Bessler's Wheel and the Orffyreus Code

Tuesday, 7 July 2020

The Legend of Bessler’s Perpetual Motion Machine

On 6th June, 1712, in Germany, Johann Bessler (also known by his pseudonym, Orffyreus) announced that after many years of failure, he had succeeded in designing and building a perpetual motion machine. For more than fourteen years he exhibited his machine and allowed people to thoroughly examine it. Following advice from the famous scientist, Gottfried Leibniz, he devised a number of demonstrations and tests designed to prove the validity of his machine without giving away the secret of its design.

Karl the Landgrave of Hesse permitted Bessler to live, work and exhibit his machine at the prince's castle of Weissenstein. Karl was a man of unimpeachable reputation and he insisted on being allowed to verify the inventor's claims before he allowed Bessler to take up residence This the inventor reluctantly agreed to and once he had examined the machine to his own satisfaction Karl authorised the publication of his approval of the machine. For several years Bessler was visited by numerous people of varying status, scientists, ministers and royalty as well as hundreds of local inhabitants. Several official examinations were carried out and each time the examiners concluded that the inventor's claims were genuine.

Over the years Karl’s health began to deteriorate and his sons decided that it was time for the inventor to leave the castle and he was given five years salary and accommodation in the nearby town of Karlshaven. Despite the strong circumstantial evidence that his machine was genuine, Bessler failed to secure a sale and after more than thirty years he died in poverty. His death came after he fell from a windmill he had been commissioned to build. The windmill was an interesting design using a vertical axle which allowed it to benefit from winds from any directions.

He had asked for a huge sum of money for the secret of his perpetual motion machine, £20,000 which was an amount only affordable by kings and princes, and it’s no coincidence that this sum matched that being offered by the British Government as a reward for the invention of a way to establish a ships longitudinal position at sea. Bessler clearly believed his invention was equal in value. Many people were interested in Bessler’s wheel, but none were prepared to agree to the terms of the deal. Bessler required that he be given the money and the buyer take the machine without viewing the internal workings. Those who sought to purchase the wheel, for that was the form the machine took, insisted that they see the secret mechanism before they parted with the money. Bessler feared that once the design was known the buyers could simply walk away knowing how to build his machine and he would get nothing for his trouble. He said that a bag of money should be put on the table and the buyer could take the wheel there and then. He swore that if he was found cheating he should be beheaded, a not unlikely result if he was found to be a fraud and deceiving his ruler.

I became curious about the legend of Bessler’s Wheel, while still in my teens, and have spent most of my life researching the life of Johann Bessler (I’m now 74). I obtained copies of all his books and had them translated into English and self-published them, in the hope that either myself or someone else might solve the secret and present it to the world in this time of pollution, global warming and increasingly limited energy resources.

This problem of acceptance by his potential buyers was anticipated by Bessler and he took extraordinary measures to ensure that his secret was safe, but he encoded all the information needed to reconstruct the machine in a small number of books that he published. He implied that he was prepared to die without selling the secret and that he believed that post humus acknowledgement was preferable to being robbed of his secret while he yet lived.

It has recently become clear that Bessler had a huge knowledge of the history of codes and adopted several completely different ones to disguise information within his publications. I have made considerable advances in deciphering his codes and I am cautiously optimistic that I have the complete design.

Johann Bessler published three books, and digital copies of these with English translations may be obtained from the links to the right of this blog. In addition there is a copy of his unpublished document containing some 141 drawings, his account of the search for perpetual motion - and my own account of Bessler’s life is also available from the links. It is called "Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?"

Bessler's three published books are entitled "Grundlicher Bericht", "Apologia Poetica" and "Das Triumphirende...". I have called Bessler's collection of 141 drawings his Maschinen Tractate, but it was originally found in the form of a number of loosely collected drawings of perpetual motion designs. Many of these have handwritten notes attached and I have published the best English translation of them that I was able to get. Bessler never published these drawings but clearly intended to do so at some  

I and thousands of others around the world believe that Johann Bessler’s claim to have designed and built a perpetual motion machine, or a continuously rotating device enabled purely by gravity, was genuine. The circumstantial evidence is compelling. This device if reconstructed now, could potentially provide cheap clean electricity, and by reducing the need for fossil fuels, provide a huge step forward in reducing carbon emissions in a very short time.

For some ideas about Bessler’s code why not visit my web sites at

www.theorffyreuscode.com and

www.besslerswheel.com and

www.orffyreus.net. and

www.orffyreus.org

For more information go to www.free-energy.co.uk

Saturday, 4 July 2020

Bessler’s Perpetual Motion Machine’s External Energy Source.

When Johann Bessler finally constructed a working perpetual motion machine he was hesitant about labelling it as such. He stated that the weights within the machine were the actual perpetual motion device, which at first sight looks unlikely, or perhaps there is ap paucity of information. But he knew from more than ten years of trying to build the machine, that it was the heaviness of the weights which provided the energy to turn the wheel. I should add at this point, everything Bessler wrote was important even if it looked like a throw away comment. There are always extra meanings to be found within his comments.

The word ‘heaviness’ has the same meaning as ‘ponderance’, a word often used by Bessler - and Sir Isaac Newton used the word ‘gravity’ which translates literally from the Latin, in which he wrote, to ‘weight‘ ‘heaviness’ and ‘ponderance’. Given that perpetual motion was defined in those days, and still is today, as being an isolated system, having no access to any external energy source, one can understand Bessler’s reluctance to describe his machine as a perpetual motion device. He wrote that ‘heaviness’ surrounded his world and permeated everything in it and therefore could not be excluded from both within and without his machine, in which case either it wasn’t a true perpetual motion machine, or the definition was wrong to exclude all external energy sources.

But he had little choice if he wished to gain the attention of the rich to whom he wished to sell his wheel. He called it a perpetual motion machine but explained why it might not be correct to label it thus. He said that no device could ever be perpetually in motion because of wear and tear, or accidental breakdown. He often referred to it as the ‘so-called perpetual motion’. He was a clever man who had a good understanding of his machine and how and why it worked.

Given Bessler’s understanding of his machine and the definition of perpetual motion, it’s amazing that numerous examples describing perpetual motion exist on the internet, thus,

“ Perpetual motion is the motion of bodies that continues forever. A perpetual motion machine is a hypothetical machine that can do work infinitely without an energy source. This kind of machine is impossible, as it would violate the first or second law of thermodynamics.”

So, they all state the obvious, that without an energy source such machines are impossible. They ignore Bessler’s strong claim that gravity - an external source - supplied the energy. Countless times I’ve been made aware that gravity is not an energy source, and I accept it as a fact, but - and I’m going out on a limb here - Bessler attributed his energy source to the weights, the weights fell and through some ingenious mechanism, caused the wheel to rotate. Gravity made the weights fall. So gravity did work, and how much work it did can be calculated through a simple formula. So regardless of the fact that gravity is a conservative force, it did do work. Gravity is described as a force. Force is defined as the capability to do work.

The only possible reason for not accepting that gravity can be a source of free energy, is the fact that no one ever invented a way to return the fallen weights back to their pre-fall position....until Bessler did. It was never impossible, just that no one knew how to do it.

JC

Sunday, 28 June 2020

The ‘Toys’ Page Revisited.

The ‘Toys’ page provides more clues than one might think. It was the last page in my version of the book MT which was originally found as a loosely bound collection of drawings kept in a box. I believe that subsequently the pages have been re-photographed in a slightly different order resulting in the Toys page not being the last one. In any case it is the last numbered page, having 138, 139, 140 and 141 handwritten in the bottom left corner. I have always imagined that it was inserted by Bessler to replace four pages he removed at the time of his arrest when he wrote on the cover;-

“N.B. 1st May, 1733. Due to the arrest, I burned and buried all papers that prove the possibility. However, I have left all demonstrations and experiments since it would be difficult for anybody to see or learn anything about a perpetual motion from them or to decide whether there was any truth in them because no illustration by itself contains a description of the motion; however, taking various illustrations together and combining them with a discerning mind, it will indeed be possible to look for a movement and, finally to find one in them.”

This action must have been carried out with the intention of providing some kind of clue in case MT was never published. If publication had been achieved then the original pages would probably have been reinserted. This seems to imply that his consistent use of such clues was part of a deliberate plan to hide clues to his construction for the benefit of those who came after, looking for such information. I do believe that he wasn’t just referring to the drawings in MT but also the ones in his published works, i.e. Gruendlicher Bericht, Apologia Poetica and Das Triumphirende.

Did he suspect that he might be imprisoned? Possibly, and then his records might become available to anyone of rank, so he replaced them with something less revealing. My research has shown that he was being subjected to considerable pressure from his in-laws and feared that there was a conspiracy to either force him to reveal his secret or to frame him for some fraudulent dealings.

I have inserted a clarified version of the Toys page which has the four page numbers omitted on the bottom and also the number 5 and the short piece of text which was written next the the spinning top which reads, “5. Children's game in which there is something extraordinary for anyone who knows how to apply the game in a different way.”

The letters run from A through to E, five letters. But there are six drawings including the top, which is numbered 5, and not F. Note my red lines which align the separate parts of each drawing, there are five. Could he be telling us - yet again, that there are five mechanisms?

I think the letters are written in anticlockwise order to show which drawing should be interpreted first. You can see that A aligns with B but note that the latter is twisted - the small blobs on the left end of each horizontal on A are shown alternately on the left and right of the vertical line labelled B. But are the two pieces meant to refer to the same item, or are they two different parts? I believe they are two different pieces.

There is also the curious attachment of the two rods or levers at the top of the figure B. It must be important otherwise he wouldn’t have included it. Does it show two extremes of an action of one lever, or does it represent two levers?

The pantograph shape of C and D is similar to part A, but not to B. There are two Cs and two Ds which suggests that there are two items from the each drawing required for the mechanism. But D has a twisted body which might indicate that it should be reversed or turned upside down, or both. C is wielding an axe or hammer with its arms, which might mean it is applying force to something, but D has no arms, is it being made to move rather than moving something else? I should also point out that each of the pantograph elements in A is linked to the next one in the chain.

Was the later addition of the spinning top an attempt to hint that the 'toys' shown, relate to something that spins? Or was its missing string or cord a hint that string or cord was also required?

In his DasTriumphirende, Bessler writes about the complexities associated with FORM, that is how he writes it, denoting the importance of his message in this passage. My reading of this passage is that a mechanism shown in a drawing may look and seem easily understood, but the intention behind it is to indicate the form or specific shape of a mechanism with a slightly different action. This agrees with his scribbled note in the Toys page, “Children's game in which there is something extraordinary for anyone who knows how to apply the game in a different way”, and applies in particular in my opinion to the scissor mechanism labelled E. I think the placing of these ‘toys’ is deliberate and should be taken into account when considering their meaning and Bessler’s intentions.

I don’t think that there is any intention to suggestion that A is meant to indicate a Jacob’s ladder.

JC

Once again I appeal to your generous natures to donate to my granddaughter Amy at her crowdfunding site. I don’t know how aware any of you are about a social networking site called Tiktok, at www.tiktok.com, but Amy is providing an amazing destination for people who have or are suffering from serious illness, urging them to be strong. At last count she has posted over 150 short inspirational videos, has over 11000 followers and 220,000 likes. If you wish you can go to tiktok and search for amyepohl.

If you search on YouTube using the same amyepohl you can find some of her earlier videos explaining her condition

To donate please visit
https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-our-amy-to-walk-again

Thank you!

Monday, 22 June 2020

John Collins News Blog - Update

Please all accept my apologies, but I have been so busy lately that I have struggled to write my blogs in which I wanted to include some of the many clues I have deciphered about Johann Bessler’s Perpetual Motion machine. So with regret I feel that I have to concentrate on finishing my wheel in the hope that it works and we can finally put this search to rest. So the blog and its comments will remain in a state of suspended animation until I have either built a working model, or failed to do so. At that point I will publish everything I know in the hope that there is enough information in it to allow someone else to finish what I started.

This blog will remain closed to posts and comments until I have completed my reconstruction of Johann Bessler’s wheel. I have promised to finish it by September 2020 and then I will publish details of its design. Even if the device fails to perform I shall still publish the design and assume that the failure is down to my poor workmanship or an error in deciphering Bessler’s clues.

The Legend of Johann Bessler’s Perpetual Motion Machine.

For some ideas about Bessler’s code why not visit my web sites at

www.theorffyreuscode.com and

www.besslerswheel.com and

www.orffyreus.net. and

www.orffyreus.org

For more information go to www.free-energy.co.uk

Sunday, 21 June 2020

The “Great Craftsman” Phrase Deciphered.

In his Apologia Poetica, Bessler included many textual clues, some encoded and some merely ambiguously phrased so that getting the true meaning from each was a struggle. This one is puzzling and in my opinion, has led to a misunderstanding of what he meant, however in the following explanation I believe the meaning becomes clear.

He wrote, “a great craftsman would be he who can lightly cause a heavy weight to fly upwards, or as one pound falls a quarter, cause four pounds to shoot upwards, four quarters.” This seems on the face of it to be nonsense and yet by picking it apart one can get at the meaning.

Note that within the quote he mentions that there are five weights; i.e., one plus four, and each one is equal to one pound. Secondly, one pound falls a quarter. How do we define what he meant by a quarter? In this case he was referring to a clock and a quarter of an hour meant 90 degrees. How could this single fall cause “ four pounds to shoot upwards four quarters”?

It is very simple. In the first part above, the word ‘quarter’, referred to, not just 90 degrees but also to a clock. In the second part the word ‘quarter’ also refers to a clock but this time he has confused us by using the words ‘four quarters’. ‘Four quarter’s equals ‘one whole unit’. Each hour on a clock is divided into 30 degrees, so the words ‘four quarters’ meaning ‘one hour’ as used here equals thirty degrees. To paraphrase Bessler’s words, “a great craftsman would be he who, as one pound falls 90 degrees, causes each of the other four pounds to shoot upwards 30 degrees.”

You might think it would have been better to have said that when “one pound falls 90 degrees, it causes one pound to shoot upwards 30 degrees”, but that would have removed the information that five weights were involved, so it had to be four weights plus the one, and he liked to obfuscate otherwise it would have been too clear.

When he suggested that this advice would be understood by a great craftsman, I think he meant that it was possible to grasp his meaning if you recognised that at first sight it was impossible, and therefore you would have the mechanical knowledge to realise it, and work out the real meaning, and he was also informing us that those two angles were an important ingredient in the mechanism. Such a strong mechanical advantage would certainly ‘shoot’ a weight upwards ‘lightly’.

PS - Some people think I have never published any clues, except those on www.theorffyreuscode.com but you may be surprised to learn that I published this interpretation in a blog dated 14th October 2011, and the clock in September 2016 and many others at other times. It’s amazing to think I published this interpretation almost ten years ago and I see people are still trying to make four pounds shoot upwards by causing one pound to fall the same distance! I’m beginning to wonder if it’s worth publishing any more until I’ve finished my wheel. Until you see the final design the clues are largely meaningless and I’m not going to publish any of the really useful ones until I’ve completed my own wheel! I apologise if this is disappointing, but I hope that it won’t be long before I finish the wheel and I can publish it all and await the reactions.

Thursday, 18 June 2020

Science, the New Religion.

The opinion that perpetual motion (PM) and Bessler’s wheel are impossible is so well established under the heading, ‘ science’ that it is incapable of change, modification or dismissal, because it has been accepted for more than three hundred years. The birth of ‘science’ was the eventual and inevitable response to religion and the priesthoods and those charlatans that spouted ‘faith’ as the answer to everything, and it replaced it with testable and shareable facts. Science provides a framework to organise observations which can be referenced and confirmed by other ‘scientists’.

Using inductive reasoning leads to the creation of theories which can be tested and if reproducible can form a basis for further theorising, but sometimes a wall is encountered which seems to bring progress to a halt. This leads to the assumption among established ‘scientists’ that all the facts are known and it is time to move on. But among younger-minded thinkers such stale opinions are open to reinterpretation, they seek a paradigm shift. I use the term ‘younger-minded thinkers’ to describe those who do not accept the tried and tested opinions that were drummed into them in their formative years, they seek innovative, imaginative solutions which weren’t available at the time the old indurate opinions were established.

The method used to acquire knowledge by observation, the empirical method, has been in use for a lot longer than three hundred years, and often we may observe some action without knowing the how or why of it. Bessler’s wheel was observed, tested and thoroughly examined. Rigorous scepticism about the tests was applied, but also note was taken of the opinion of the one man, a person of the greatest integrity, who insisted on being permitted to observe the interior of the wheel in action before agreeing to sponsor the inventor, Johann Bessler.

In today’s world scientists would demand information about how the wheel worked, but they would either have sign an NDA or the inventor would apply for a patent, (or give the solution away), but Bessler had no option other than demand the money after the machine had been subjected to the scientific method, empirical testing, observation and the respected declaration of an honest, knowledgeable man.

Some people say that the publication of the solution to Bessler’s wheel will result in a paradigm shift in what we know about gravity. Is gravity a conservative force? Yes of course it is, but that isn’t actually relevant. Gravity makes things fall, but it can’t make them rise again, it’s a one way force. Work done by gravity depends on the initial and final positions, regardless of the path taken. If the starting and ending positions are the same, as in a circular path, the net work done is zero.

Obviously Johann Bessler told the truth when he said that the weights were literally the actual PM which caused the wheel to turn, but if gravity is conservative, how is this possible? It isn’t gravity that makes the wheel turn, it’s the weights. Gravity enables the wheel to turn but it is the action of the falling weights which makes it turn. Bessler provided the information that the weights were the PM, but it was dismissed or ignored, but actually what he said was correct.

This whole view of gravity-enabled non-stop rotation was ignored, sidelined or scorned just because no one had ever managed to design a mechanism which could do what Bessler’s did. It was never impossible, just never achieved, no proof of either outcome before Bessler. But the fact that no one had ever produced a working PM wheel in the whole of the history of mankind, was sufficient evidence, so it was believed, to assume it was indeed impossible.

But look at the evidence; Bessler’s wheel passed every test designed to prove or disprove the inventor’s claims. A man of unimpeachable reputation validated it. Bessler was never found to be cheating and died still maintaining his claim to have built not one, but several PM machines. So there is no evidence that it is impossible, just faith in the ‘scientists’ who repeat by rote, ‘it is impossible because gravity is a conservative force’.

It’s been said many times but it is nevertheless true - science is the new religion.

Sunday, 14 June 2020

Bessler’s Pentagon Rotated.

The pentagon shown in the previous blogs is inverted and concerns have been raised about the evil connotations associated with this figure, so you will doubtless be pleased to discover that perhaps Bessler was also concerned, because he left information about how to rotate it to a more virtuous position, although not necessarily for reasons connected with his soul.

I’m jumping the gun a bit here but to calm those God fearing souls who are worried about my publishing an inverted pentagram, I am posting some information earlier than I originally intended to.

The Merseburg illustration contains a list of numbered parts. The numbers run from 1 to 24, as was used in the original version of the illustration printed in his first publication Gruendlicher Bericht (GB), but in his later version, the padlock which should be numbered 24 seems to have got its numbers the wrong way round, it reads 42.

For those who think it’s a typo, rest assured, it isn’t. Apart from the fact that printing from a wood block, or woodcut, requires skill and patience and the result is checked throughout to ensure accuracy, the numbers in both illustrations add up to 660 for reasons to be explained shortly, which means that he must have removed a number 18 in the second version to retain the same total, and that is what he did. See the illustration below to see how and why,

The red line shows the path of the rope as it passes behind the wheel, and also indicates the starting place to obtain the pentagon. The green line runs from the point on the padlock up to the point where the top end of the red line crosses the edge of the wheel. The numbers on the padlock need to be rotated to read 24 and the green line should also be rotated 180 degrees. This rotates the pentagon too.

In the illustration the inverted pentagon is shown in yellow, and the upright one is shown in blue. Notice that it is still slightly tilted to the left, for reasons which will become clear later.

Sorry this is a short blog, but I’m very busy working to finish my wheel.,

NB. I'm adding a brief explanation of the number anomalies found in the drawings in GB and DT because I did not explain my reasoning in the above blog due to lack of time

Bear in mind that Bessler wanted to provide clues but we have to work at explaining some of them, and he also usually provided more than one way of discovering his intentions. So here goes:-

In GB the items are numbered from 1 to 24, in DT they are also numbered 1 to 24, plus the lone
number 42. This looks like a simple printing error but of course I have always maintained that
Bessler deliberately introduced such anomalies as clues. I’ll discuss this one later, first we need to
look at some of the features apparent in the numbering.

It becomes quite clear that some of the items are ‘over-numbered’. By that I mean that Bessler
seems to have labelled the parts with a particular number more often than one might think was
necessary. For example the main pillar supporting the wheel is numbered 4, four times. The
slimmer pillars are numbered 12, and two of them to the left are numbered twice each, yet the
other two are only numbered once each. Some numbers appear more often than others and not
just because they are attached to more similar pieces. After number 18 the rest of the numbers are
lone examples. I speculated that this was done to achieve a certain total, and having identified each
part once with its number, he then sought to add to the total by labelling the same parts more than
once. Obviously the higher numbers would make the jumps toward his desired total too big so he
started at the lower end of the range and gradually added numbers until he had achieved his
desired end.

The numbers in GB total 649 and those in DT 633 - not apparently significant, but let’s look more
closely.

In GB there are two number 18’s yet one has been omitted in DT. In GB the number 5 is barely
visible in the box at the bottom of the sideways-on wheel, yet it has clearly been omitted in DT. In
GB the weights at the ends of the pendulums are numbered 11, there are eight of them, yet in DT
one of them has been omitted. Finally in GB there are two number 24’s attached to the padlocks,
yet in DT one of them has been reversed to become 42. Its almost impossible to see but in the first
drawing, GB, the second number 18 is almost invisible, having been squeezed into the small hole
through which the rope is supposed to pass. It is undoubtedly not there in DT. How can we explain
all these anomalies?

The omission of 5 and 18 in DT is explained by the fact that 5 is the most important number to
Bessler because of its connection with the pentagram, and 18 degrees is the basic angle of the
pentagram. Changing the number 24 to 42 can be explained by the omission of 18, because 42 - 24
= 18. He might have done this because of the difficulty of identifying both the the 5 and the second
18 in GB, and this lends credence to the idea that the numbers must add up to something
significant. Of course I have offered an explanation for the reversed numberr 24 in my blog above.

Bessler ensured we got this information by altering the second drawing. First he removed the 5
altogether plus he omitted one of the 11s, and 5 x 11=55. Then he assumed that we would
compare the two drawings and realize that the second one not only omitted these two numbers, but
also when totalled, the numbers add up to 633, and 633 from 649, the total of the numbers in GB,
equalled 16 (or 5 + 11). As we know, 55 figures abundantly through out Bessler's works.

So, in the first drawing (GB) the numbers, composed from 59 numbers, add up to 649, which is,
interestingly, equal to 59 x 11 (both prime numbers). In the second drawing (DT) the numbers add
up to 633, which is 16 short of the 649. In the second drawing the numbers 5 and one of the 11s
has been omitted, which is why the second drawing does not match the 649 of the first drawing. In
both drawings the picture cuts off the left hand end of the drawing and in the process cuts off one
of the number 11 weights. If, in the first drawing, this is added to the 649 of the first drawing it
produces the number 660, and because we then have 60 numbers, 660 divided by 60 equals 11,
but more interestingly, 660 divided by 12 equals 55! How do we know that he intended us to figure
this out? Because in both drawings there is an additional geometric feature which confirms it. The clock I described in my blog in 3 September 2016

I had noticed early on that the perspectives used in both drawings ran through the centre of the
main wheel, and I just assumed that this was done from an artistic viewpoint. However I had
already drawn all these lines in by extending them from one side to the other, in the process of
which I noticed that there were twelve lines, marking out the face of a clock. I had wondered if this
was deliberate but now I knew why it had been done. Twelve to six, three to nine, one to seven,
eleven to five and ten to four all followed lines of perspective.

To cinch the argument, the only one that did not, was two to eight o’clock, but interestingly the line
exactly lined up the number eights attached to the weights, and there were two of them. That line
defined the eight o’clock line.

So extending all the perspective lines available to us, which cross in the centre of the wheel,
provides us with a clock face. Using this we can divide up the picture and therefore the numbers by
twelve. To recap, in the first drawing,649 = 59 x 11; add the missing 11, making 660 (60 x 11) the
clock hints at 12, and 660/12=55! In the second drawing we can do the same - 633 + the missing
5 and the 11, plus the other 11 from the left side of the picture = 660. 660 divided by the twelve

equals 55.

I hope this clears up any confusion?

I’ve just added a clearer picture if the GB wheel.

Monday, 8 June 2020

The Merseburg Wheel illustration

This is the third decipher blog published early to correct an error in the previous one

In my last blog we looked at the illustration from DT, which I maintain, held a hidden pentagram. There have been doubts expressed about the figure. Some think it is just a coincidence and any geometric figure could be found, other believe it is badly formed and has unequal chords.

I have placed a corrected pentagram below. Notice where the red line first crosses the lower left rim of the wheel. Follow the yellow hatching line which begins where the red line first crosses the rim of the wheel, to the right side of the bottom of the main supporting pillar. Next, mark the exact middle of the red line within the circle, and draw a perpendicular line (green) from the centre of rotation upwards through the mark, to the period or full stop on the title line above the drawing.

The blue line which I included in the previous blog is an error for which apologise. The illustration I used is just one among many I have, and I used the wrong one! The pendulum still has its upper almost horizontal chord in the same place and the reason for that will become clear, yes it is deliberate.

In the above illustration the three main columns are numbered 4, but the four supporting ones are numbered 12. They are of differing heights. The number 12s have two dimensional caps but the 4s have three dimensional ones. The 12s are designed to act as datum points for an enlarged circle. See illustration below.

The red circled caps provide reference points for an outer circles which includes the left weight in the main T shaped pendulum, the triangular padlock and part of the chest of stones. The green circles also provide reference points for an additional confirmation to be described later. The blue circled caps are not datum points.

Using a set of compasses, place the point on the centre of rotation and set the pencil on the top of one of the two number 12s. There is room for variation but the important detail is to include the number 11 weight on the left end of the cross bar on the pendulum, and the point on the padlock. The reasons for this will be explained in a later blog.

I will also explain the meaning of the other two (green circled) number 12s in my next blog.

Friday, 5 June 2020

Bessler’s Illustrations

Accidentally deleted this one! Trying to get the comments back.....

Here is the second of my Bessler code interpretations.

The first thing I realised many years ago is that if Bessler was serious about leaving clues for people he would have to use drawings to hide his information. Maschinen Tractate (M.T.) was never published, plus he had left suggestions that answers could be found in both Apologia Poetica (AP) and Das Triumphirende (D.T.)

On the frontispiece of his collection of drawings (M.T.) he scrawled a message, “ NB. May 1, 1733. Due to the arrest, I burned and buried all papers that prove the possibility. However, I have left all demonstrations and experiments, since it would be difficult for anybody to see or learn anything about a perpetual motion from them or to decide whether there was any truth in them because no illustration by itself contains a description of the motion; however, taking various illustrations together and combining them with a discerning mind, it will indeed be possible to look for a movement and, finally to find one in them."

This message has been routinely misunderstood, in my opinion. When he mentions ‘taking various illustrations together’, etc, he is not just talking about the drawings in M.T., he is including the other drawings in GB, AP, and DT. I wrote a blog about this on Wednesday, 15 November 2017, entitled ‘Johann Bessler’s drawings hold the key’. There are other instances where I have pointed out the sources I have found useful in interpreting information among Bessler’s works; one blog dated 8th June 2019 list several other examples.

In the beginning I thought that the illustrations in both Grundlicher Bericht (G.B.) and D.T. were unnecessary. I assumed they were added to make his books a bit more interesting, but then I began to examine them in more detail and discovered the pentagram. The drawing which is from DT has been shown at the top of this blog for a long time.

To save space I shall try to limit the number of drawings I include, and also my interpretation of the clues will be brief as I’ve already almost completed a book about them and I don’t want to repeat that lengthy process with each page. There are more than fifty clues interpreted and it’s ok in book form, but there are too many illustrations to post here. I apologise for this but time is limited and I’m sure you will understand the clues. I am including some in this blog, see below. This first illustration will turn out to be the most important of all Bessler’s illustrations. It will become a most highly esteemed work of art mixed with mechanical engineering, once people begin to appreciate the huge amount of information which is hidden within. See below.

fig 4. The Pentagram.jpg

In the drawing above, the red line follows the path of the rope which passes behind the wheel. A second line, green, is drawn from the centre of the wheel at right angles to the first line. It terminates at the full stop, or period after the second ‘x’ or etc, in the title line at the top of the picture. It grazes the top of one of the pillars numbered 12, and the edge of one of the weights on the left end of the crossbar on the T shaped pendulum. The two ends of the red line and the point on the circumference of the wheel where the green, second line, the perpendicular one, crosses it, mark three of the points of a pentagram. The remaining points, in yellow, are easy to find. Note that the hatching lines on the wheel align with the lower left yellow chord of the pentagram. The blue line crossing from an alignment with the left side pendulum runs through the centre of the wheel and crosses the right side of the wheel to mark another point on the pentagram. The bottom of the main pillar completes the five markers.

The pentagram is not there as a symbol, it is designed to guide you into understanding the construction, but it requires additional help. This help involves the other illustrations in DT, and also there are some vital pieces of information embedded in the text of AP and DT. The Toys page in MT contains what I would describe as back-up clues which can only be seen to fit after you have solved most of the established clues.

More implications of the importance of the number 5 follow

Above are two illustrations demonstrating two ways to find a pentagram in the AP wheel. In addition the three white segments measure 24 degrees, which divides into 360 degrees, 5 times.

In the two drawings above the one on the right is MT137, but the one on the left is a modern version of design by Johann David Heinichen a contemporary of Bessler’s who lived in the same town at the same time, which he invented as an aid for musicians. It was known as a Circle of fifths

JC