even weaker than those described briefly above and not readily adapted to quick or sudden requirement. In my opinion gravity-only offers the only solution and I know why it works and why it isn't impossible and why it won't make the slightest difference to the laws of physics and all of the ramifications connected to that statement.

All will be revealed upon my return - I hope ;-)

Bessler's wheel must have been driven by gravity alone.

2011-07-31T18:25:00.000+01:00

Someone posted a link on the bessler forum, in support of their view saying "all forces in closed systems are conserved. It's widely available knowledge." The implication seemed to be that because of this fact we were all wasting our time trying to duplicate Bessler's wheel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law

The first line of the link says "In physics, a conservation law states that a particular measurable property of an isolated physical system does not change as the system evolves."

You can't argue with this - it is demonstrably true. However it doesn't apply to Bessler's wheel. Isolated systems are, as the definition suggests, closed sytems without any access to external sources of energy.

But in a gravitywheel such as I maintain, Bessler's was, if you take away the gravitational force the wheel will remain stationary, therefore it cannot possibly be described as an isolated system. Gravity is external to the wheel.

So although the law of Conservation is correct the particular ramifications alluded to, do not apply in this case.

It is frequently argued that Bessler did not state in precise language that his wheel depended entirely on gravity and therefore it must have required some additional force to operate. I don't think anyone has come up with a creditable alternative force and in my opinion there isn't one - there is only gravity and there is no physical reason why it should not do.

So Bessler may have only said that - "these weights are themselves the PM device, the essential constituent parts which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the perpetual motion principle) indefinitely - so long as they keep away from the cemntre of gravity." - but that is as close to saying it was driven by gravity as you can get without actually saying so!

I have argued this point since I first expressed it in my book, "Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?" in 1997 and I see no reason to change it.

Why the number 5? What does it mean?

2011-07-22T18:54:00.000+01:00

In a recent comment, Andre reminded me of something I have become so used to that I had forgotten how extraordinary it is. He said; It's monumentally obvious that the number 5 had a very special and important meaning to Bessler. It pops up everywhere."

I think this is something that people forget or are unaware of or disregard - and yet Johann Bessler was so preoccupied with the number five that he inserted it or hid it,in every single document he published as well as many that never saw the light of day, until recently.

Everyone is familiar with the pentagram and its association with the number five, and Bessler certainly was, because it too, appears, or should I say, is hidden within, many of his drawings. Hidden it may be, but it is easily found once you are aware of his fondness for it. Space prevents me from detailing all the many coded references to the pentagram and the number 5, but you can see some of the evidence at my website http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/

So the question is; why did Bessler include so many references to the number 5?

I suggested that it was to tell us that a gravity-driven wheel, capable of driving another device, has to have five mechanisms to accomplish the task. I also considered it likely that it was intended as a pointer to the most comprehensively encoded text of all of Bessler's publications, chapter 55 of his "Poetica Apologia".

Bessler became known as 'Orffyreus' at about the same time he first exhibited his wheel, a single-direction one, in 1712. So at that time he must have already decided on a simple code, alphabetic substitution, to use as a pseudonym for Bessler, probably designed to suggest that at least he had an interest or was knowledgeable about such things. In addition he added two more forenames to his given one, which was "Elias". The names, "Johann Ernst", do not appear on his birth registration documents but a glance through my website at http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/ shows how he also introduced the same 'number five' theme into his pseudonym at or before the time he first exhibited his wheel.

It seems to me that he must have already decided to encode information about his wheel so that, at some point in future, he would be able to show that he was the original inventor, long before he was successful - and to me that is a likely scenario as I have been guilty of the same!

So does the number five relate to the wheel or the code or something else? The problem is that the number five and the pentagram have several connotations. In fact they hold so many commonly understood, subjective cultural and emotional associations, in addition to their explicit or literal meaning, that the potential for misinterpretations are boundless. Connections include,the golden section, Mary Magdalen, the planet Venus and Freemasonry, to mention just some the morer diverse ones.

I think that Bessler found the best way to produce a gravitywheel which was suffiently powerful to be able to drive an additional piece of machinery, such as a water pump. This design required five mechanisms for reasons which I will discuss in a later blog. Five then formed the core of his subsequent code. He built a large dual direction wheel at Kassel, which required two lots of five mechanisms - one for each direction - hence the ubiquity of the two number fives i.e."5,5". What better use of "5,5" than to write his autobiography "Apologia Poetica", incorporating his code into Chapter 55 and inserting numerous pentagrams into the drawings in other documents.

How delightful to fill the ensuing book and all his drawings with veiled references to the his mysterious number 5s - and sit back and watch as others pored over the clues and tried to make sense of them!

Maybe Karl described the simplicity of the concept, and not the wheel itself.

2011-07-17T14:09:00.000+01:00

I suppose I should mention this on the Besslerwheel form but it doesn't seem to warrant a new thread; it's just my musings again.

When Karl's emissary, Nathaniel von Stapff, first approached Bessler with a view to checking out his claims, he must have made it clear to Bessler that in order to take advantage of the Landgrave's patronage, he would be required to reveal the secret, under an oath of silence of course, of the wheel's construction. Clearly this was a highly contentious issue for Bessler and yet he was persuaded to accept, the issue molified to some extent by the promise of 4000 thalers for the privilege.

So before Karl could even consider such a proposal he had to verify to his own satisfaction that Bessler's wheel actually worked, and since the Kassel wheel would not be finished for several months, and the previous, Merseberg wheel, had been destroyed, the wheel Karl saw must have been the small model mentioned two or three times elsewhere.

This small model may have been Bessler's first fully working model or even one which showed some rotation without providing enough to drive another device and it could only turn one way. It may have been the same one that was found in pieces after his death, and the same one that Jean-Pierre de Crousaz wrote somewaht sarcastically about. So when Karl described its simplicity he was probably describing the basic concept and not the interior of the Kassel wheel.

It is evident that Karl was heavily involved with matters of State and probably never took time to view the interior of the larger wheel, so one might conclude that although the concept appeared extremely simple to Karl, as he examined the model wheel - and that idea was born out by Bessler's own fears that any potential buyer might think he deserved his money back once he knew the secret, in fact the actual working model might have been considerably more complicated.

By complicated I mean that, whereas I have always maintained that Bessler indicated that five mechanisms were necessary to a fully functioning wheel, there might have been as few as two in his model version - a very simple concept and an ideal method of constructing a proof of principle version.

Principle of connectedness, and is five necessary?

2011-07-11T07:19:00.002+01:00

Interpreting Bessler's principle of connectedness is a bit like knitting smoke. You can see it but you can't seem to grasp it. I thought I'd got it before, but now I think I really have! But have I? I think so but who knows at this point.

You can read the words 'principle of connectedness' and surmise that it refers to a degree of connection. Is it a vaccilating connection, sometimes fast and sometimes loose? Is it a flexible connection only capable of connection in one direction? Might be. There are several possibilities, but I think I understand what he was referring to now and if I'm right it doesn't in fact refer to the way the actual connections are made, in my opinion refer it refers to something else. I once thought I had found a feature of gravitywheels which no-one else was aware of. Then I met a guy who had come from Australia and had dropped into meet me and we discovered we were both aware of this oddity. I have seen comments which come close to what I'm thinking of but no one seems to have accurately described it. Of course it might not be as mysterious as I'm thinking, but I'm going to write something on the subject and post if for comment.

The other thing that concerns me - am I right in thinking that Bessler was indicating five mechanisms? I still think so, but testing five mechanisms on a wheel takes so much longer because I have to build each of them and attach them, whereas if I just wanted to test the hypothesis with two it would be so much quicker. But Bessler said "If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in the machine it revolves very slowly...", so will my two produce enough mechanical advantage to at least provide proof of the principle? Another rhetorical question for which the answer must be, try it and see.

When Bessler's wheel is reconstructed it will match his design exactly.

2011-07-05T11:37:00.000+01:00

Recently, a blog or so back, I mentioned that I had found additional confirmation that my design was correct, in one of Bessler's clues. This led me to consider my other interpreted codes and I found further examples which consolidated my view that I was on the right track. Ruminating on this while on holiday I was struck by the curious lack of interest in Bessler's codes, and I realised that as far as I can tell, there are few who support my work on this subject.

I know that the interpretation of these kinds of codes is highly subjective and prone to being influenced by personal prejudices. In other words, I may appear to be guilty of interpreting the facts to fit the theory, or finding what I'm looking for by ignoring equally valid alternatives. Where I have thought that this was possible in some of the interpretations I have posted at http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/, I have admitted that this might be the case, and have said that the results are more speculative. In other cases I have had no doubts and have said so too.

In which case I am surprised to see comments from time to time, on the besslerwheel forum posing possible solutions to apparent codes for which I have already offered my own interpretations and which I am satisfied are correct. Of course they may simply disagree with my views, but sometimes it seems as though other people are unaware of my work in this area and perhaps I should be doing more to broadcast it. Those who follow my progress (or lack of it!) in reconstructing Bessler's wheel might think that I should get on with finishing it, rather than encouraging people to read my decoding efforts just in case they get there first. But I am trying to cover all outcomes including one where I am stuck, or unable to finish the wheel for some reason beyond my control.

I have another website at http://www.orffyreus.net/, where I have published everything I have found which may lead to the decoding of Chapter 55 in Bessler's 'Apologia Poetica'. It seems to me that my descriptions of my work in deciphering that extraordinary document are certainly a step towards full decipherment, yet no one has commented on it and as far as I know, no work is being done on it.

The methodology needed to recognise and decipher these numerous clues is straight forward. It should be obvious by now that I have deciphered far more than the limited amount I have revealed on my websites so I can say with a considerable degree of confidence that what is there is genuine, unless I have said that it is speculative. When I have more up-to-date information that requires additions or amendments to what is there I have added it.

I am writing a long document detailing the additional information concerning both the concept and the design revealed in Bessler's clues, and it will be published once I have succeeded in reconstructing Bessler's wheel. This will prove to those who say that we shall never know whether any new design is in any way similar to Bessler's, that they are wrong and that my design configuration is exactly the same as Bessler's. I am confident that the design will match Bessler's because of the information I already have.

A simple design and a parallell course?

2011-07-03T07:38:00.000+01:00

I returned from Spain and found that there were 450 postings on Besslerwheel forum in my short absence! But here's a confession; I am so convinced that I know exactly how Bessler's wheel worked that I have kind of lost interest in other people's theories, and I couldn't face the prospect of going through all 450 postings, so I just looked at the subjects that seemed most attractive to me. I may have missed some interesting comments but it is my impression that most of the ideas which surface there have been discussed previously and more than once.

I suppose this sounds egotistical, but its just a subjective feeling and if I think I'm right then I guess I'm going to think that way. I shall continue to read most of the posts and be interested in any that appear to be closing in on my own ideas, and I'm not so conceited as to think that no one else is working on a parallel course to my own.

Now I'm back I need to concentrate on finishing my proof of principle wheel. It's not as simple as Karl seemed to think, not to build any way, although I'm sure the equivalent of a carpenter's boy today, could make it if he was allowed to study the design for a few minutes. If you can see a finished mechanical system laid bare so all its parts are visible, then I'm sure that in most cases it is easy to understand how it works, but devising the best mechanical arrangement with nothing more than the basic concept to guide you is not so easy. Where in the length of a lever is the best point to attach a pivot? How wide should the angle be that a lever moves through to gain the most mechanical advantgage? Is there a point at which the advantage gained is cancelled out by other reactions? But if all this has been worked out correctly and results in a working model, then to an observer studying the movement, it might indeed look simple and easy to copy.

I have no fear that anyone will gain any insight into my design from the above rhetorical questions, although they apply to my design I don't think that anyone will just stumble on the correct configuration from those few words - unless of course they are on that parallell course!

Leave no stone unturned - or the wheel will remain unturned!

2011-06-22T08:45:00.000+01:00

It is a strange affliction that drives us to seek the solution to a device which science tells us is impossible. This obsession has driven me to visit places I would never have otherwise gone to; visiting museums, libraries, archives of ancient books, historic sites, demonstrations of ancient machinery, and communicating with as diverse a bunch of people as it hard to imagine. I've given lectures on Bessler at a crop-circle convention, inspected ruined windmills of many kinds, attended an opera based on the life of Bessler, met people from all walks of life and from different countries, done several radio interviews, the most bizarr being one for the palace of the paranormal! I've assisted in an attempt to remotely view Bessler's wheel, allowed someone to try psychometry on a book handled by Bessler, dowsed for his hidden grave and been invited to a spiritualist church in case he had a message for me - he hadn't!

My obsession (I don't think anyone could call it just an 'interest'!) has led me down paths I doubt I would have been interested in or even become aware of without the need to find the key that unlocked the secret - the Jesuits, the Masons, the Pythagorians, the Jewish Kabbalah, Bible codes, alphanumerics, Trithemius' codes, etc etc. This journey led me to the discovery of Bessler's codes and the interpretation of many of them. I was aware that I had discovered some for which I was unable to find the key; I was also aware that I was doubtful about my own interpretations in a small number of cases, but there was one in particular that I was convinced that I had extracted everything there was to find in it.

But....I was reviewing my latest construction and comparing it with my conceptual drawing based on the coded information I had found and I had one of those too rare flashes of inspiration. I was considering an alternative interpretation because of a single tiny apparent superfluity which had bugged me for a long time and for which I had made up interpretations to explain away. As someone on Besslerwheel forum said, manipulating the facts to fit my theory instead of the other way around. So why was this extra little bit there? Once I had asked myself this question, looking at my drawing at the same time, it suddenly became clear why the extra bit was there and it was at that moment that I realised that Bessler had alluded to it several times and I had missed it.

So my wheel is complete, only it doesn't work. The reason being that everything is there except for the inclusion of the connectedness principle which I thought I understood, only I didn't get the whole picture! It is so easy to fool yourself that you think you understand something and yet there is always an element of doubt without the vital unambiguous instructions to inform you. I slipped up, but now I understand what should have been obvious to me some time ago, as it has been in front of my eyes for several years and since I have been posting my discoveries on my web sites, also in front of everyone else's.

So, I can do no more for now because I'm off to sunny Spain,. More when I get back.

Wheel update

2011-06-19T07:10:00.003+01:00

I completed the 'improved' version of my wheel and I thought I'd got it, as it began spinning of its own accord . It completed five turns before stopping and reversing a little. I found one of the mechanisms had 'overshot ' its stop and become locked. I freed it and repeated the experiment and it turned the five or six turns before it locked again. My design concept seems ok but delivery is not so hot. I'm redesigning the way the mechanisms work. They will accomplish the same end in the same way but the rotation of the mechanism allows to much lateral sway and the stops don't always capture the moving levers and stop them.

I know you haven't the faintest idea what I'm talking about but I thought I'd let you know that it still doesn't work, but I'm on the case and confidence remains high!

I've lost count of the number of times my workmanship has proved not up to the task required, but this time I took my time in assembling the parts, but sometimes less haste is difficult to maintain and I admit I rushed the final assembly and to my chagrin, the quality has been less than adequate. Karl's comment on the simplicity of the design may give the impression that it was easy for a carpenter's boy to make, but it does not preclude the possibility of a ham-fisted mental genius cocking it up, not that I am that either - a mental genius.

If all else fails I will, in the end either publish my design or probably get help in making it, but I haven't reached that stage yet.

Musings on Gravity

2011-06-12T17:55:00.003+01:00

Trevor's comments about Besslers' wheel being a closed system got me thinking (thank you Trevor). I have posted an article at http://www.gravitywheel.com/ entitled, "Musings on Gravity". Any comments welcomed.

JC

Wheel update and Karl's comment

2011-06-10T12:11:00.000+01:00

I'm working on the wheel again and I think (I hope) I know what was wrong with the last design and I'm reconfiguring the mechanism accordingly. I've found a way of making the correct weight rise upwards very quickly, at the right moment. This is something that is crucial in my design and also something that Bessler commented on.

There are other aspects to this design which have to be taken into account when arranging the actual range and position of the parts and this is something that Karl would have seen but almost certainly not recognised for its importance. Hence his comment that it was very simple. I have taken on board my own comments about sphexishness and tried not to make any assumptions in designing the new mechanical arrangenment, with the result that I have discovered that there is a variable which I had not appreciated before. I don't want to talk about it yet, but I will bring it up on the forum at a later date to get some feedback.

Finally to answer a couple of questions emailed to me, this rearrangement or reconfiguration of the mechanics does not mean I have abandoned the concept I have been working on, quite the opposite. The original concept is valid and unarguably the same as Bessler's, but there are variations possible within the design which improve the way it works and that is what I'm engaged on at the moment.

Regarding Karl's view of the machine's simplicity, I think someone commented similarly to my own view on the besslerwheel forum, that perhaps he had not appreciated how complex the design had to be; not complex in appearance, but requiring some very specific arrangement of the mechanism. This I believe I know from my own work on this design and from the helpful hints given by Bessler.

I gave a small clue recently with my comment about opening windows.

Wheel progress update

2011-06-03T07:08:00.001+01:00

Doug made the point that 'A lot of scientific discoveries have been made by accident and even more thru trial and error. Did Bessler design a genuine perpetually turning wheel by trial and error, by accident, or by a dream in the night? Or did he realize the sphexishness of his efforts? Did he then design wheels that would convince everyone they were genuine, even though they weren't genuine?'

It's true that trial and error have played a part in scientific discoveries, but I think Bessler told the truth about his dream giving him the information he needed. I have had those kind of dreams as have others working in this field. But discovering the concept which may lead to the solution is usually followed by a bout of trial and error and might even involve sphexishness!

My own current construction has proven stubbornly stationary. Yesterday I finished the latest prototype and it failed miserably. However I know why and also what to do about it, so I won't be revealing anything just yet. The problem can best be explained by considering a horizontally opening window.

Imagine that it is wide open at 90 degrees from the closed position. The hardest effort to close it is at the start and then it become progressively easier to close . The same thing is happening to my mechanisms. They are slow to begin the move and then they slam into position, but too late. The solution appears to be to reduce their range of movement. It would be like only opening the window half way, to 45 degrees. Easier to close then.

This causes another problem which I also know how to solve - the range of movement of the main weight is reduced to the point of ineffectiveness. I must therefore increase the range of what I call the initiator, so that is what I shall be working on. Bessler described the weight as flying upwards and that is vital in my own design as it has to start and complete its range of movement within a fifth of a turn of the wheel itself, as there are five mechanisms.

I don't feel disheartened by this latest failure, as the end appears to be in sight.

Sphexishness in Perpetual Motionists?

2011-06-01T17:02:00.002+01:00

I'm indebted to Murilo, a regular on the besslerwheel forum, for the following link to an article about'sphexishness'.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldman-sphex-20110515,0,7387307.story

It got me thinking. If, in response to a familar trigger situation, we follow an internal rule or command, maybe ignoring alternative paths to follow, is this an example of 'sphexishness', if it is then I would argue that we are all, to a small degree, infected with this same set of internal rules.

From the above link, briefly, "scientists have coined a word for a certain type of behaviour named "sphexishness", after the female digger wasp, the 'sphex'. She will sting and paralyze a cricket, stash it in a hole in a tree and lay her eggs on it. When the eggs hatch, the baby wasps have fresh cricket to eat. But sphex also has an internal rule. When she brings a cricket to the opening of the hole, she always goes inside for a look around before she drags it in. If the cricket is moved a few inches away while the sphex is in the hole, she will repeat the process, bringing the cricket back to the opening and going inside for a look. As often as the cricket is moved, the wasp will repeat the behavior. Her internal rule calls for her to look in the hole before she drags the cricket inside, and that is what she will do, ad infinitum, every time the cricket is moved."

It's fun to observe sphexishness in animals. I used to have a labrador dog and it amused me that she always turned around a couple of times before settling in her basket. I was told that this was an instinctive action inherited from her forebears, related to trampling down grass to make a bed. This was an internal rule unconnected with her present circumstances but impossible for her to ignore. Even when she grew old and arthritic and barely able to walk she still managed a turn or two before collapsing into her basket. Instinctive behaviour - or inherited? What's the difference?

"The trick, of course, is to be able to recognize it in ourselves. What behaviors do we humans senselessly repeat over and over because of some unquestioned internal rule? What entirely avoidable loop of stupidity are we stuck in?"

True, we seekers of new ways of producing energy do try to envisage new approaches to the problem at each step along the path to the solution, and yet how many of us, on our individual paths, make assumptions commanded thus by some unquestioned internal rule. This rule could be based on some learned behaviour or 'fact' instilled in us from our earliest experiences - or an inherited instinct. But it's not necessarily one rule, whatever that may be, it's the trait of sphexishmess which lies behind our thought processes. To paraphrase a question from the article, What behaviors do we perpetual motionists repeat over and over because of some unquestioned internal rule? What entirely avoidable loop of stupidity are we stuck in?

We have been told that the secret of Bessler's wheel was simple, right? Right! And we know in our hearts that we cannot realistically expect to discover a new unknown law of physics which will allow Bessler's wheel to operate - well I don't anyway! And lastly we, at least, know that Bessler's wheel did actually work. So if we haven't discovered the secret of such a simple device which complies with the physical laws as we understand them - we must be being steered by sphexishness and being guided (misguided?) by some internal rule. We often use phrases such as, "think outside the box", apply lateral thinking", but these concepts still don't allow us to recognise and ignore certain rules inherent within our makeup. How do we circumvent these cast iron cognitive processes?

I think we have to take each step as if we were ignorant of the outcome of every possible configuration of mechanical parts. We must not assume anything, so all bets are off - the situation has drastically changed. Any guarantees, implications, or assumptions regarding its outcome no longer apply.(Thanks to http://www.urbandictionary.com/)

Then maybe we will find what Bessler found. In the mean time I continue to struggle to find the time to complete my own version of Bessler's wheel. If I'm right then the other method described in this blog, (also known as trial and error) will not be necessary as I think that Bessler did leave enough information behind him to build his wheel. But it's not so easy as just copying what you see in his drawings, but the clues are there.

Wheel update - cylindrical weights for me!

2011-05-27T12:06:00.000+01:00

Yesterday was my granddaughter Amy's eighteenth birthday so there was no wheeling done then, and on Monday we are holding a big get together for the whole extended family so I shall have to hide my work from prying eyes! There are some members of my family (not many!) who think I might be on to something and they always come to see how I'm progressing. But on Monday they'll be nothing for them to see.

The weights I've used for the last few years are not suitable for the current construction so I've bought some new fishing weights, made from non-toxic lead. They are ideal as they are round discs.

The problem has been that the former weights were cut from a length of solid steel squared rod, so were rectangular in shape. I drilled a hole through the middle of each one, but slightly off-set and this has worked fine until now! The part of the mechanism to which they attach needs to be able to move freely, but the weights always try to hang downwards which is fine for some positions.In the current design, during rotation the weights continue to try to hang downwards and this causes them to interfere with the mechanism. I can't fix the weights without fixing the mechanism. The answer is simple. I need to use round or cylindrical weights, that can turn without affecting the mechanisms and remain balanced. Cylindrical weights! Sounds familiar.

I know I could use heavy flat washers but they too have problems. The only ones I can find have holes in the middle which are too large. But fisherman's weights are perfect. I only had to drill a hole in the middle to attach them and they are really heavy.

I am using ten weights and I can imagine that with the Kassel wheel containing two systems, one the reverse of the other, Bessler would have used twenty weights, and at 4 pounds a weight that comes to 80 pounds plus of course the weight of the wooden wheel. This is just my opinion and not to be taken as factual, although I'm convinced!

"The clues are there." as David Frost used to say.

2011-05-25T07:13:00.000+01:00

Some readers are getting impatient for results but unfortunately other aspects of life have a way interfering with our best intentions. I continue to work on finishing the wheel as and when I can but as I've said before, I sometimes get a few minutes and that is all. My mother-in-law was in hospital but is now in a respite home for a few weeks. We visit her daily for a hour or so, but it is a 40 minute drive each way and we therefore lose a big chunk of each afternoon from our free time. So - time is tight..

What I can say is that the clues continue to support my view that I am on the right track and I will repeat that the best place for getting confirmatory information is the 'Toys' page - MT.138-139-140-141. The problem with this page is that unless you have already arrived at the right design, the page is almost meaningless. What the drawings on that page do, is help to refine the final design. That is what I'm engaged in when I can get the time.

Every drawing on that page supplies information, but they do not represent actual physical designs. As an example I can point out the slightly longer uprights on 'D' compared with 'C' - this is important information and without it would cause a problem which is only discernable if the right design is in front of you. Having said, that I worked out the solution to the problem when I saw it but it was good to have the confirmation that it was why Bessler had drawn the figures in that way and it was deliberate and not an incidental variation.

Bessler's wheel worked by simple mechanics - no fancy physics required.

2011-05-16T07:20:00.000+01:00

Now that I know how Bessler's wheel worked it has become a source of some concern to me to see so many people trying promote their own theories about how it worked. There are as many pet theories out there as there are people, I think, and each is as certain as I am that we are right.

Most people agree that it cannot violate any known laws of physics, therefore we must have erred in some way or perhaps be missing some crucial detail about the way gravity works. Perhaps, others have speculated, we need to involve a second natural force such as CF, or ambient temperature variation or some other such extra piece of energy to help our wheel complete just one rotation. In fact it could not be more simple. There is indeed no need to call for some new kind of physical law or even a new interpretation of the existing laws, because Bessler's wheel worked quite readily, getting its energy from the force of gravity (via falling weights Trevor ;-)) with nothing more than the same understanding that we have all been taught. Karl understood that and that is why he was surprised that no one had discovered the solution before.

I know that we have all touched upon the solution and have moved onwards without considering how we might overcome any obstacles that appear to be insurmountable, and that in my opinion, is why Bessler succeed. Having ruled out all other possibilities he returned to basics.

Websites being revised to include new information about Bessler's wheel.

2011-05-06T13:28:00.001+01:00

I've temporarily removed everything from my websites at www.besslerswheel.com and www.gravitywheel.com -t hey will be updated and republished as soon as possible, but I am completely rewriting them as I have made some significant progress in my research into how Bessler's wheel worked and how it was constructed. Some of the content on the websites needs to be cahnged. This does not mean that everything on the websites was wrong, but there has been some over-complication of the principle, which seems now to be very simple. In fact I cannot understand why I ignored it for most of my life.

The truth is that I think we have all been on the right track at some stage but have not had the advantage I have recently had of being able to study Bessler's clues to the point where I now understand all of them including a lot that I don't think anyone else has noticed, (although I may be wrong about that, as I have no idea what others know or are working on!)

It has become clear to me as I have been building my latest construction, just how many clues there are which are overlooked simply because there are so many of them and they are therefore not suspected of being clues. It is also becoming increasingly obvious that Bessler's claim that 'no one else could have succeeded because no one else took so much trouble to try every possible variation', was nothing more than the simple plain unvarnished truth! As my latest construction progresses I notice small details in his papers which guide me and also cause me to make some corrections to what I'm doing, and to be honest without those clues I wouldn't have chance of succeeding. I probably won't anyway, but I like to think I will!

One detail I was working on, the design of which is revealed by Bessler, seemed to me to be wrong as it appeared to be counter-intuitive, but I thought I'd try it anyway as things weren't working out, and it turned out to be the solution to my problem. This has proved something to me - if and when a gravitywheel is succesfully made and is working, some people have questioned whether we will ever know if will be the same design as Bessler's - my answer is that if mine works I shall know and can prove that it is identical to Bessler's, apart perhaps from some possible minor variations in the sizes of the parts.

As I have now said several times, I shall publish all of this information whether the wheel works or not. I can do this because I know that the clues I've understood are real and apply to the wheel but it is also possible that I have neglected some detail that prevents success. Maybe someone else can complete the task, but first I want to have an attempt at a successful PoP.

My Final POP Prototype? ... Again!

2011-04-22T09:12:00.000+01:00

I'm just coming to the end of the construction of my latest design for Bessler's wheel. I've maintained my belief in the same concept which makes his wheel possible for some considerable time as, for me, it is the only explanation for his success. The number of ways one can achieve this is limited but does not rule out severl variations, each of which is designed to move a weight a sufficiently large distance, quickly.

I have always born in mind his comment about the importance of incorporating his 'connectedness principle' within the design and although I had an idea what this might refer to, it wasn't until I saw the first completed mechanism on my new wheel, working, that I realised why he referred to it in this way.

As I was carefully assembling the pieces that made up the mechanism I was musing on the problem I might have in describing my interpretation of his 'connectedness principle' and I realised that it was a very good description, if you had to do it in two words, one of which was 'principle'. 'Connectedness' may seem like a made-up word but it is perfect for this situation.

I hope to more or less finish this version in a day or so, working around visiting familes, because it's Easter, but there will be some minor adjustments to make before it is completely finished. I know this because the connectedness principle requires some adjustments, the precise amounts of which, won't become obvious until the wheel's mechanisms are finished and fitted and shown to be working properly.

I'll let you know what happens, but even if it should fail to rotate I am convinced that I am on the right lines - the only lines to success.

www.theorffyreuscode.com updated again

2011-04-15T17:18:00.000+01:00

I have updated www.theorffyreuscode.com again. It occurs to me that perhaps not many people understand why I have continued to search for clues among Bessler's works when I should be trying to build working model of the wheel. The truth is I do both.

Even as I construct a new design, I continue to ponder on Bessler's clues. I cannot ignore the strong hints that Bessler left regarding clues to the wheel's workings. He left textual clues which were designed to both intrigue and mystify. He left pictorial clues which achieved the same result and if all he wanted was to mystify, then it might appear to be a hopeless task to try to make sense of what he left.

But I'm convinced that he wanted us to learn his secret. Consider this. He demonstrated his wheel over a period of at least eleven years during which time it was thoroughly examined by a host of people intent on proving him a fraud - and no one ever found reason to disbelieve his claims. He allowed one person to observe the inside, who was known as a man of utter integrity, who said the claims were real. Even after he left this man's patronage Bessler designed a variety of machines some of which were based on his wheel. He never ever gave up, and maintained his innocence of any suggestion of fraud, 'til his death.

Given the above one must assume that he was telling the truth. It seems to me to be absurd to give up trying decipher his clues when he made it so clear that he wanted posthumous fame as the inventor, if he couldn't have it while he lived. To achieve fame after he'd gone he attempted to ensure that sufficient clues were left beind to help someone to replicate the wheel. The clues had to be obscure or someone might have deciphered everything while he lived, so it was never going to be easy.

Consequently he flooded his published works with clues of an intriguing nature, which by themselves, were of little help in actually building his wheel. He did everything in his power to make people understand that the solution was there if they looked. But so far few people other than myself have researched the possibility that the answer lies encoded within his publications.

My self-imposed task has been to underline any and all clues that I find, but so far they are merely eye-catchers which interest and intrigue us but don't provide the answer. But they were designed to lead to that answer and that is why I list every piece of code I find, with my interpretation of the meaning behind each. That is what my web site at http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/ is for.

There is no doubt that we are in desperate straits searching for a new form of energy, if there is a half a chance that Bessler's wheel will answer, than we should be doing all in our power to solve it, replicate it and use it.

Will Bessler's wheel be a practical solution, if it works?

2011-04-09T08:54:00.000+01:00

I wonder hown practical Bessler's wheel wll turn out to be, if it ever gets re-invented. How will the world react to the news that Bessler's wheel had been replicated and proven to work?

80 per cent of electricity globally is produced by steam powered turbines - an amazingly old-fashioned concept when you think about it. These massive generators can produce 2,000,000 hp or 1,500,000 kW. They are huge beasts and I find it hard to picture what size Bessler's wheel would have to be to achieve the same output, and yet George Westinghouse was able to scale up Sir Charles Parsons' original steam turbine, which had already been increased from a 7.5 kW set up to units of 50,000 kW capacity, by some 10,000 times. I'm sure that a similar exercise could be applied to Bessler's wheel to generate enough electricity for individual consumption.

Bessler mentioned the possibility of constructing a number of wheels in series and if they were all mounted on one axle it is obvious that one could scale up a wheel of unrestricted depth, mounted on an axle of say, 50 foot, with similarly enlarged weights operating in the same way as in the original design. But is this the way it would develop? There could be a massive reduction in demand from the centrally placed power generators if there was an equally large uptake of individual designed home electricity generators.

So how much electricity does the average home consume? Hard to answer because different homes use different methods for heating and/or air conditioning but if one wanted to eliminate the need for oil and natural gas then you would require Bessler's wheel to produce more than enough electricity to power everything.

It has proved difficult to obtain a figure but I found a site which suggested that the average American house uses approximately 12,000kwh per year which is about 32 kwh a day. Of course that figure may be wildy out, but as a guide it will do. There are a number of generators currently available, producing that kind of output, some cost more than $10,000! However these do of course include the very expensive diesel engines required to rotate the armature and the replacing of that with the much simpler Bessler's wheel would reduce the price considerably. I'm sure that given the amount of competition, improvenments in design and sheer quantity of entrepreneurial manufacturers, the price would drop just as it does in the world of improving TVs and computers.

This drop in demand for centrally produced electricity could go a long way towards making the nuclear/fossil-fuelled power stations almost redundant. I guess there would still be a need for limited amounts of electricity from a central location for distribution to industrial manufactureres, and those who have not been able to take advantage of the new devices. Perhaps those larger power generators might still be able to adopt an enlarged Bessler's wheel.

I know this is just a dream, but it could happen.

"No" to more nuclear power. Free, clean, safe energy = Bessler's gravitywheel

2011-03-31T17:11:00.002+01:00

The news that the Tokyo Electric Power Company will completely write off four of the six reactors at the crippled nuclear plant, suggests that the time is up for this expensive, potentially hazardous way of generating electricity. Many countries are reviewing their plans to build more 'improved' reactors and perhaps a halt will be called to further developments. I suggest that coal-fired electricity generators would be preferable to the nuclear option. I looked up the comparative costs of the options in the UK and found that one nuclear power station costs about £1.2b to build. A coal-fired one costs a little less at £1 billion. However the coal-fired one has the latest emmission cleaning technolog that reduces pollution to almost zero. The on-going cost of dealing with spent fuel rods from a nuclear reactor are almost limitless.

By comparison, an offshore wind turbine is rated at 3MW but only reaches about 40% of that capacity because of wind conditions. This means that you would need 1166 wind turbines to equal the output of a nuclear reactor! The cost of building them is estimated at £10.4b and would take up 406 square kilometers!

Why are we even considering wind power? It doesn't make economical nor ecological sense. Better to have coal fired power than the other options. However there is a snag. The cost in lives of coal mining is prohibitive and it is impossible to guarantee absolute safety even in the most advanced pits. So what's left?

What's the solution? There is one of course! Above these options Bessler's wheel would rein supreme as the
cleanest,cheapest, safest option.

Am I being presumptive and too naive in suggesting that such a system is even feasible let alone possible? No, the evidence that such a device was designed and built and demonstrated almost 300 years ago in Germany is so well established that it is regarded as a potential solution to the energy crisis in some quarters and is accepted as fact among a few in the higher echelons of the world of physics. We can, and must, continue our investigations into this phenomenon in order to present the world with this c lean, free, safe form of energy.

We have been taught that such a device, driven purely by gravity, is a violation of the laws of conservation of energy. Unfortunately there is an absolutely vast majority who continue to believe this and ignore the evidence. There is sound evidence that Bessler's wheel required no other force than gravity to drive it. What I find extraordinary is the lengths many of those who accept that Bessler's wheel worked, will go to, to explain why it works, summoning additional energies that in my opinion simply won't suffice. For me the truth is blindingly simple, gravity will do the job on its own and there is no conflict with the laws of physics. There is no need to imagine extra impetus from other forces, gravity will do the job. Bessler's wheel proves our teachers wrong and if it is wrong then it is up to we few who know the secret to build a working model, publish the how and the why and spread the information with all possible speed to stop any more of these toxic nuclear generators bringing forward the early demise of the human species not to mention the myriad other forms of life. It could happen.

JC

How many wheels? How long 'til success?

2011-03-24T08:33:00.000Z

Someone emailed me recently asking how many wheels I had built. This is a hard question to answer, because you must first define what is a new design and what is a modification of a current design.

I've no idea how many wheels I've built over 36 years, but possibly over a hundred. I think I've modified every single one of them, by adjusting the lengths of levers, and increasing or decreasing the numbers of parts and adjusting the weights and altering the fulcrum points etc, etc. However the number of different designs or concepts by which each wheel was originally designed to work, must be fewer. I did sit down and try to draw rough diagrams of all the different designs I had built over the years but I gave up after I had done about 30 because I kept remembering others and some were so similar at first sight that I wasn't sure how or even whether, to define them as different. I guess that were between 80 and 100 completely different designs, but it could be more, I simply don't know.

In the end I came to the conclusion that I have built over a hundred and possibly two hundred wheels, none of which worked. I say none 'worked' and I mean that although some showed promise, none of them turned for more than about a minute.

The evidence that Bessler's wheel was genuine is so firmly established in my mind now that I cannot give up on my attempts to replicate it. It's like a puzzle that you turn over and over in your mind, you cannot solve it and yet you can't leave it alone, because it looks so simple, but must spend your waking hours worrying at it like a dog with a bone. You might think that I'd want to give up building the models by now, but this is unlikely to happen, unless I become incapable of building them. The truth is I feel as if I'm within a hair's breadth of success. This is because my own successes in decoding Bessler's hidden information has given me some very strong insights into the actual design of the mechanism. I have already worked out why it worked without coming up against the problem of the conservative force of gravity and I've given some strong hints at how this can be. I know that no one accepts my theories any more than I accept anyone else's. So...there is everything to play for and I am determined to prove I'm right by building a working wheel.

I know what has to be done to access the energy of gravity and if my latest model doesn't work I know how to adjust it to make it work. The design as it stands, is set to maximise the effect I have found - but within that design there is a negative reaction which may need reducing so that it doesn't overwhelm the excess force generated. I see it as a delicate balancing act to get just sufficient leverage without compromising the effect generated by the leverage.

I am well aware that there are dozens, perhaps, hundreds of others who share my feelings of confidence, so I'll just wish all of us good luck and hope that someone succeeds really soon.

My wheels are too small!

2011-03-18T16:50:00.001Z

My efforts to replicate Besslers wheel have been delayed over the last couple of weeks by a medical emergency in the family but I'm back on it now. I had got fed up with constantly finding that my mechanisms got entangled with each other because I made them too large and/or placed them too close to each other. This is a problem that has beset me frequently in the past. However, I'm sure that if I place them slightly further out and therefore less close together this will not reduce their effect ... if they work!

To put it another way, if they would have worked where I originally placed them, then in theory they should work in the new position and the worst that might happene is a reduction in power. We'll see!

The reason it has taken me so long to make this change is due to my habit of using and reusing the same pieces of material to make the mechanisms even for different designs,and fixing them to the same size wooden discs. I had a several of these discs all the same size and the pieces of steel I used were also of a certain length and I only altered them reluctantly.

This crazy false economy led to the mechanisms often being just a little too large for the space they occupied, with the result that they frequently got entangled with the adjacent one or locked up. The various pieces are so full of holes anyway, that if I continue to use them, they will just fall apart, and this also applies to the wooden disc that everything is mounted on. I finally accepted that I needed everything on a bigger scale and with more space to operate.

It is probably thought that making the mechanisms the right size from the start is an obvious and simple thing to achieve, but the trouble is that usually I do not know how much leverage it will take to lift a weight for a particular design, until I build it, and then to discover that there is not quite enough room to accomodate the length of lever required, means either redesigning another part of the mechanism to reduce its size, or enlarging the space available by using a larger disc.

I had made a partial move towards new material but using the same sized disc still limited the space. I now have a much larger disc and I'm using some new aluminum and steel for the mechanisms and hoping that this time everything works without locking up. Of course it may not drive the wheel but at least it should operate as I designed it.

More Bessler findings at http://www.mikeyned.com/

2011-03-09T18:10:00.000Z

I used to be in a small research group called called BORG, which stood Bessler Orffyreus Research Group. We thought we might succeed where others had failed in finding the solution to Bessler's wheel by trying to brain-storm a solution. For a while it was stimulating and exhilarating and we thought we might succeed, but as time went by, one by one, we began to drop out. The enterprise eventually ran out of steam and we went our separate ways. Unfortunately I lost everything to do with that episode due to a computer malfunction

One member of that group was a guy called Mikey Ned who has been a long time researcher into this subject. He has recently updated it at http://www.mikeyned.com/ and it has some interesting things to say about the measurement scales used in Bessler's drawings.

I have always been puzzled that no one appears to take any notice of Bessler's most widely known drawings. I refer to those which appear in Das Triumphirende. Each drawing has a purpose and they are stuffed so full of clues of an obvious kind, that it seems, to me at least, equally obvious that there are other clues of a more subtle kind.

I could mention for instance the presence of the pendulums (or pendula if you want the correct term). No witness ever recorded seeing them although they were mentioned by Bessler. Their presence was explained by a rather weak rationalsation which was really unnecessary. The reason for their presence is obvious to me even if it isn't to others. If you zoom in on a good scan of the drawings it is possible to see the great care taken with every line in each drawing.

It's interesting for me to see what someone else has posted about their own studies into this area of research because I sometimes think I'm the only one who has tried to make sense of the drawings which Bessler clearly laboured over. Those drawing are not just decorative they hold a wealth of clues and if we can only extend our knowledge of what is in them there is just a chance we can solve this puzzle that way instead of trying to do the way Bessler did, through a mixture of intuition and trial and error.

Good job, Mikey!

Angular Momentum to Linear Momentum - and back again?

2011-02-27T11:36:00.001Z

Sometimes when looking for a solution to a mechanical problem it helps to reverse the sequence of events required - or as Professor Eric Laithwaite liked to do, consider an analogy.

What we seek is a way of converting the downward linear force of gravity into rotational motion. As a means of seeking a solution for those of us who believe Bessler's wheel operated purely by gravitational force, perhap it might help to study the work of those whose ambition is to reverse the process. They wish to generate a unidirectional or linear force from a rapidly rotating weighted lever. There are a number of sites devoted to the experiments http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/IPEmain.htm for instance.

Now whether or not you believe it can be achieved, and I do, it is a fact is it not, that if Bessler's wheel is successfully built and is proved to be driven by gravity, and a working model demonstrated, then it follows that an engine that converts angular momentum to linear momentum can also be developed, since the action or process of one must be the reverse of the other.

Such an engine would have its own extraordinary abilities. It could move over land and water and rise upwards against gravity. Space drive with no emissions.

Who best to play Bessler?

2011-02-19T07:11:00.000Z

It has been remarked on more than one occasion that the story of Johann Bessler's life would make an excellent movie. It has already been made into an opera although I have not seen it, and it seems to me that a movie about the inventor would have all the ingredients needed to make a worldwide box office success.

There is lust, greed, jealousy, theft, hatred, love, a hunt for treasure, black magic, murder, corruption in high places and conspiracy - all set against the background of one man's struggle for recognition and a prize worth millions of dollars in today's money - not to mention a solution to today's energy and pollution problems. Need I say more?

And who is to play this tenacious, conceited, highly ingenious, emotional and troubled man? This is something I have pondered on at length for several years. For most of that time I wanted a British actor to play him, because I think they are the best actors, generally speaking. It requires someone who can express ingenuity, determination, obsession, triumph, paranoia and suspicion and blind fury - and yet call for the tenderest outpouring of love on occasion and be motivated by an overwhelming commitment to his religious belief.

That was until the other day when I saw Robert Downey Jr. and recognised his outstanding talent. He seems to have the look of Bessler sometimes. I now have him as my favourite for the part, unless someone else betters him in that unique role. - and someone probably will.

Flights of Fancy - Or the right interpretation?

2011-02-15T18:11:00.000Z

Over the years I've had a number of thoughts about Bessler's words and what he might have meant. Some of those I have published on my web sites (listed on the lower right). Some of it is speculative but nevertheless I didn't include anything I didn't seriously consider a valid proposal.

But there are other ideas that are more subjective and I won't publish them on my websites in case someone takes them as factual, but here on my blog I see no reason not to engage in what some might call flights of fancy. Therefore I shall post some comments on Bessler's words over the next few weeks. They are still valid interpretations but not certain.

I've no idea if this will generate any comments but this blog format is not ideal for discussion so although I shall read all comments with interest, I think that it will not be possible to respond to each one, here. I have considered opening a forum but I do not really have the time to run it properly so I'll leave it to those who may want more discussion to take it elsewhere. So, for my first example consider the words by Bessler.

"A great craftsman would be that man who can 'lightly' cause a heavy weight to fly upwards! Who can make a pound-weight rise as 4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall. If he can sort that out, the motion will perpetuate itself. But if he can't, then his hard work shall be all in vain." - page.295 of my book "Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?"

Or as Rainer on the besslerwheel forum wrote, more succinctly, "When 1 pound drops 1/4 , it will (swing,throw?) 4 pounds upwards by 4/4"

or as Stewart, also on the forum, says more precisely,"He will be called a great craftsman, who can easily/lightly throw a heavy thing high, and if one pound falls a quarter, it shoots four pounds four quarters high".

The gist of the comment seems to be that a one pound weight can lift a second one pound weight four times higher than the distance the first weight falls and the lift or thrust upwards is accomplished easily - or even that one pound could lift four pounds four time higher! These suggestions are, on the face of it, ludicrous. Obviously, Bessler cloaked his meaning in apparently meaningless nonsense and yet there is a sense to be obtained from it if we can, so here is my view on the matter.

One pound falls and four pounds rise - four plus one makes five. As has proved the case often, Bessler has hidden more than one layer of meaning in his clue and I think one layer of the phrase was intended to point us to the five mechanisms again.

Secondly, included in the comment is the emphasis on the second weight being lifted or thrown upwards easily. To me this means that if the weight can be lifted easily, it must mean that it is not lifted very high, just a 'kick' upwards. One way to do this is with a long lever with a weight at its end, doing the lifting..

Implicit in the comment is a corroboration of another of his clues which suggests that his weights worked in pairs, so that when the first weight in a pair fell, it moved its paired weight into a position from which the wheel was made to rotate. The other four mechanisms then revolved with the wheel and each rose at some point, so one pound falling made each of four pounds rise four times each.

The use of the word 'quarter' confused my translater and he adapted the word to the English system of weight, when actually I think Bessler meant that each lever-and-weight unit rotated a quarter of a turn. However there is another possibility, and that is that the 'quarter' referred to, simply meant that the falling weight fell the same distance as the rising weight. The word 'quarter' was used to throw us off the scent. He might have said that each pound rose half way when the other pound fell half way. - or they rose and fell 15 degrees each. The important clue was that both weights moved through the same distance.

Well that's my take on this particular comment by Bessler. More to follow.

A gravitywheel will still obey the laws of physics

2011-02-09T17:01:00.000Z

I know that it is commonly believed by some people that when Bessler's wheel is finally successfully replicated, those who inhabit the higher echlons of science will have to eat humble pie and re-evaluate the laws of physics and a few believe that the laws will actually have to be rewritten.

I have long believed that a successful version of Bessler's wheel cannot require the overturning of well-established physical principles. No matter how it might appear to conflict with the laws of physics, a gravitywheel must adhere to them. In which case when a working model is produced it will not be the laws which are wrong, but our interpretation of them.

It will be more than enough just to produce a working model and there is no need, in my opinion, to invoke some new physical law which so far has been undetected by mankind. For such a law, if it could be established and verified, would surely have been observable in some other context long, long ago. So that simplifies things because we only need to look at the laws we already accept and see how our understanding of them can be modified - without changing the them - to acommodate Bessler's gravitywheel.

I have spent a lifetime looking at these laws and I think I know how Bessler's gravitywheel was able to operate within the confines of the law of conservation of energy. I have alluded to this before, briefly, but reactions have ranged from scorn to apathy. So, as I said recently, I am currently building a model with an accompanying video, with which I intend to demonstrate that, despite the fact that gravity is a conservative force, it does not preclude the possibility of a gravity-driven wheel.

66 and still trying to invent the wheel!

2011-02-05T07:06:00.001Z

I'm 66 today! They say time travels faster as you age, and my goodness, is it speeding past now! It's been fifty years since I first read about Johann Bessler and even longer since I began designing perpetual motion machines, and I thought I might have solved the problem long before now.

There is a nice succession of links in this story. I first read about Bessler in a book called "Oddities: A Book of Unexplained Facts", by Rupert T. Gould. He was a Lieutenant Commander in the British Royal Navy noted for his contributions to horology and a host of other things and was described as a polymath. He gained permission in 1920 to restore the marine chronometers of John Harrison, and this work was completed in 1933, aided no doubt by his photographic memory. Harrison was the guy who won (eventually) the British Board of Longitude's prize for establishing the longitude of a ship at sea. The prize was £20,000, a fortune in those days, and it was the publication of this prize in 1714, which it is believed was the inspiration for Johann Bessler's decision to ask the same sum for the secret of his own invention, the gravitywheel. (For more on Harrison and to see an animation of the grasshopper escapement see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harrison)

John Rowley, the finest instrument-maker in England at the time, was highly praised by Harrison in each of two volumes he published. The King of England, George l, who had already recognised Rowley's expertise in mechanics, and made him "Master of Mechanics to the King", requested a special sun dial from Rowley as a gift to Karl, the Landgrave of Hesse and Bessler's patron. Rowley took it to Kassel and installed at Karl's castle and during his visit was able to meet Bessler and see a demonstration of his wheel. He came away convinced of Bessler's claims and devoted the remaining years of his life to trying to replicate what Bessler had done.

Briefly, Rowley actually witnessed the wheel, he was a friend and colleague of John Harrison whose clocks were restored by Rupert Gould who also researched and published an account of Bessler, which I subsequently read. One cannot help but speculate that Gould must have had an interest in Bessler's machine and been aware of the connections between those involved.

As someone pointed out recently, mine and Bessler's obsession with the number 55 even includes my birthdate. 5th Feb 1945. There is a five and a two, so writing two fives makes 55 and then 1 and 9 is 10 plus 45 is 55 again! Amazing (not)!

Being the optimist that I am I am still convinced that Bessler's gravitywheel will be replicated and it can't happen a moment too soon. Time is, as I said, whizzing past at great speed and the need for this machine is growing at an alarming rate. Sticking to the 55 theme, I think I should have discovered the secret when I was fifty-five however I didn't and neither did anyone else. Maybe this year as I'm sixty-six and Bessler first exhibited his machine on the 6th June 1712, (six and six) someone will do it then, but of course next year, being the 300th anniversary since then, it would be even better.

No 'wheeling' for me today - just relaxing, being waited on - and the company of my very patient family. (patiently awaiting a working wheel!) But tomorrow I return to the task.

Don't tempt fate with a precipitate announcement ... John

2011-01-28T14:22:00.003Z

This is merely an observation and not aimed at anyone in particular but I note a common theme in postings both here and in the besslerwheel forum and in other alternative energy forums. Before I go any further let me admit that I recognise exactly the same symptoms to a marked degree in my own actions and therefore I speak with some considerable experience.

Researching Bessler and seeking a solution to perfecting a working gravity wheel is what drives most of us and it is commonly observed that many who are involved in this persuit may on occasion have a sudden spontaneous flash of inspiration and illumination in which the solution to the problem is revealed. Further consideration over a period of time - it might be hours, days or months, it makes no difference - and the details acquired in this sudden attainment of intuitive knowledge are confirmed to the apparent satisfaction of the lucky recipient.

Following on from this exciting news and transported by thoughts of fame and fortune, the beneficiary of this amazing insight will be mentally preparing the details of how he will reveal his knowledge to the world with one or two caveats. He will want to ensure that he receives a just reward for his projected success but he will be concerned that the mysterious MIB do not take remedial action to stop any public announcment - and of course he will consider the advisability of patenting his new invention.

These thoughts are common to most of us and understandable, and I suspect that everyone of us has had a moment when the solution seemed clear but upon further consideration it was decided that the design did not answer the problem. There are times too, when even detailed analysis of the apparent solution seems to indicate that we are on the right path and it is only when we come to actually build a model that the truth becomes cruelly apparent.

This tendency to be utterly convinced that you have hit upon the right design does not always fade with experience - I know this better than most! If you wish to share the design and are not concerned about who gets recognition for it, then go ahead and tell the world, but if you wish to have some kind of recognition - and that is perfectly understandable and acceptable - be warned, "multa cadunt inter calicem supremaque labra", or there's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip. It's best, in my opinion, not to say that you have the solution and you have only to complete construction of the device before revealing it to the world, because experience shows that what was revealed intuitively to you in the wee small hours,sometimes has a habit of tripping you up, by not actually working.

Let me stress that this is not so much a message to others as to myself! To all who would seek the glory of success, contain your excitement; say nothing in public; make a working model first.

Aren't we ignoring what is under our nose - Bessler's words?

2011-01-18T07:14:00.000Z

Discussing my ideas about gravity-driven wheels (gravitywheels) has sparked some interesting ideas and theories by email which might advance my own research - or perhaps someone else's, but I think I'm on my own as far as believing that Bessler's wheel was driven purely by gravity.

I understand the reasons for the complete and utter rejection of this idea, but I don't think anyone understands why I am so committed to this line of reasoning. If it was based entirely on faith, which has been suggested more than once, I could understand why my viewpoint is ignored, but it's not. In addition I find it quite puzzling that almost everyone interested in this extraordinary project is single-mindedly looking for the solution almost anywhere except one which uses gravity alone.

When you read Bessler's words it seems obvious, to me at least, that he means that his wheel was driven entirely and exlusively by gravity, but because this appears to be in breach of the law of conservation of energy, such an idea is rejected without further consideration. To discard this proposal is to reject Bessler's words as if they were either false or designed to mislead, and while I accept that he didn't want anyone to discover his secret, he took the greatest delight, in my opinion, in teasing his readers with small pieces of information designed to titllate and intrigue. I simply don't accept that he wrote all that he did with the intention of completely deceiving us, his readers. He knew or at least hoped that at some point in the not too distant future his secret would be sold and everyone would eventually know how it worked. At that point he would not be best pleased in having to defend himself against accusations of lying or misleading. He was looking forward to pointing to all the clues in triumphant glee.

However that leaves us with a problem; how do we resolve the issue that gravity is a conservative force? I've posted some of my thoughts about that but I haven't revealed the design nor the key factor which I believe I have. I'm working on that but in the mean time I plan to video some demonstrations of how the conservative nature of gravity does not necessarily hamper us in our search for a solution. I'll post them and put a link here in due course. This may take some time to accomplish.

Watch this space.

Response to my forum posting about conservative forces.

2011-01-08T21:49:00.001Z

The publication of my ideas about conservative forces on the Besslerwheel forum was met with a mixture of benign criticism and some somwhat less than favourable comments, as expected. You can't expect to suggest that 300 years of scientific advances might have overlooked some small detail without incurring criticism and argument, and I am not dispappointed by the reaction - it has got people talking about Bessler's wheel again.

What has surprised me is that among a small number of emails I received which offered their support for my conjecture there was one which apologised for not saying so publicly. The reason apparently was that doing so might diminish their standing in some way. I find this remarkable and it seems to mimic the situation between the majority of members and the rest of the world and indeed the whole history of the search for perpetual motion.

Many people who study Bessler's writings look for subtle deceptions and double meanings in everything he wrote and while I am guilty of seeing encoded messages in various places that are not as clear to others as they are to me, I think that he wrote the truth without dissembling and only restricted the information enough not to give the secret away. So when he wrote such phrases as, 'the machine was set in motion by weights'; 'Weights gained force from their own swinging'; 'the weights applied force at right angles to the axis' and Karl's view that' he did not disguise the fact that the mechanism is moved by weights', I think he spoke the truth and I have no doubt whatsoever that the machine depended on the presence of gravity and indeed was run by gravity alone. I see no need to invoke hidden meanings in phrases which describe in normal everyday language, the way the machine worked. There is a phrase, 'the law of parsimony, or succinctness', which describes the principle of choosing a theory that requires fewer new assumptions, and in this case the simplest interpretation is the most likely one to be right, I think.

I understand why some highly intelligent and experienced members of the forum insist on sticking to the belief that gravity cannot run the wheel because it is a conservative force, but I regret that they dismiss my thoughts with friendly humour but no serious consideration. And yet I read Bessler's words and can only conclude that gravity was the mainstay of his machine and just because gravity is a conservative force may does not completely and utterly rule out a way around it. If my suggestion does not meet satisfactorily the criteria sought by those who would deny it, then I can't help but compare them to the rest of the scientific community who also refuse to contemplate such a possibility.

So once again I point the reader to my web site at http://www.besslerswheel.com/html/conservative_force.html, where he will read about the 'mysterious other force' which helps the weight complete its rotation without using any additional energy which wasn't generated by its fall.

Circumstances in which a gravitywheel can be turned continuously by gravity alone.

2011-01-05T19:27:00.001Z

I have felt for some time that maybe I should put something about my own thoughts about the fact that gravity is a conservative force and therefore apparently unable to drive a gravitywheel continuously.

So I posted a short piece on my web site at http://www.gravitywheel.com/ and perhaps more unwisely, a short copy on the Bessler forum. I know in advance that some people will take their customary potshots at me for taking this viewpoint but I cannot help my opinion. I remain uttlerly convinced that there is a way to drive a gravitywheel by means of weights reacting to gravity and no amount of constant repetition or parroting of the disinformation stuffed down our throat at school can shake my conviction.

I read and read and read what I had written over and over again and I cannot see how anyone can argue with it, but argie they will and in the end I shall go my own way and maybe I'll prove myself right. I hope so.

PS

In the light of a new day my words seem a trifle strong. I wasn't dismissing everything we have been taught, rather I wished to express my doubts about the fact as taught, that because gravity is a conservative force it cannot be used to drive a gravitywheel continuously. My feeling is that such a statement will one day be shown to be too inclusive, and that a particular mechanical design will allow such a mchine to work.
JC

Bessler's Wheel - The Solution to the Energy Crisis - Spread the news!

2010-12-27T18:35:00.006Z

When I first published my biography about Johann Bessler, also known as Orffyreus, I discovered that there was a small but keen group of people eager for information about the inventor, which resulted in a steady stream of orders from all over the world from people who appeared on the surface at least, to believe in the possibility of a perpetual motion machine.

Now I was never happy with that designation and I have tried over the years to differentiate the term 'perpetual motion' from what I believe was what Besslers wheel was. I have argued that since his wheel seemed to have acquired its energy from the force of gravity, and a 'perpetual motion' motion machine was believed to have no access to external energy, it could not be called a 'perpetual motion' machine and that a better description would be a 'gravity wheel' or 'gravitywheel'. I think most of the people who bought my book are well aware of the distinction and fully understand the impossibility of 'perpetual motion' machines when defined as a machine which runs for ever with no addional input of energy.

It doesn't really matter as long as there are a sufficient number of people, who are prepared to be open-minded about Bessler's claims, to carry on and maintain research into his machine with the aim of discovering the secret of its construction, and to my mind the information available in Bessler's books holds the best hope of success. But what is puzzling me is the sudden drop in orders for my books, allied to the apparent decrease in the number of new members of the Besslerwheel forum - and the fall in the number of posts. I'm not concerned at the fall in income from the sale of books, that only ever helped to recoup some of the cost of translations I had had done over the years, plus of course ongoing costs in running the web sites and doing further research. Even if I got no further income from book sales I would continue with my research. But this seems to indicate a fall in interest.

But why is it that the public interest in Bessler's wheel seems to be disappearing? What has changed? If anything I would have thought that there would be renewed interest as well as more newcomers to the subject. There is so much discussion about the need for a new way of generating electricity; so many adverts around the world by governments desperate to solve the problem of escalating oil prices, and reductions in carbon emissions and the lack of any real alternative to be worthy of consideration ... that I cannot understand the sudden flack of interest.

To me the only answer is to try to spread the word about Bessler's wheel as a potential energy generating device, more widely. But I have tried to spread the word for the last few years with little success. I think something more dramatic is neeeded which will grab everyone's attention. Of course the one thing that would do that would be the announcement of a new device based on Bessler's wheel and that is our ultimate aim, but in case that does not happen in the very near future something else is needed, in order to bring more new amateur researchers into this field of research.

The solution may appear next week or not for ten years or longer, so the sooner the public gets involved the better - and the sooner the wheel will appear.

So all suggestions welcomed for discussion here, but try to keep it legal guys! LOL

Words of Encouragement

2010-12-22T14:32:00.000Z

It seems to me that we who try to solve the mystery of Bessler's wheel, seem to have lost our way a bit, lately. Maybe we should return to what originally attracted our attention and caused us to consider the possibility that a method could be found of driving a revolving wheel by the use of gravity.

Remember that on 6th July 1712, Johann Bessler, also known as Orffyreus, claimed that he had invented a wheel which would turn continuously powered only by gravity. As proof, he exhibited a working model - something none of us has achieved to date.

I have provided as much information as I have been able to find in 30 year's research - the most complete biography of Bessler to date, books by Bessler with English translations, letters by him and about him and to him, drawings by him, descriptions of his encoded clues compete with my interpretations of what he meant. I have done this to draw attention to Bessler's claims and I have updated version of the original book almost ready for publication but I don't want to release it because I feel that the solution is about to appear and I would like to include any new information relating to the new discovery - however......

...it seems as if every year at this time we think, optimistically, that the answer will magically appear next year - but I have seen this written here every year for the last several years - I've posted such optimistic forecasts myself - but so far nothing. I think that there is a desire to believe that, with the 300th anniversary of the first announcement of his discovery looming, the time is ripe for the return of Bessler's wheel, and so it is, but it won't neccessarily happen just because the time is right.

Our thoughts need to return to basics, in my opinion. The more complex the design the more there is to go wrong. Bessler was hugely concerned that people would think his machine too simple to be worth what he was asking for it and argued strongly that despite its simplicity of design it was worth every penny.

So stick to basics, keep it simple and build a working model! Let's make the 300th anniversary a real celebration with a working model! Easy-peasy!

HAPPY CHRISTMAS ALL!

Don't patent Bessler's wheel!

2010-12-17T09:44:00.002Z

Over the years I have questioned the prudence of patenting an invention such as Bessler's wheel. After much deliberation I eventually came to the conclusion that if I was fortunate enough to succeed in building my own version of the wheel, I wouldn't patent it.

I know the subject has been discussed numerous times on the besslerwheel forum and I'm aware of the current opinions being aired, but I was delighted to receive an email from a regular correspondent who directed my attention to a book called, "DON’T File a Patent!" by John D. Smith (Smith Press, 200 pages, $24.95) . I'm not saying I agree with the bombastic tone of the chapter headings and I haven't even read the book, but the concept struck a chord with me and I was pleased to note that I am not alone in questioning the validity of the argument that the right course is, necessarily, to patent.

Some people have ascribed my decision not to patent, to ethical or moral values, but that is not the whole picture. I do in fact believe that this particular invention, if it were successful, should be freely available and without let or hindrance (by which I mean,without anyone or any organisation, having the right to prevent anyone else from building, using, selling or in any other way benefiting from it, however they wish.)

No, there are other reasons why I am sceptical of patenting. One is that in the first place it is costly - enormously so. Yes of course I know that the costs of such an invention could be recouped a million times over, but this is a cost that grows with time, as you try to cover international patents and their annual fees. The sheer amount of paperwork would be more than enough to defeat my enthusiasm. But it is not the cost alone which causes me concern.

There is the policing of the patent. No patent office bothers to protect your patent, they only issue them. You have to consider whether it is worth taking every infringement to court; such an invention will attract every fly-by-night operator in the world, every far Eastern fabricating engineer trying to make a living; every one, in fact, who is looking for ways and means of feeding his family. Would you wish to act against everyone of them? A patent won't protect you against these. You might decide to just take legal action against the big boys but they will have done their homework and even if you win, you will have spent time and money you'd rather not and maybe you won't win.

But there is one more issue concerning infringement which I believe has not been considered or if it has, it has been ignored, and that is the psychological and physical impact experienced in defending your patent; no one seems to consider patent infrinegements other than as a legal challenge but I know, for myself at least, that it would be very distressing and also alarming and irritating to fight a continual battle against those who would try to circumvent your patent.

But these issues are nothing compared to the distinct possibility that your concerned government might see fit to step in and forbid your patent, and tie you up in legal bonds which would prevent you even talking about your device. Then where would the value of your patent lie? The important thing to consider is this; you apply for a patent to protect your invention, and presumably you do this for one or two reasons. Firstly you want to earn some money to secure you and your family's future; nothing wrong in that. Secondly you wish to preserve some control over how it is used. Again a reasonable intent. But if you lose the patent through governent inteference, where's the security in that? Who would control it then? It seems to me that if there is even the slightest possibility of that happening, then you must forget patenting your invention.

So it's no to patenting Bessler's wheel - what then? You publish the details of how it works through newspapers, TV and of course the intenet. There will be enough interest generated to make many of the world's media companies rush to your door and make attractive financial offers to you for your story. This prospect might not seem desirable but do you think that, even in the case where you did apply for and did receive a patent, and the governments around the world welcomed it with open arms, that the media won't make the same concerted rush for your door? Of course they will.

So if you are lucky enough to have to make a choice, my advice would be to give it away and let market forces do their thing.

Is this really the only alternative to fossil fuels?

2010-12-11T19:50:00.002Z

How frustrating it is to come across web sites like the one below!

"Generate your own energy!

Renewable energy technologies like wind turbines, solar panels and biomass heaters offer an alternative to fossil fuels and can help reduce your homes CO2 emissions.

There are financial benefits too. Investing in a renewable energy technology now basically means pre-buying energy at today’s prices for a future where energy may cost a lot more. If fuel prices rise, your pay back would happen even sooner."

The above exhortation comes from http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/, but there are dozens - probably hundreds or even thousands of similar schemes around the world. They urge us to buy into these wonderful-sounding solutions as if they are the answer to the energy crisis - but they aren't - they barely scratch the surface of the problem - but the most frustrating thing about them is that even though there is a real solution - Bessler's gravitywheel - they dismiss it, ignore it or they don't know about it (or they don't want to know about it!).

The world of science has long scoffed at the possibility of running a wheel driven continuously by the force of gravity, and it will take a sea-change in thinking to make someone somewhere sit up and take notice - or a working model!

It's been done before so we know beyond reasonable doubt that gravitywheels are possible. Johann Bessler achieved it and first demonstrated it on 6th July, 1712. In less than two years time it will be the 300th anniversary of that day. I am determined to celebrate the occasion with a complete working reconstruction of the gravitywheel that Johann Bessler invented, if not by me then by someone - anyone! And.....

...despite temperatures of -8 degrees Celsius (about 17 degrees Fahrenheit) during most of the last two weeks, I have managed to do some work on my current construction of a Bessler wheel model, and regardless of previous experience, I dare say, confidence is high!
JC

Addition to www.theorffyreuscode.com

2010-12-02T17:51:00.001Z

Following some serendipitous studies I found what I believe is an interesting piece of information regarding MT 137 - but only for those who relish the code-breaking requirements of Bessler's tortuous coded constructions. It doesn't shed any more light upon the meaning of MT 137, but for me it confirms what I have always thought - that the drawing is only intended to be another secret pointer to the number 5.

I have added yet another page to the http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/ web site and an extra button MT 137 C! I have slightly altered MT 137 A, and MT 137 B although I doubt anyone will notice the difference. I'm not posting anything on BW forum because I don't think anyone is particularly interested. That's not sour grapes, its just the way it is. I don't think that repetitive revelations that yet another piece of code appears to suggest the number 5 will light anyone's fire, not even mine, but I do have an interest in all things Bessler and I am constantly intrigued to find new layers of meaning within his writing/drawing.

The only thing I would say is that after all these discoveries relating to the number 5, I must admit that I am perplexed at the ubiquity of it and concerned that something so apparently important to Bessler should be ignored simply because there is so much of it.

JC

Apologia Poetica, Chapter 55. Beginning to decipher the code?

2010-11-21T13:58:00.000Z

As promised, I have published my ongoing research into deciphering the code in chapter 55 and nyou can read it at http://www.orffyreus.net/. I haven't actually deciphered anything yet although I feel I have made some small progress in untangling the clues. I confess I've reached a dead end at the moment and although I do have some other ideas to explore there is nothing sufficiently convincing for me to think it worth sharing.

Even if the web site inspires someone to have a go at following my lead and succeeds where I have failed, then it has to be worth it.

Good luck!

Update on wheel progress and decoding chapter 55

2010-11-11T08:45:00.000Z

Just to update folks who are interested. After my last effort to persuade people that I knew the principle behind Bessler's wheel and the fiasco that resulted, I swore to myself that I would keep my mouth shut in future. The trouble with making such claims is that, understandably, people demand proof - and without a working model no such proof is available. Unfortunately I succumbed to the requests to share my ideas and in effect shot myself in the foot. However, (didn't you just know that there would be a 'however'!) my recent experiments have revived my optimism that I shall succeed eventually and I simply have to share it (my optimism not the design!) But don't worry , I shall keep my ideas to myself until such a time as I can reveal a working model. I won't even hint at my design so then I won't be tempted to share it until I can prove it.

So why am I bothering to say this? Well I have just been counting up how many emails I have received since my premature crowing, several months ago now, (just the ones which simply asking me how things are going) and I counted 67! This particular blog was prompted by getting five in one day earlier this week, so this is just to update those kind people who I consider my friends and who seem supportive of my attempts to publish what I know (or what I think know!).

As those who read this blog may remember, I am preparing to post some stuff about my attempts to decipher chapter 55 which I believe holds an encoded message. I was going to hold off until I had included everything about my work on this material, however recent posts on the besslerwheel forum about chapter 55 have encouragedd me to publish what I have done so far, in the next few hours. I'm sure I shall receive the usual dose of criticism mitigated by supportive emails, but if my efforts help someone else towards deciphering the code then it will have been worth it.

I hope that the web site at http://www.orffyreus.net/ is not too long and the evidence not too badly argued. I have found it quite difficult to explain without getting into too much detail and yet not omitting important points.

Bessler's "Connectedness Principle".

2010-11-04T15:52:00.000Z

A couple of weeks ago I received an email asking me what I understood by Besslers "connectedness principle". I answered to the best of my ability at the time, but I have had further thoughts about it which I thought I'd put down here.

In his Maschinen Tractate number 9, Bessler says:-

"Because experience shows us that the ball-driven wheels like those seen in the present figure and diagrams were of no avail, people speculated on another principle, namely on weights. To be sure in all the weight drawings that I have found, these weights appear simple and are not connected together with belts and chains, even in Leupold, but nothing can be accomplished with any device unless unless it responds due to my connectedness principle..."

In my original version I changed the phrase "connectedness principle", to something I thought was more accurate, but since then I have been persuaded that the above phrase is probably closer to the original intention.

So what did he mean? The word "connectedness" doesn't even appear in some dictionaries and is probably more akin to the literal translation of Bessler's language than an apposite English word. It is a noun and is defined as "a relation between things or events http://www.thefreedictionary.com/connectedness - or a "state of being attached, ability to be connected". http://dictionary.babylon.com/connectedness/.

I don't feel that these get to the actual meaning intended by Bessler. For clarification I looked up some synonyms for 'connected' and found :- "linked, joined, united, coupled, associated, combined,engaged", and there are several more.

"Connectedness" conjures up the idea of things being joined together or united, but in my opinion it also suggests the amount or intensity of a connection which may vary in some way. The coupling of two objects may well be described as connected but their connectedness might be less than or equal to a theoretical maximum. How can we determine what was meant?

One could argue that two things are either connected or not, but it depends; it might be a loose connection in the same way that a nut might be loose on a bolt and therefore it can allow some movement in the connection - or the nut is tight and there is no movement; or it might describe a man on a length of elastic doing a bungee jump - he can stretch the connection and be pulled back to a degree; or a dog which is connected by its lead to its owner - he can pull the dog or prevent it running away but he cannot push with the lead because it's a made of a chain or a length of leather and therefore one might describe it as connected but the connectedness is not as complete as it could be with say a metal rod which is inflexible.

It may be a two-way connection but one way is rigid and the other is flexible. The connection may be, to a certain degree, more or less flexible than it could potentially be.

Bessler must have intended something other than a rigid connection otherwise there was no point in establishing the idea of a "connectedness principle". He implied that his wheel required his connectedness principle in order to function, therefore we might assume that the connection in question was not rigid and unyielding but that the two connected objects were capable of some movement which was independant from each other at some point. For instance if a weight fell and in doing so moved another weight, that would require some connection even if it was only a brief collision with the other, either by direct impact or by means of a rope or chain. Subsquently the fallen weight would have to return to its former position in order to fall again but would perhaps be able to do so without pulling the other weight with it.

Such a "connectedness principle" might also permit delay in certain movements of weights which would be advantageous in some designs.

I don't know what the answer is, but I thought I'd pass on my musings as food for thought. In the mean time I have a theory and I am testing it. I don't know if it will help but given the variety of possible connections outlined above it will probably take me some time to work my way through them. The only thing I do know is that in my design a connectedness principle as described above is a vital ingrediant.

Curious Coincidence or Spurious Inference?

2010-10-20T07:07:00.001+01:00

Following my blog entitled "Decoding Chapter 55 of Bessler's Apologia Poetica",in which I mentioned the large number of clues from Bessler which signified the number 55, it was mentioned that an interview I gave to "Infinite Energy" magazine way back 1998 was printed on page 55! At that time I knew nothing of the apparent importance to Bessler of that number. This was an interesting coincidence and added to the fact that the other person involved happened to look at that page on the same day that I posted my blog almost convinced me of some implied causality! I was discussing the matter with my wife and she pointed out that my birthday is on February 5th - another 5 and a 2. I then observed that 5 x 2 = 10 and added to my year of birth, 1945, added up to 55. It shows how easy it is to be lulled into seeing meaning in something which is perhaps mildly serendipitous - a nice coincidence, but nothing more.

The brain tends to identify patterns and sometimes it gets fooled. I remember after 911, the spate of seemingly meaningful number coincidences that related to that event that appeared on the internet. This feature of the way the brain works is useful but can lead one up a blind alley. Clouds sometimes form shapes which some people see as recognisable faces but there is probably more meaning in the patterns seen in the rorschach inkblot test. Nevertheless one cannot always ignore them and Orffyreana are a ripe area for the appearance of such curious coincidences - or are they spurious inferences?

One well-known coincidence is the fact that Bessler included 141 bible references in "Apologia Poetica", in the section headed "Orffyrean Declaration of Faith". Apart from the fact that there are so many, on their own there is nothing to wonder at, however in his "Maschinen Tractate" (MT) he destroyed or hid some of its drawings at the time of his arrest and replaced others to make 141. The last one which I call "The Toys" drawing has five numbers appended to the bottom of it to bring the total to the desired 141. Why did he want to have 141? Are we to draw a connection between the two books? I don't know. Coincidence or design? And Why does MT47 have a ghostly mirror image of the number 47 attached to it, and does it matter that 47 goes into 141 just three times. Coincidence? Probably, but should we ignore it?

I have a reputation for seeing meaning in everything Bessler wrote or drew, and I know that some think my imagination is leading me astray, but in fact I do study each 'clue' with a highly critical eye. Sometimes if I am unsure about its validity, I publish details about it and hope to draw comment which might enable me to confirm it as a real clue or discard it completely. With regard to Chapter 55, I have found much of the route to deciphering the coded parts but there is some ambiguity about where to go next and that is why I intend to publish what I know.

The Decoding of Chapter 55 of Johann Bessler's 'Apologia Poetica'.

2010-10-16T18:55:00.000+01:00

Reconstructing Bessler's wheel is an important objective for me, but the mystery of Bessler's code fascinates me almost as much.

It has seemed obvious to me ever since I discovered the hidden pentagrams in the Merseberg wheel drawings and subsequently several others in other drawings by Bessler, and of course the proliferation of encoded 5s and 55s elsewhere in his publications, that there must be more to it than just my own theory that they indicated five mechanisms as a basic requirement for a successful gravitywheel - or seven or nine.

It is already obvious to many people that Bessler hid some encoded information in Apologia Poetica and I think that the key to deciphering it involves the number 5. I'm not saying that I'm wrong about the five mechanisms, it's just that I think that once Bessler had discovered that his gravitywheel needed at least five mechanisms to work (and more as long as they were odd numbers) he decided to use the number five as part of his encoding method, as well. This is typical of Bessler, he seems to have delighted in designing each code to have two or more ways of deciphering it.

The repetition of the number five, almost exclusively within the Apologia Poetica, suggests that it is within this book that we should look for a secret message and Bessler hints at that exact thought. He says,in chapter 46, "Those who are keen to ask questions should ask them of this little book. My work will not be revealed prematurely." Chapter 55 is the final chapter of part one, (part two was added later to respond to unfair accusations by his enemies) so, given my firm conviction that there is an encoded message hidden in the book, and taking into account that Bessler is practically shouting out the number 55, chapter 55 seems like an excellent place to look.

It would be extremely useful to find someone with professional experience in codebreaking who would be willing to apply their professional skills in deciphering the code. I have made contact in the past with acclaimed experts in the field, men such David Khan, widely regarded as the world’s leading expert on the history of codes and cryptology, who although unable or unwilling to help did introduce me to an ex MI5 codebreaker, who was unfortunately too ill to help and who has subsequently passed away. I have also in the past been in contact with Cheltenham GCHQ in the hope that someone there might be of assistance. The woman I spoke to suggested that I post the problem to her and she would publish it internally. Unfortunately this particular piece of encoded material does not lend itself to brief publication on a noticeboard.

I have returned to the mystery of Chapter 55 many times and have accumulated a considerable amount of information about it and I plan to publish the details soon, which will, I hope, help those whose experience in the art of codebreaking is so much more profound and whose knowledge of the subject is infinitely broader than my own.

There are several mysteries attached to Chaper 55; the 141 bible references for a start; the fact that some of them don't actually exist; the fact that the rhyming couplets used throughout the 7000 (approximately) lines of the book are changed for just 220 lines in Chapter 55 (55 verses!); the apparently random switching from fraktur font to Latin font; the fact that five (yes its that ubiquitous number again!) references are duplicated; the weird spaces and omitted lines for no apparent reason. I haven't even mentioned the 684 'xs' that litter the end of many lines in the whole book. I could go on, but I won't. Let me just say that I have some of the answers and I shall post them in due course on one of my web sites in the near future and will notify all who might be interested as to where and when it will become available as soon as I can.

I would add it to www.theorffyresucode.com but that is so full of brief pieces about some of the codes that there is no room for any more, and I plan a more detailed article about Chapter 55 so I've decided that for the time being I shall probably add it to either http://www.orffyreus.org/ or http://www.orffyreus.net/.

Das Triumphirende FOR SALE. But only until Midnight GMT 31st OCTOBER 2010

2010-10-08T15:05:00.000+01:00

It seemed like a good idea to leave the period that the book was availabe for sale, with an unlimited cutoff date to allow as many people as possible to consider the idea of purchasing the book. So far I have received three firm offers and there are a couple more considering their options. Understandably there has been some concern over how long they would have to wait for their offers to be accepted or rejected, so I have decided to put a time limit on the sale. Anyone interested should make their offer known to me by the end of October, midnight GMT on 31st October 2010.

However, should a firm acceptable offer be made prior to this date, rather in the way that ebay sellers accept "buy now" offers I would be prepared accept it but would only be fair to notify those others who have expressed an interest in purchasing the book,in case they wished to put in an improved offer.

I hope that this seems fair and reasonable.

Das Triumphirende PERPETUUM MOBILE ORFFYREANUM 1719 FOR SALE.

2010-10-01T06:58:00.000+01:00

In November 2001 I drove to Germany to see Kassel and the other places nearbye which featured so much in Bessler's life. In Furstenberg I saw Bessler's wndmill. In Karlshafen I visited Bessler's house and also the antiquarian bookshop which is close to where Bessler lived after leaving Kassel. There I found a copy of the famous Das Triumphirende Perpetuum Mobile Orffyreanum and I was unable to resist the temptation to buy it.

Back in my hotel room I examined the book carefully and found that it had two portraits inside the front cover; one of Bessler himself and the other of an anonymous person. I say anonymous because Bessler had carefully cut out the face on the second portrait and aligned his portrait so carefully that his own face filled the cut out perfectly. The reason for doing this is difficult to determine but I presumed that it had to do with the different items included in each portrait. Subsequently I learned that there are probably no more than three other copies in existence with this unusual feature.

There are one or two which may include the one portrait but the double one is rare, and this must add value to the book. Inside the front cover, just after the double portraits, my copy has a label attached which reads "Ex Libris Emmy Destinn". She was a renowned Czech operatic soprano (26 February 1878 – 28 January 1930). Destinn was born Emílie Pavlína Venceslava Kittlová. She was very versatile and besides being a singer was a poet, novelist and playwright, though nothing she has done in other professions has rivalled her reputation as a singer. She performed in Paris, London and New York many times. She is buried in Prague. Why she owned a copy of Bessler's book I have no idea but her ownership of the book can only add to the provenance and thus its value. I hesitate to add that my own part in its history can scarcely lower its intrinsic value.

The time has come for me to let it go - albeit with extreme reluctance. The book has been treated with care and has been handled by very few people other than myself, it is however a delicate object and should be kept in optimum conditions, something I am unable to guarantee. With this in mind I am offering it for sale to the highest bidder, and there is no particular time limit on the availability of this sale.

Bearing in mind the approaching 300th anniversary of the 6th June 1712 when Bessler first exhibited his wheel, and the current sale of the windmill he was building and from which he fell to his death, there is likely to be some public interest in the inventor at that time and it is not beyond the realms of possibility that someone may finally succeed in reconstructing Bessler's wheel. Given the convergence of these factors at this moment, the timing could not be better for a dramatic increase in the value of this book and is one of the reasons why I am still loath to put it up for sale.

I am tempted to set a price but I won't, preferring to receive offers and give all due consideration to each. I will say just this; very recently I was in negotiations on behalf of another person who wished to purchase the only other copy currently available. This copy lacked the portraits but a price of £3000 was agreed before the seller withdrew from the sale, preferring to hold onto his copy for a few more years, mainly because he didn't wish to part with it and I guess also in the hope of making a substantial profit on his investment.

I have placed further information at http://www.orffyreus.net/ , so if anyone is interested in obtaining this book or just to ask questions about it please let me know by email or through the BW forum

Wheel update and an awsome trebuchet.

2010-09-23T17:31:00.000+01:00

Well I'm still moving stuff out and getting rid of accumulated trash from thirty years! Still unable to work on my new wheel, but as soon as I can I'll be back! Since I have little to report about my wheel work, I thought I'd go off at a bit of a tangent here.

I'm almost ashamed to admit that I've lived here, near Warwick, for over 30 years and yet until this week I had never visited one of the finest castles in England - Warwick castle - and it's just two and half miles from my house. Begun almost a thousand years ago, it's an amazing place and well worth the visit. But for me the best thing is, they have this huge medieval trebuchet that has to be seen to be believed.

It's not the biggest one around, but its still impressive. It weighs in at 22 tons, measures 20 feet in height if you include the throwing arm and can hurl a missile 75 feet high and a thousand feet distant. It takes a small team of 4 or 5 guys walking in a giant hamster wheel at least 15 minutes just to wind up the massive block of sandstone which supplies the power. To be close by when it fires is awsome! This particular one - and they have others - was designed and built by Dr Peter Vemming from The Mediaeval Centre in Nykobing, Denmark, using notes and drawings from the 13th century, so it seems to be pretty authentic. I think that if they could design and build such a truly inspiring machine more than seven hundred years ago, they certainly had the know-how and the ability to built a puny gravitywheel without any problem. But of course they didn't know how! And neither do we ....yet!

There are other equally robust machines at the castle, and you can tell just by looking at them that they can unleash some fearsome energy and are just waiting for the chance! This one I haven't seen fired yet but it just looks cool. I'm sure that the builders of these amazing machines would have been able to build a giant gravitywheel had they known how and I can imagine something with say a twenty foot diameter being turned by heavy stone balls, able to pump thousands of gallons of water, or even raise the twenty ton rock in the trebuchet.

Anyway I shall give some updates here as soon as I have begun work on my wheel - and as always, confidence remains high. I am still utterly convinced that 'kiiking' holds the solution, although I'm aware that most people think I'm way off target. In the end only the proof of principle demonstrated in a working model will convince the world.

Mean while I shall keep the image of the trebuchet in mind to both inspire me and remind me what people could accomplish seven hundred years ago, here on this tired old island.

JC

Update on the wheel and some corrections to the translations.

2010-09-13T07:48:00.001+01:00

I have had to stop working on my Bessler wheel for the last couple of weeks because my workshop has become so cluttered with old wheels and used parts, and pieces of wood and metal and nuts and bolts and washers......etc. I decided to have a clear out of all the bits and pieces I didn't want to keep - other than for nostalgic reasons - because we are having to move some items out of their usual place to leave room for some repairs to other parts of the house. So I had to make room, for a fridge/freezer, tumbledrier and a range of cupboards. This meant taking out one of my two work benches and some serious rearranging of the place. It's almost done and then I can get back to work on the wheel.

The nostalgic items include some apparatus made to demonstrate my ideas in a lecture I gave a few years ago. They included a twelve foot wheel which I had designed to be easily disassembled but with which I hoped to demonstrate just how big Bessler's twelve foot wheel was when you stood next to it. It was just a skeletal assembly which you could rotate with a simple push but it was never intended to be a self-moving one. Another item was a simple vertical windmill shaft on which I had placed two Savonius windmills. A strong fan was placed so that the wind would turn the Savonius windmills. This was to demonstrate the idea that when disconneced from each other they rotated in opposite directions but when linked they did not move unless given a small push. This push allowed them to turn together in the same direction at half the disconnected speed in either direction as required by the pusher. There were also a number of old wheel backs that were so full of holes that they were of no use to me any more. I held on to these items for too long but anyway they've have gone now so I have plenty of room!

I had decided to begin correcting some of the translation errors in my publications, which had been identified by Stewart on the besslerwheel forum over the last few years. It was suggested that because I had not kept the books updated by correcting the text whenever an improvement in the translation was published on the forum that I was causing a certain amount of confusion, and I have received some criticism for my lack of interest in updating the books. I finally agreed that perhaps I should begin the task of making these corrections. However I realised very quickly that it was not as simple as it sounded and when I learned that Stewart planned to publish his own translations in the future there seemed little point in making alterations that would be superceded later by improved translations and I could see that I might be infringing his own copyright by using his words. I was unsure how much of his corrections I could use - did I use only short one or two word corrections for instance and ignore longer passages? Anyway I have decided not to issue revised books but may include an errata sheet. I published the books as translated by my own translater who I commissioned to do the job and I was more than satisfied with his work at the time. And how would he feel on seeing my 'corrections' to his work? In my opinion the differences in translation are minimal to understanding Bessler.

In addition to this I am busy with my revised biography of Bessler. Acknowledging the various works quoted is a time consuming task on its own and I am still awaiting information on some original documents which have been undergoing treatment for mould. It has been a long time in the writing but it is nearing completion and might even be available for the 300th anniversary if I don't get distracted from it too often.

Bessler's Windmill for sale - One Euro!

2010-09-04T07:03:00.004+01:00

A correspondent has kindly pointed out that the famous windmill that Bessler was building when he fell to his death is up for sale, for the princely sum of .... one euro! That's about $1.28!

Of course when you look more closely there are conditions attached to the sale which could cost the buyer hundreds of thousands of pounds. There's a brokerage fee of 950 euros for start (correction that should read 5,950 Euros!) - not too much considering the investment opportunity, but the building is 'listed' and in England that is like buying a large hole and throwing your money in! Nevertheless if I had the money I'd buy it just for me!

Imagine walking around it and seeing Bessler's own work and looking to see if he had scribbled any messages or left documents mouldering away in some hidden cavity .. sorry I'm letting my imagination run away with me again!

Here's a couple of photos from the 'for sale' site. I visited the windmill myself a few years ago but never went inside to see what it was like, but I hope to do so one day.

Sadly, in my opinion, they fail to mention the guy who built it! After Bessler's death the building provided somewhere for the start of the porcelaine industry in that part of German, and that is all they say.

Any buyers out there?

Here's the link:-
http://www.immonet.de/niedersachsen/holzminden-fuerstenberg-besondere-immobilie-kaufen-105279c11227-1.html

Update - and five mechanisms required for proof of principle

2010-08-30T07:29:00.001+01:00

Because I remain convinced that parametric oscillation (or kiiking) is the key to understanding Bessler's wheel I hope those who read this will understand why I continue to discuss it here.

Following a suggestion by a member of BW forum, I reconstructed my wheel with one (modified) mechanism instead of five, in an attempt to provide proof of the principle. I then realised that I had set it up wrongly as I had included an equal weight on the opposite side of the wheel to counterbalance it. This of course reduced the torque available to a very small amount. A kiiking rider has only himself to rotate about the swing pivot but if he had a non-participating second rider attached on the other end of a pair of extended swing rods he would be counterbalanced either in his outer position or in his inner one, depending on how the counterbalance was arranged. But even if the counterbalancing rider was working at pumping the swing in concert with the main rider, the torque available would be tiny in comparison to that generated by one rider.

I removed the counterbalance, restoring the full torque available and the mechanism, when started at a position close to twelve o'clock, rotated to the eleven o'clock position where it stopped and reversed. Obviously the mechanism was generating too small a pulse. This also highlighted the fact that kiiking swingers have to pump their swing many times to get up to twelve o'clock, (20 or 30 pumps) and this is clearly the only point from which they can achieve a full rotation.

The sport of "kiiking", or "kiikuda" to use the correct verb, requires the winner to be the one who can achieve a number of consecutive rotations using longer swing rods than anyone else. This implies that the rotation is easier to achieve with shorter rods - or that the distance the rider moves his body in or out is relatively more with shorter rods. Obviously the latter applies as the distance moved inwards or outwards is going to be roughly the same for every contestant (unless he or she has extremely long legs!) but is more effective on shorter rods.

As my mechanism moves the weight inwards a set amount because the weights are the same regardless of how long the rods are, I may shorten the rods a small amount to increase the change in the angle of momentum and generate a stronger pulse, but space is limited. So if I place a second mechanism exactly opposite the first one, I anticipate that with the reduced torque then available from the action of the mechanism, the wheel will still not achieve one rotation - why? Because the difference in length of the pendulum achieved by the falling shifter weight, will only produce a small impulse. I stated many times and on my web site at http://www.besslerswheel.com/ that I believe that the wheel required five mechanisms as I maintain Bessler implied by his ubiquitous use of the number five,and that is still my firm opinion. Because I believe this is true I shall omit further testing with anything less than five. I'll update this information when I have more to say.

I have updated an old web site at http://www.247website.co.uk/ I occasionally post things on which have little to do with Bessler, and have added a potted history of Kiiking and good evidence that it goes back a long time before Ado Kosk publicised it.

Why do we search for Bessler's hidden clues and yet ignore his clear advice?

2010-08-24T07:05:00.004+01:00

There is a need among us Bessler-obsessives to find out how he made a successful gravitywheel. We look for the solution by studying what he wrote and what he drew and what others said about him and his wheel; we modify the translations to try to get the last important detail that we believe might have been missed and we look for double-meanings in his words and so on and so forth. I am as bad if not worse than most because I seek to find what I deem to be hidden clues deliberately left by the inventor as a guide to those who followed in his footsteps. "Seek and ye shall find", says the bible and I have certainly found! Misapplying the quote, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", I am fully aware that my finds, so clear to me, are obscure to others. I understand the reasons for this and am content to offer my suggestions in the hope that it will help and inspire someone else with more expertise than I to substantiate my finds.

This brings me to another curious facet of our obsession. On the one hand there are these clues which, like the smile on the Cheshire cat, seem to fade into invisiblity, upon deeper scrutiny, revealing nothing more than the number five - and then there are the clearly articulated clues written by Bessler in the plainest language which are either ignored or separated into those we individually accept and those we reject. Why is it that when we are searching for clues as to how he succeeded, by sifting everything he wrote or drew, do some of us, sometimes, ignore the plainly written advice he gives us?

Bessler advised against using simple over-balancing designs to make a gravity wheel spin and said he learned the hard way that trying to arrange for more weights to be on one side of the wheel than the other wouldn't work. Yet I see many attempts to solve the problem with simple over-balancing wheels. Why do we ignore the words of the man who solved the problem? Overbalancing does not form the chief principle behind Bessler's wheel, although I believe it still has a role to play, as I showed in my explanation at http://www.gravitywheel.com/

He also said his weights gained force from their own swinging. A weight which swings and as it does so, gains force i.e. strength/speed, can be seen demonstrated by anyone on a swing. That is how the kiiking swinger works his way up to the twelve o'clock position.

He said too, that he only needed gravity and no other energy source to make his wheel go round. I have already explained on my gravitywheel web site why gravity alone, while still being a conservative force, can be successfully used by means of the twin weight system, suggested by Bessler, without conflicting with the laws of physics. Despite his assurances, most people still believe that there must have been some other force available and necessary to allow his wheel to complete continuous rotations and so they seek a different solution.

If we are serious about finding the answer to Bessler's wheel, we should start by taking his clearly written advice to heart. If this is insufficient for finding the solution then we should look for more obscure clues - as I have done.

I know I allowed my enthusiasm to run away with me and claim that I knew how the wheel worked, but at the time I believed that to be true, as we all have from time to time. I was unwilling to share this information without testing it first, but having publicised my personal conviction that I knew how it was done, I left myself with no alternative but to reveal my belief and thus put myself in front of the firing squad. But this does not mean that the basic principle is wrong. No other one provides such a close match to Bessler's description nor provides a potential solution, and I have explained this in detail at http://www.orffyreus.org/ and http://www.gravitywheel.com/

My mechanism may fall short of the required design to fulfill the principle, but in my opinion the principle itself holds up well and will I am sure lead to a working gravitywheel .

JC

Why am I such an optimist in the face of successive failures? I don't know - I just am!

2010-08-19T06:13:00.005+01:00

I'm back and ready to tackle this task again, refreshed, reinvigorated with a bunch of new ideas which look good - on paper! Spain was hot and sunny and the girls gorgeous - I mean my wife, daughter and grand daughter of course! The wine flowed and so did my ideas. I'm told it rained here in the UK for the entire two weeks - so no change there then.

I stand by the principle described on my web site at www.orffyreus.org and www.gravitywheel.com I'm going to try to prove it is right, but obviously there are some changes to the actual mechamisms to be made. While on holiday I made one new discovery in Bessler's clues, the design of which I have now included in the mechanism. I hope to build it as soon as I can and will report success or failure here.

Reading through the posts on besslerwheel.com I cannot help but feel that the only thing going around in circles are the ideas and opinions expressed there. Also the clues which I have interpreted and placed on my www.theorffyreuscode.com web site are totally ignored. I cannot claim that they are all correct but it seems to me that people are misinterpreting how Bessler designed his clues and the way to solve them. I have shown the way to interpret them and yet the posts indicate that they are looking at each one as a whole clue rather than a patchwork of different clues.

I realise that nobody has to believe my clues have any validity because I too, have not produced a working wheel, however even though that is true so far, I am confident that in the near future it will be shown that I was largely correct in my interpretations.

So I'm glad to be back and look forward to reading your posts guys. I'm still undecided about the best way to deal with the mean spirited commentaters and bullies who appear from time to time here but I would prefer not to make it more difficult for people to post their comments, so I will probably just delete those I don't like.

My definition of those I probably won't like is not fully formed but I think the use of swear words, bullying and name-calling are unproductive and can cause offence, so I will probabl delete them.

Spain again!

2010-08-03T08:47:00.003+01:00

I'm leaving for Spain very early tomorrow, (flight's at 6.30am) so I'll be closing the comments while I'm away. Looking forward to hearing your views again on my return. I hope I shall have some interesting news to report then - good or no so good.

Don't go and build a working Bessler's wheel while I'm away will you guys? Just kidding, good luck, see you soon.

I'll close it as late today as I can.

Will one mechanism be enough for proof of principle?

2010-07-30T15:46:00.004+01:00

Several people have suggested that it doesn't matter how many mechanisms there are in Bessler's wheel, as only one will be needed to prove the principle. I had resisted this idea because I was convinced that Bessler was adamant that there were five (mostly this is just my opinion) and I thought that anything less would not do. So anyway, in the last few days I have been building and fitting just the one new mechanism to the wheel. It is a new design and very simple. The result is excellent. This time the mechanism reacts exactly as I want it to, according to the parametric oscillation principle I described on my gravitymill web site. The shifter mechanism throws up the primary weight at six o'clock with some force and throws it up again with less force after the twelve o'clock point.

Now I need to lock the mechanism in a neutral position before attaching some balancing weights to the other side of the wheel so that the assembly is balanced what ever position the wheel is in. The plan is then to release the mechanism and see what happens. According to Bessler one 'cross bar' hardly moved the wheel, but what does that mean? Does he mean that he had to nudge the wheel a little to complete a full turn, or does he mean that it turned but extremely slowly? I can't somehow believe that the wheel would turn slowly and evenly, but I suspect that it managed most of one turn and then needed a small nudge. The thing is, how convincing would that be? It must have been enough to convince Bessler that he was on to something, so I guess I'll just have to try it and see. I suspect that in the end I'll have to put more mechanisms on. I might of course be completely wrong - again - and perhaps what most people are telling me is true, that parametric oscillation is not the answer. Only they'll have a job to convince me!

I'm going to be away for a couple of weeks starting next week- Spain again! - so I'll close comments early next week and go into silent mode for fortnight. I'm hoping to finish this latest mechanism before I go, but I think my wife has other plans for the next couple of days so I probably won't be placing any updates on it before I go!

Update and Puthoff's response

2010-07-26T07:08:00.002+01:00

Now that the excitement which seemed to be building, despite my rather lame attempts to diffuse it, has been somewhat dampened by the disclosure of my theory, I feel I can get back to work on trying to reconstruct Bessler's wheel.

I understand that some people believe that I have been trying to build up some huge PR stunt to promote something and I was completely taken aback to learn this as nothing could be further from the truth. As I have said elsewhere I have no agenda other than trying to build a working version of Bessler's wheel and to find a publisher for my rewritten biography of Bessler. I don't imagine for a moment that any publisher will take on my book unless someone somewhere succeeds in replicating Bessler's wheel and therefore I have no need for PR stunts either large of miniscule.

I have had a response from professor Hal Puthoff which suggests that he is unconvinced by my theory. I cannot put the whole argument up here but his argument against my theory is entirely based on the 'conservative forces' page in which I try to show why gravitywheels do not conflict with the laws of physics. Unfortunately I chose to simplify my case by using a very simple explanation unconnected with parametric oscillation (PO) and he has taken that and argued that the wheels would remain in balance. I have written back and asked him to take into account the PO action, meanwhile I am re-writing that page to try to demonstrate the same argument using 'kiiking' as the basis for it.

JC

A comment on comments

2010-07-21T06:20:00.003+01:00

When I began this blog I was aware that were recognised issues regarding negative comments and the consensus of opinion was that in the end most people simply delete those they don't wish to have on their blog. You only have to search google to see that it is common to all blogs.

When I describe them as 'negative' I don't mean comments which disagree, I welcome those as part of the normal to and fro discussions which can enliven debate and maybe throw some light onto a subject, no, I mean those which are downright nasty and abusive. I was determined at the start of this blog not to delete any comments no matter how much they might irritate and dismay me, but I am beginning to see that it is not just myself that is the target but other readers too.

I still don't want to delete any comments I don't like and it would be infinitely preferable if people just commented in the way they would if they were speaking face to face in the normal world outside this virtual one. The rules of etiquette which normally enable peopleto get on with friends and neighbours without causing offence or harm don't seem to apply here and yet I see no reason why they shouldn't.

Here's a link to an old comment on negative comments which sums up the problem:-http://www.dustindiaz.com/negative-comments/

So criticise, comment, praise, support or disagree, but keep it constructive please.

The Bessler-Collins Gravitywheel is on line

2010-07-18T21:18:00.002+01:00

OK! Deep breath; here goes!

I've published my theory about Bessler's wheel at www.gravitywheel.com. I had hoped to call it a bit more than a theory or a hypothesis by demonstrating a working 'proof of principle' wheel, however I might succeed in a while - see, no time commitment there!

Despite my apparent confidence I am extremely apprehensive about the reaction to my explanation of how Bessler's wheel worked. When the document itself was being written and rewritten it was easy to be so full of enthusiasm but publishing it for all to see, feels a bit like sticking your head up above the ramparts so people can shoot at you!

I'm not sure whether to accept comments here or respond on besslerwheel forum. I'll wait and see what happens - maybe nothing?

JC

www.gravitywheel.com and the Bessler gravitywheel

2010-07-16T16:11:00.004+01:00

I shall publish my revised web site http://www.gravitywheel.com/ and the principle which I believe governs the running of Bessler's gravitywheel and a description of the mechanism and why it works. The explanations are shorter than I would have liked because of the limited space available - and also because I don't want to lose the reader's attention with too much detail - and of course,there's always a danger of logorrhoea! Something I've been accused of having. I once saw it defined as "a procrastinating workaholic with an unhealthy attachment to words", - not me then!

I hope that my explanation stands up. It may be that it has not been made as clear as I think, so I shall probably try to deal with questions on http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/ rather than do it here.

Many people have asked why I didn't just post a simple explanation - well that's easier said than done. It's simple to understand the principle but hard to work out how to construct something that actually works according to it. I hope that someone with the requisite skills, (I can think of some), is able to create a simulation according to my (and Bessler's) design - Or at least the principle anyway.

My reasons for posting my ideas about Bessler's wheel are complex; Of course I would like to have it acknowledged that I had contributed in some way to the successful reconstruction of the wheel, who wouldn't? But more importantly I know that if this leads to a working model by either myself or some else, then it could have a major impact on pollution, offer a potential alternative to oil and other fossil fuels, but also provide a massive kick to the whole world's economy providing jobs and security all around the globe. The number of other potential benefits is enormous and there isn't the space to even outline them here so I just hope that I'm right..........??????

The sigmoid curve or elongated 'S' shape

2010-07-10T07:09:00.003+01:00

The disclosure on my web site is going well and is almost ready for publication. It's going to be bigger than I thought because I have had to divide it among several pages to make it into more easily digested chunks! I was also able to do some work on my wheel yesterday so I'll know if I have a runner soon.

Some people have dismissed what I have called Bessler's codes as either useless or imagined, so I am looking forward to seeing their surprise when they discover that there is a lot of good information available. I have spoken of the yin yang symbol before both in my first book and also in the Besslerwheel forum. The key to the Bessler wheel lies in the double curve or elongated 'S' curve as seen in the yin yang symbol.

When I was researching my bio on Bessler I spent some time looking for evidence that anyone else anywhere and at any previous time, had ever made a wheel like Bessler's because I thought that if they had it would add support to my thesis that Bessler's claims were real. I didn't find that evidence but in the course of it I did study the history of the yin yang symbol - not the philosophy behind it but the actual symbol itself. There was nothing about how it originated or how it was derived although there are volumes devoted to extracting meaning from it! I speculated that it might have been a graphic record of a gravitywheel from some distant past. To add to this pretty wild speculation I admit, I also found a comment credited to Nikola Tesla that the sigmoid curve formed the basic shape for all energies, now I don't know exactly what that means but it seemed to me that the yin yang incorporated a sigmoid curve and as you will see, I discuss this and how it relates to the lemniscate, the infinity symbol.

To add one more clue to the mix, you will also discover that in 2004 and later, I mentioned on the forum that I was looking into parametric oscillation as a potential key to solving Bessler's wheel. Subsequently I discovered that Scott Ellis of the Besslerwheel forum had posted some interesting facts about parametric oscillation a couple of years previously. I was originally pointed at the subject by Hal Puthoff who had made some significant discoveries in the field of optical parametric oscillation and he felt that there were some parallels in my own investgations.

In my disclosure you will see that Bessler too, used the elongated 'S' shape and indicated this. Enough already!

JC

My own comments

2010-07-06T07:34:00.003+01:00

I'll have a go at answering some of the points raised in comments recently.

I understand your frustration guys but please back off. I am very busy with family issues right now and I don't have as much time as I'd like to devote to the Bessler project.

I assume you're joking Axel, since I don't know anything about your ideas nor do I understand your brief description.

LIB I thought you were on my side. I have never set out to deceive anyone and if I have misled people I can only apologise and put it down to my own natural exuberance. What did I expect to happen? Not this! I have said I will share my information too many times to count and that commitment stands.

I may ignore the accusations from anons as have no idea who they are.

Kerob, I don't think my behaviour is irrational although it might be selfish - it's hard to analyze one's own actions. We look to protecting ourselves and our families first and if that's selfish then I'm guilty.

I've more or less finished the explanation I intend to publish but it's a too long for my www.gravitywheel.com web site so I'm writing a shorter explanation to post there and I'll release the fuller version as a download. I'd like to add a few drawings and a video to the web site version to aid the explanation.

Pete, with whom I was hoping to work with, to help me build a more engineered working model is busy and we are finding it hard to make time to meet, but we will when we can. As I've said before, Professor Hal Puthoff who has promised to help develop a working wheel has said that he needs a PoP wheel first so there is nothing further to be done there until that point is reached.

Thank you for the reminder about Arrache, I think it's time to talk to Ralph.

I guess I'm probably going to be consigned to somewhere hot if the saying that 'the road to hell is paved with good intentions' is true!

To enlarge on the clue I posted the other day. I said that the levers should move no more than 15 degrees. To be more precise, one lever, which is very long should move no more than 15 degrees causing another, shorter one, to move more than 15 degrees.

Clarification

2010-06-29T14:34:00.002+01:00

Wow - so much negativity! Let me try to make things clearer. Some people seem to think that my prototype has failed or I've given up. Neither is true; the situation remains the same as it was during the first months of this year.

Just to spell it out for the umpteenth time - I am satisfied that I know how Bessler's wheel worked. I understand the principle and also the mechanisms and how they work, I am confident that I shall get it to work ...eventually. When I have proved to my satisfaction that it either does work or doesn't work, then and only then I will publish all the details of how I think it works.

There are some problems of adjustment which I have encountered which are solvable and the reason why I know this is because I have deciphered some of Bessler's coded information which suggests that the movement should be limited to a range of no more 15 degrees - but prior to this discovery I had, in my design, allowed the maximum of almost 45 degrees. It seems that this limit has to apply to make the wheel work.

To those who say that simulating this on a computer would have shown this problem up months ago, I would say that I doubt it. Knowing that there has to be a limit to the range of movement may seem obvious now but given the software to test this one might not necessarily try a limited range of movement, unless one had deciphered Bessler's clue to this feature first. Also there are variables in where that 15 degrees should operate most effectively and that again is something that will not necessarily spring to mind. So I shall continue to construct my prototype and hope to hit the right 'sweet spot' before we all grow too old!

I'm certain that some will jump up and down and accuse me of self-delusion, or trying to hype sales of my books and that is something I just have to deal with. I would just like to say that the sale of the books is simply a service to those who wish to know more about Bessler. I can barely cover my costs let alone make a living selling them. I wish only to be the one who succeeds in this venture - but if someone else beats me to it, then I wish them the best of luck, I shall not lose out because I have my revised first book almost ready for publication and I have no doubt that if and when this great mystery is solved by anyone then I shall find publishers knocking on my door eager to take on my book on.

So if you wish to continue to follow my progress (or lack of it) please stay, but if you are fed up with my apparent reluctance to share what I know just yet, then thank you for your patience and perhaps you'll drop by again some time soon.

NB I have decided to include the occasional clue that I believe I have deciphered correctly and I'm willing to see what others think of it.

JC

2010-06-27T06:24:00.008+01:00

EDIT - Following the negative, pessimistic responses to my reported efforts to solve the problem of Bessler's wheel and due to the fact that most of my readers think I'm deluded and either fooling myself or trying to do the same to them, I see little point in continuing to write this blog. I would like to assure you that it was never my intention to mislead anyone, myself included and I'm sorry that that is the impression that has been received. If I have a fault I believe that it is an incurable sense of optimism which pervades all of my work and my enthusiasm sometimes gets the better of me and I see the end of the rainbow within reach when perhaps it's still beyond my outstretched fingers.

Nevertheless, I do have a full understanding of the mechanisms and why they work and I will publish that information - but not when everyone wants me to, but when I am ready to do so. In a way the harsh responses to my positive estimates have released some of the pressure I put upon myself to get this thing finished, and I can now take my time, keep my head down and proceed in my own time.

A big thank you to all those who have continued to support me, for them I will continue to write this blog occasionally, because I enjoy writing.

Also I hope my own indefatigable optimism has encouraged others to travel this course and maybe one of them will win the race....

Hiatus

2010-06-08T08:50:00.003+01:00

I'm going off-line for a short while from Thursday - nothing sinister in that - so I'll be temporarily freezing the blog from Wednesday evening, so you won't be able to comment after that time. Sorry about that but I can't risk leaving my blog open and unattended for anyone to comment without being able to oversee what is written. Normal service will resume upon my return. This may take as long as three or four weeks. Thanks for your patience.

PS I fear I may have dillydallied too long. I have to be away and events are overtaking me. I wish I could stay. Ah well we shall see what we shall see.

JC

Prototype almost finished...

2010-06-04T21:48:00.003+01:00

I'm approaching the end of my Bessler wheel prototype construction, in fact I should finish it in the next few days. I feel exhilerated and full of optimism and I'm confident that it will work. Of course I always feel that way, otherwise I wouldn't be continually constructing and reconstructing gravitywheels!

Nevertheless I think that, coupled with my understanding of the basic principle and what I have discovered about the mechanism, that this one will work and will not become entangled with its other parts. I have to finish this one before next Wednesday as from then I shall be off-line for a few days and if I don't finish it before then I won't be able to tell anyone about it, until I'm back online!

As promised, if this one should fail, I am ready to publish everything, but it may be a few days before I can do either.

PS I wrote the above last night and forgot to add the following;

There is a tendency to envisage the right mechanical arrangement as having the potential to move a weight the maximum possible distance in order to achieve the greatest leverage. Against this one should balance the need to move the weight as quickly as possibel ( to make it fly upwards lightly) as suggested by Bessler. Such a rapid motion needs the distance the weight is to be moved to be less than that envisioned in order to achieve more speed over distance. Bessler states this quite clearly and even provides information on the exact distances required to be included in the mechanical arrangement.

JC

Update, no sims, no ETAs, but soon.

2010-05-27T07:14:00.003+01:00

I should post another blog to curtail the length of the previous one! It seems as though some people think I should publish everything right now. I said many times I would publish everything I know and I will.

It has been stated that I have plenty of time in my day to finish the work, both the construction and the written, but how can anyone know what I fill my days with? I am up every day at around 5.45 to attend to both the internet and my own computer requirements and I don't usually get to bed before 11.00 pm; I'm retired so where does the day go? I frequently ask myself that question and I can see what has taken up my time. I used to wonder what I would do with my time once I retired - now I wonder how I ever had time to work!

I'm not going to detail what I'm doing every day; it would bore you all and it's private anyway. But I am busy and I do work on both the wheel and the publishing material as and when I can. I continue to research the history of Bessler and answer a number of emails daily. My work in decoding Bessler's material continues in my spare moments - what spare moments? I have a number of web sites to maintain and update which admittedly doesn't take long and I'm still trying to finish my update of my original biography of Bessler.

As for simulations I have tried them in the past and found them awkward and non-intuitive. It has been suggested that I could buy a more powerful PC for £300, off ebay - would you buy a PC off ebay? I wouldn't! I like to know I can go back to the guy who sold it me if something goes wrong and anyway I don't have the cash to flash, buying PCs and simulation software no matter that it's only £30 or whatever.

I know that younger people than I can quickly get the hang of everything digital these days but it gets harder to find your way around it as you age. My fifteen year old grandson is a whizz with computers and can sort out my minor problems with ease.

When I first wrote my book I did it on an Amstrad PCW8512. For those of you who do not know of it, AMSTRAD is a contraction of Alan Michael Sugar Trading - Sugar became the star of the BBC reality show The Apprentice which has had five series broadcast in each year between 2005 and 2009, in the same role as Donald Trump in the US version. I read that he is worth over a billion US$ - not bad for an East End of London barrow boy. That computer was a nightmare to run, and even scrolling down a page took minutes but it was cool then. Since then I have taught myself everything I needed to know about computers and web sites and it was a steep learning curve for me - and it still is. Self-publishing held the same problems, there wasn't much info about it then although now, with such web sites as www.lulu.com, it is so easy.

So I'll say this once more. I am finishing the latest construction and then working or not I go public. I don't think Pete Clarke's going to be able to spare time within the immediate future to assist me in building the designed model so it shouldn't be long before you can see what I've been working on. I'm not giving an estimate of the time because I have been way off on that before, but it will be soon.

Use it or lose it

2010-05-22T10:18:00.007+01:00

Here's a quick update. The situation at present is this. I've just received a signed NDA from Pete Clarke and we have yet to arrange a meeting to discuss our alternative designs and, I hope, take the first steps toward constructing a wheel according to my (Bessler's) design. Pete leads a hectic life and it may be some weeks before we get together and make some progress. In the mean time I am continuing to try to build my own proof of principle wheel and maybe I won't need Pete's help if I can finish it successfuly in the next few days.

I'm also writing up my research and this is time-consuming because I need to describe my theory and show why it will work without compromising the laws of physics (which I can do). I am also providing supporting evidence from the descriptions of witnesses as well as Bessler's own words. But in addition I am citing as confirmation that my design matches Bessler's almost exactly by including my decoding of Bessler's many many clues, most which I have not published so far, because they are too revealing!

I am a sudoku addict and have been for three or four years because I find that it stimulates my thought processes. According to Ronald Kotulak, a Pulitzer prize-winning author, mental training in old age can boost intellectual power, and help maintain mental functions like problem solving, and also reverse memory decline. He reckons that even if they haven't received the benefits of good early education and experience, older adults can still do much to keep their brains in shape. That's my experience too. My powers of recall had faded significantly but recently there has been some improvement. [Ronald Kotulak. "Inside the Brain: Revolutionary Discoveries of How the Mind Works" (Kansas City, Mo.: Andrews McMeel Publishing, 1997)].

Marilyn Albert, a Harvard University neurologist and director of gerontology research at Massachusetts General Hospital, studied more than 1,000 people ages 70 to 80. She found that both physical and mental factors seem to determine which elders hold on to their intellects. Key elements revealed in the study were education, which appears to increase the number and strength of synaptic connections; strenuous activity, which improves blood flow to the brain; lung function, which ensures that the blood is adequately oxygenated; and the feeling that what people do makes a difference in their lives.

Kotulak quoted Albert, "Is mental exercise important for the brain? People used to ask me that years ago, and I would say we don't have enough data one way or another. I don't say that anymore. I tell them that's what the data look like: Use it or lose it.

So as well as researching Bessler's wheel, doing sudoku, acrostik crosswords and reading, I cycle for roughly an hour each day; I used to run, and have done four London marathons and competed in numerous smaller events, but acquired a prolapsed disc about four years ago which prevents my running. I have designed an amazing machine with which I hope to cure my disc problem but lack of money and time means its on the back-burner 'til I get this wheel going. I believe that the mental stimulation I get and intensive excercise will keep my mind alert and functioning for at least as long as the body does -well I hope so anyway. ;-)

Of course I'm only 65, a relative youngster, but it's as well to try to keep everything working to the best of its ability.

The thing about sudoku is this; when you 'discover' the next number, you get this mental kick, which spurs you on to the next one. The 'discovery' is 'rewarded' with a quick shot of dopamine. This is the 'jolt' that induces euphoria and combines the initial reward and subsequent reinforcement. Over time and with repeated exposure, these jolts initiate the gradual adaptations in the reward circuitry that give rise to addiction. Which is why I'm addicted to sudoku!

But I think that this is related to the addiction we Besslerfiles get when we think we have 'discovered' the secret. It does not matter that in due course we find we were mistaken; the 'jolt' has already been received and we seek another one and that is why we continue to research this 'science'. It's the same mechanism that causes people to become drug addicts, but in our case it may turn out to be a beneficial addiction.

Hands-on wins over CAD every time

2010-05-17T06:42:00.004+01:00

OK, just to continue comments on a new page to save making the page any longer! Some people have assumed that I used computer aided design software in my work to reconstruct Bessler's wheel and on discovering that I don't, the very reasonable question raised - why not? It was further commented that you can get immensely powerful CAD/CAM programs for free, and that you don't need much power to design Bessler's wheel. I have used this kind of software in the past and found that it does require a more powerful computer than mine is (it kept freezing) but also it does not do the job and I'll explain why.

I have always had a hands-on approach to this problem because I find that having the pieces in my hands can show me more effectively than all the fancy software can, how minor alterations to length, angle, weight and position can produce different results/reactions. What do I mean by hands-on? It means that I need active participation as opposed to the theoretical approach of computer software. Without a hands-on approach I don't get the feedback necessary to this kind of research. It is not always possible to test every potential alteration with the kind of software currently available for free and which will work on a home PC. In my experience you have to input each variation of angle, length, weight or position and run the test but the results are not always informative and a hands-on test will suggest other possibilities not recognisable in a software run. You cannot imagine every possible variation and just input it - without the pieces in your hand and arranged and rearranged on the work bench you simply will miss opportunities that occur to you as you manipulate them.

Only those who routinely use hands-on building practice will understand my point of view and I suspect that those who favour the CAD/CAM approach wil make the counter argumenty equally effectively, nevertheless that is how I work and although it takes much longer than using computer aided design it will, in my opinion, win out in the end.

JC

I'll publish and probably be damned.

2010-05-09T07:11:00.006+01:00

Wow - my shortest post and it gets the most responses! Thanks for the comments, guys. With the emails I got too, the picture I have in my mind is very mixed and it suggests that what ever I do there will be some for and some against my actions, in which case I might as well do what ever I want. The only certainty as far as I can see is that the sooner this is out in the open the better. I haven't talked to Pete yet as he is very busy but I have sent him a signed NDA and I await its return. In the meantime I continue to work on my own prototype and I'm finishing off the document I began a while ago which explains everything in detail along with all the clues I found and my interpretation of them. I'm also planning another video which explains in simple terms the principle that drives Bessler's wheel and I'll youtube it when its finished.

I could start a thread on http://besslerwheel.com/ and respond to posts but I want to answer as many possible questions in advance by placing as much information as I can in one place so that I don't have to spend too much time defending my argument. For that reason I won't prejudice my stance by posting a brief summary of my principle there but will try to get it right first time and post at my leisure. That doesn't mean I won't respond to any comments that evetually appear - I just want to get my point across as clearly as I can.

JC

Decision time

2010-05-03T16:22:00.002+01:00

I have of course realised that it's May already and I've missed my ETA for the finished wheel by several months (years?) .... Things have a habit of diverting one's attention from one's intended purpose and I am perhaps more guilty than most. Nnotwithstanding, I am constantly working on adjusting the mechanisms to try to make them do what I want them to do and although I have said countless times that I understand the principle or the concept which makes Bessler's wheel work ... it is taking the very devil of a long time to get it right.

I sometimes liken it to understanding an auto engine - you understand the concept and what the various parts do, but it would be difficult to make one that works without constantly refining and adjusting each part. Anyway I'm on the verge of giving up. I have three options open to me; first I can continue to try with the help of Clarkie, but I'm not sure how long that may take; secondly, I can involve Hal Puthoff and see where that gets me - or doesn't - or finally I can publish everything in a book, on-line and through a video. I'm looking at the last option.