Some of Bessler’s Clues Hidden In Plain Sight.

I’ve often mentioned how Bessler liked to leave clues disguised amongst innocent seeming text and illustrations. In other words ‘Hidden in plain sight’, something that should have been easy to spot, but in fact was so unobtrusive that nobody noticed them, or they were part of something else of little interest. Bessler used the term ‘drawing a veil over something’ and then saying ‘when I lift the veil, etc. Also in MT11, he wrote “but there is more in it than meets the eye, as will be seen when I pull back the curtain and disclose the correct principle at the right time.

So here’s the first of so many clues that I’ve lost count.

The over-numbering

In his publications, Grundlicher Bericht (GB) and Das Triumphirende (DT) all of  the parts in Bessler’s illustrations were labelled and numbered. Two of his illustrations are shown below. 

 This 

In the above illustrations  notice the main pillar supporting the wheel is labelled 4, not once but three times. This is a common feature of all the illustrations in both GB and DT.

It is worth noting that he had only 24 numbers to play with and if he wanted to put enough numbers available in the illustration to achieve a certain total he had to repeat as many of them as he needed.  When all the numbers are added together their total is 660. To find the purpose of guiding us to this number, Bessler hides another clue within the illustration.

The clock.

One day I was idly drawing in the lines of perspective, aligning with the various parts in the illustration, in the Merseberg wheel drawing, fig 2. I noticed that they all centred on the point of rotation.  I became curious when I noted that the line upon which two weights were placed were each labelled ‘8’.  Could this represent the eight o’clock line on a clock face?

Yes. A quick study of the clock illustration shows the extent of the clock-face.  Notice that the twelve o’clock and the three o’clock lines are accurately placed, and as shown by the small red rings, the eight o’clock line is accurate also.   I had no idea why this was done, but that it was deliberate was clear and I eventually realised that the number twelve was a hint to divide the 660 total to obtain the number 55.

Yes it’s that number again, inserted in his name, and in other pictures and throughout his published books in various forms.  I’ll discuss the reasons for its ubiquity later. For now I want share another piece of hidden information.

The Enlargement of Bessler’s Wheel.

There are clues available which indicate that Bessler’s wheel as shown in both GB and the DT illustrations is actually larger than shown,  see the illustration below.

The meaning of one of the inconsistencies apparent in the illustrations in both fig 1 and fig 2, puzzled me for a long time.  In the drawing below, I have red-circled the upper two ends of the wheel supporting pillars.  Notice that they are higher than the two pairs to the left, they are green-circled.  To my eye this looked wrong, and the tops of the columns are different.  Why were they not all of equal height? If you look at the first two illustration you can see a short horizontal line on top of each of the two higher pillars.  I discovered that they were datum points, and intended to provide a reference to further alterations to the drawing. 

Given that the left end of the horizontal beam, shown in yellow below, extended just outside the wheel’s rim on the left side, I drew a circle with my compasses, centred on the wheel axle. which included its outer end.  I also included the two short lines on the pillars.

The outer circle is shown in blue in the second illustration below. I mentioned earlier, the other two datum points, not outlined in red or green, which are placed just to the left of the main wheel and are shown at different heights.  This confirms that the pentagram discussed earlier is deliberate,

In the illustration below, the green line is perfectly aligned with these two additional datum points as well as the hatching infill, and therefore runs parallel with the lower yellow chord which forms part of the pentagram shown many times before. 

https://johncollinsnews.blogspot.com/2023/04/johann-besslers-tilted-pentagram.html

The blue circle skims the bottom of the main pillar supporting the wheel. It also just touches the point of the triangular padlock and then aligns with the right edge of the illustration.

Why the padlock is numbered 24 in the GB illustration and 42 in the DT version

It has on occasion been regarded as a typo, but in fact it was done deliberately.  There is no way such carefully crafted number could accidentally been carved wrongly.  In my opinion it was done for one reason - how would someone correct it without physically altering it?  I believe we are meant look at it upside down in effect swapping the two numbers 4 and 2, to read 2 and 4.  The picture could looked be at in a mirror, or flipped horizontally or vertically, but in the end I think Bessler intended us to simply rotate it 180 degrees.

The design hidden within the wheel drawing, includes five weighted levers.  By turning the picture upside down, the next lever to fall can be seen in the illustration below.

In my last build I introduced scissor mechanisms to push the falling weighted lever further back towards the following yellow radius.

The Shadows Clues.

Note in the following illustrations the differences between how the shadows are drawn.  In the DT picture the shadows cast upon the ground are changed in direction in parts of the whole picture compared with GB1.  I think that the purpose of the shadow change is to create a separation of one side from the other.  So the shadows under the wheel in the DT version of the Merseberg wheel point the opposite way to those on the left and to how they were first shown in the drawing of the first version of the Merseberg GB wheel.  

In the first picture below, the shadows all point to the left, but in the next one you can see that the shadows under the main wheel point to the left, but those in the left half point to the right. 

In the picture above I have included a close up of the two versions for ease of comparison.

——————————————————————————————————

There is a lot to take in here but there is so much more, and now I’ve started I’ll keep posting more information.  It does take me some time to collect and present the information in an abbreviated form so I’ll probably not post a second collection for a few days.  I hope you all enjoy it and perhaps it will ignite more enthusiasm for the project and maybe we will discover the actual solution.

I’m considering opening another page on which to post any of your pictures if acceptable.

JC

Copyright ©️2026 John Collins.

Some of Bessler’s Clues which I haven’t Shared with you yet.

 

More than five years ago I began to write a book detailing all the clues I had found and my interpretation of them, hoping I would eventually discover the solution, but - so far …. zilch! However these details I’m going to post here are genuine clues supplied by Bessler.  I’m certain that his intention was to provide sufficient information to enable the rediscovery of the design of his machine, his perpetual motion machine.

I’m copying and pasting some of the information I had assembled in my book, in the hope that someone visiting this blog will make the intellectual jump necessary from the clues I post to finding  Bessler’s hidden meaning and build the first gravity-enabled continuously rotating device since his own wheel.

There are too many to put in one post, so I’ll work my way through them and probably repeat some which some readers may be already familiar.

I’m trying to abbreviate the written text because it will take up too much room in each blog, but it depends on how complex the clues are, but I expect I’ll be able to post two three clues in each post.

The secret to finding the clues is complicated but easily understood once you discover the technique.  And that is before you even get to trying to interpret them which is another matter, but very often Bessler will provide two and even three clues to  the same answer.

So I’m just completing the first post, ready in a day or two

JC

UPDATE - Alternative Simpler Solution…….Hopefully!

 My recent post suggesting that Bessler might have found two different solutions was, at the time, an almost random thought that was generated by a discussion about the Gera wheel and the subsequent iterations which he presented to the public.

Comments about the proportions of the first wheel, galvanised my brain cells into considering how my suggested mechanisms would have fitted inside a wheel’s interior of potentially less than two inches.  I concluded that they wouldn’t have fitted.

Some of the comments by spectators of the Gera wheel suggested that the wheel contained a dog or a cat, because of the scratching noise which came from within.  This suggests that the mechanisms were rubbing against some part of the wheel, probably the casing protecting the interior from the public seeing inside.

Once the idea had settled in my mind that the Gera wheel was, at the very least, a simpler configuration compared with my later attempts to find a work-around for the later larger wheels, I began to reconsider what we know about the Gera wheel and Karl’s comments about it; simple to understand its principle, easy to build; couldn’t believe no one had discovered it before.  My concept might still have value but it wasn’t the design Karl had seen and I’m sure it wouldn’t have fit inside the Gera wheel.

So I have returned to my various designs over the years but this time with the knowledge that it needed to be simple, able in its most basic form to fit within the Gera wheel. So I have some ideas but I’m not sharing anything yet, but it feels good to be building from scratch again.

I’m using the previously discarded 18 inch diameter disc to test my latest theories on, but if it looks like it will work, I’ll repeat the build on a new disc.  I’m using parts from many discarded attempts, so it won’t be the most attractive model, but I’m past caring  about its looks - other than to say the 18 inch disc has so many holes it sometimes difficult to find an empty space!

Whether I succeed or not, I’m not going to waste much time in reconsidering past failures, but I do have a couple of ideas I never considered before.  Being of a vastly simpler design I don’t expect it to take long to test, and as soon as I know, one way of the other, I’ll post about it in case it stimulates someone else to success.

JC

Did Bessler Invent Two solutions?

Although I’m reasonably satisfied with my Bessler-Collins theory, the truth is the design looks more complex than we’ve been led to believe it was.  Karl is reported to have expressed surprise that the solution had not been discovered before. On another occasion, when asked if it was complicated, he replied that he thought a carpenter’s boy could make one if he was allowed to study it.

On the other hand we extracted certain information from the text in two of his books, that as well as weights and levers there was also a number of pulleys and by inference some lengths of cord. These items were all operating according to their design, so I guess the action was relatively narrow with minimal overlap.  

Given the size of his first wheel exhibition at Gera, 6th June, 1712, which measured nearly six and  half feet in diameter but with a thickness of just 4 inches, it seems hard to imagine all of the internal mechanisms fitting comfortably within such a narrow space.  

I built my wheels on a flat disc of wood material but given the shortage of flat sheets of wood, other than very expensive wood veneer, I’m sure Bessler built on a skeletal structure made of wood, which would have been more stable than mine.  Karl’s use of the words “carpenter’s boy”, suggests that perhaps the majority of the wheel was comprised of wood which was also used extensively in organ-building, and was his brother, Gottfried’s area of expertise.

If the mechanism was attached to two structures in the shape of a pentagram, I think the interior would be tight but sufficient for a similar mechanism to mine.

Bessler used oil cloth to cover the sides of the two largest wheel. Apparently oil cloth was typically made of heavy linen or cotton canvas, treated with boiled linseed oil to create a durable, waterproof material. It was often coated with iron oxide pigments (such as red Spanish brown or yellow) for colour. It was similar to a ship’s sale of the day but thinner and still difficult to penetrate and surprisingly heavy.

Finally Bessler said that between each move he “smashed the wheel”.  He blamed this action on the antics of his so-called enemies, Gartner, Wagner and Borlach.  I don’t believe he destroyed his wheel, so much as took it to pieces.  He then gathered all the parts ready to use on another larger wheel at his new address.  Material such as he needed for his wheels was hard to come by and expensive; it doesn’t make sense to just chuck everything away.

The emotive quality of the words disguises the fact that the safest way to transport the wheel without risking the danger of someone attempting to steal it, and thus the secret, was to disassemble it. It was merely a security precaution. Even when he died, the one remaining model of his machine was found in pieces, and it made sense to take such action to protect his invention being stolen.

So did Bessler invent a  simpler gravity wheel, but one with less power potential than the+later ones? Just in case he did, I’m checking back to see if there is the vaguest hint  that he might have done, I’ll let you know if I find anything.

JC

The Bessler-Collins Theory of Gravity-Enabled Continuous Rotation.

 

I mentioned previously that we should concentrate on the WA (work-around) proposal and deal with the result of that before we try to design a method of incorporating it in a working wheel. The reason being, that even though I’m confident that the concept is right, I’m not a hundred per cent confident on how to incorporate it in a working wheel.

Returning to my previous post, the point I’ve tried to explain, so far unsuccessfully is this.   In the image below, repeated from my previous blog, the two blue levers show the start and end positions as if they were scissor mechanisms with a weight on the end if each.  

Sorry I omitted the weights, but compare the blue levers with the red ones and it is obvious thar the blue ones with a weight  on the end, finish in a more favourable position, with

 each weight further back from their starting position causing the wheel to turn forward a lot more than with the red ones.

In the image below, also copied from my previous post, the pink scissor mechanisms expand to put the weight near the outer edge of the wheel and the following radius with its own scissor mechanism ready to fall.  The falling mechanism will naturally expand under the influence of gravity.  The cost is continuous and  the same as if it fell straight down.  But in this case the weight moves sideways and downwards.  So at no cost in gravitational energy, the design has increased the amount of torque available for lifting the fallen weight.

I wrote “no cost”, but there is a small and acceptable cost; the falling weight falls more slowly, as Fischer von Erlach stated that 'the sound of about eight weights may be heard landing gently on the side toward which the wheel turned'. So the scissor mechanism does slow the fall down a little, but achieves the desired end result, more torque.

So when people ask, “where does the extra energy to lift the fallen weight come from?” The answer is there, thanks to the scissor mechanism falling further back against the wheel’s forward rotation and of course the fallen weight’s  roll back from its landing position, towards its next fall.

Remember each mechanism is linked to another one, so as one weight falls, another weight is lifted, moving the centre of gravity backwards, over and over again.

This repeated falling and lifting results in an incredibly smooth rotation, as noted several times in the witnesses recordings of the tests. Because a weight falls, generating rotation, at the same time lifting another weight which removes any braking or balancing effect, the wheel is continuously out of balance and hunting for equilibrium.  

The initiator of rotation seems to be the falling of the first weight, that is arguably not necessarily true.  If the weight has not fallen yet, then the previous one must have fallen, therefore the wheel is still out off balance, hence the need to apply a brake to stop its continuous turning.

In my next post I’m going to show you how I found the design is all the mechanisms within Bessler’s images.

JC

Re-Inventing Bessler’s wheel Part Two

 I’m going to try to provide a better explanation for my design.  This will be in two parts because there are two aspects to this explanation.

To answer questions from my previous blog, the scissors mechanisms are mild steel, but the curved  guide arms are/were aluminium.  The weights are mild steel and there are two per lever, each pair weighs 80 gram grams about 2.8 ounces.  Not much but it seems to be enough on 36 inch diameter wheel.

To begin with I’ll concentrate on the so-call “work-around”, (WA) without which my wheel design won’t work.

Some of the text which follows contains assumptions about Bessler’s thinking.  The ideas described are how I imagine Bessler’s thoughts proceeded.

The main focus of action occurs around the six o’clock radius, when a mechanism approaches it from the right.  I use the word “approach”, because as we know, the wheel is permanently out of balance.  The weighted lever in the approaching mechanism is almost vertical but leans back to the right, or to the rear, by 18 degrees.  This encourages it to fall back a full 90 degrees immediately it’s pivot reaches the six o’clock radius.

At this point I believe it’s worth reminding everyone that every angle inside a pentagram is a multiple of 18 degrees, so the angles include - 18, 36, 54, 72, 90 and 108.  But there is one 30 degree added which doesn’t normally appear in the pentagon.

So the weighted lever falls to 108 degrees from the vertical radius, 18 + 90 degrees = 108. This provided a very small mechanical advantage (MA).  It wasn’t enough to do more than rotate the wheel a few degrees.  

It occurred to Bessler that making the weighted lever fall back to a point closer to the following radius and its weighted lever, would generate a considerably larger MA.  If he could design a system that achieved the extra MA, then the wheel would rotate further than the few degrees from before.  Incorporating this feature to generate the extra forward rotation would cause the previously fallen weight to counter-rotate, making its weighted lever ride further backwards towards its pre-fall position.  From this position the weighted lever would require less lifting effort to return it to its original pre-fall position.

Bessler noted that in the action of a  falling lever there were very few comments about the potential energy generated by a falling weight.  He thought that the loud noise made as it landed disguised the possibility that he might be able to tap the small extra source of energy before it landed, which it usually spent creating noise and miniscule heat.

He designed a scissor mechanism which would control the descent of the weighted lever, sending it in an elongated arch straight towards the following radius which had its own weighted lever ready to fall.  

The scissor mechanism could expand or contract and was operated by a weighted lever.  Bessler warned us to put the horse before the cart, so the weight used it’s falling mass to begin operating the scissor mechanism, reacting to its lever’s position and driving the mechanism.

The path of each mechanism was controlled by one long lever which was fixed to a pivot close to the wheel’s centre of rotation. The other end was connected to the mechanism but was lengthened to pass through it almost to the edge of the wheel.

Bessler used the scissor mechanism because he had observed that it was the most suitable method given it worked best when moving horizontally.  A slight slope would send it extending, whereas a slope in the opposite direction would send it contracting.  

The long control lever extended through the scissor mechanism to provide an anchor at its outer end to tie the end of a cord.  The outer end of the long lever was thrust backwards quite strongly by the fall of its weighted lever, providing a good pull on the attached cord. The cord passed over two pulleys.  One pulley was positioned close to the edge of the wheel and  directed the cord up and around a second pulley close the axle.  This redirected it down to the weight on the weighted lever in the previous mechanism.  

NB.  This last sentence is not necessarily correct.  The images I’ve interpreted suggest it might not connect with the previous fallen mechanism because it would be counter-rotating anyway.  Alternate suggestion requires the lifting of a weight around two or three o’clock, i.e, just past TDC.

Continuing…

As the first mechanism at six o’clock fell, it’s cord pulled the weighted lever in the previous mechanism back up just 30 degrees, into a neutral position aligned with the inner circle upon which all the lever pivots are stationed.  This small lift is designed to be work as quickly as possible.

This fast lift is necessary because once the the weighted lever moves past its own radius, it begins to travel uphill, causing a braking action on the turning of the wheel.  It can be likened to the action of a pendulum which falls until it reached bottom dead centre, and then begins to climb, unless the pendulum is shortened somewhat, when it speeds up.

The potential energy formed during the weights fall is used by the scissor mechanisms to drive them sideway towards the rear and the oncoming mechanism.

In the above image the pairs of red lines show the start and stop positions of a single weighted lever, according to Bessler’s original design.  The blue lines on either side of the sic o’clock radius, show the theoretical start and stop positions of each weighted lever when fitted with the scissor mechanism attaching it to the pivot point.

Comparing the two stop positions it’s clear that the blue lever has the better potential for lifting the fallen weight.

In the picture below I’ve removed the metal strips I added to reduce the lateral sway evident in my own model as they are not necessary in a well-built model! 

Hope this helps. More details in next post.

JC

Re-inventing The Wheel - Bessler’s Wheel!

The Bessler-Collins Solution to the Gravity-Wheel.

The concept that Johann Bessler discovered over 300 years ago and which took me most of my life to dream of, is simple.  We only have one action available to us to try to understand the concept and then try and make it into a reality. A weighted lever falls through a 90 degree arc.  It has two features to the fall that can be used to our advantage.  One of them is deciding where to try and make it land at a desirable point, to generate some torque.  The second one is to find a way to make use of the potential energy generated during the fall.

The answer has to be found here if we accept that Bessler discovered it.  There isn’t any other source of energy available.

NB In what follows I will attribute certain pieces of information to Bessler, but lack of space means I won’t be filling the page with explanations of where I found them or how I know what he meant.  I have spent a lifetime studying Bessler’s clues and it will take a large book to reveal each and every clue and how I deciphered each.  I’ve published some of the clues and their meaning, but they were easier ones to find and explain. But as well, there are still many clues identified but still not all solved.

As far as we know; this particular configuration has never been found before, or demonstrated  - until Bessler  found it.

First Bessler decided where he wanted the weight to land.  Ideally he wanted to generate as much torque as possible.  Initially he designed the weighted levers to fall in a 90 degree arc, but this produced hardly any torque and he knew that once the wheel rotated a little, the torque would be neutralised. The weight had hardly moved more than a few degrees backwards from under the axle.

Bessler used the potential energy generated by the weighted lever, during its fall, to shift the weighted lever’s landing point towards the following mechanism.  He used a scissor mechanism to achieve this.  These operate sideways best and can operate in reverse when conditions allow.  With five mechanisms employed, the gap between the mechanisms amounted to 72 degrees and moving into that gap would greatly increase the torque with additional benefits.  In reality the full 72 degrees was not available but at least half of it was and that amounted to significant increase on the original amount gained by the right angled fall.

The mechanism preceding this falling one, would counter-rotate about 30 degrees as the wheel rotated forwards reducing the amount of lift needed to return it to its prelaunch position.

Bessler mentions that at one point the weight shot upwards.  This is a very important point and is key to success. I explained it in my www.besslerswheel.com website at Swing Mechanics, click on the principle button (posted in 2010!).  Remember Bessler’s words “The weights gain force from their own swinging”.

Making the fallen weight rise up quickly is actioned by attaching a length of cord to the weight on the fallen mechanism and attaching the other end to the red dot on the falling mechanism.

Solving the Problem

After more than ten years research, Bessler finally found a potential solution which could be stated quite simply.  It was this concept which I dreamed of a couple of years ago.  Some of the potential energy gained during the fall of a weight, (before the weight lands) needs to be used to reduce the amount of lift required to return the weight to its pre-fall position. Bessler studied all possibilities and he found the answer - the special configuration of weights needed.

He divided the action of the falling weight into two parts.  The first part involved choosing where the falling weight landed, i.e., which part of the edge or rim of the wheel was best. The second part of the action used some of the potential energy accumulating during the weight’s fall, to move the falling weight sideways to land it at his chosen landing spot.

He used a unique scissor mechanism to guide the falling weight into a gentle arc towards the outer end of the following radius and its pivot.  If the weight had fallen through a standard right angle arc of 90 degrees, without the extending action of the scissor mechanism, it would give little torque and none available once the wheel was rotating.

Bessler’s wheel needed five mechanisms each consisting of  a lever plus one weight.  All the five weights were of equal size and mass. Having five mechanisms meant each one was 72 degrees from the next one.

So, depending on where the scissor mechanism landed its weight, could, for instance, make the wheel rotate up to 30 degrees forward. This is because when the weight lands about 70 degrees further back from the pivot point at the end of the six o’clock radius, it causes the wheel to rotate forwards about half that distance, or around 30 degrees. 

At the same time the previously fallen weighted lever mechanism begins to move backwards relative to the forward rotation of the wheel.  It moves backward about 30 degrees, which is more than it would have done if the weight had moved through its normal 90 degree fall, without the extension.  This reduces the amount of lift in the fallen (wl) needed to maintain rotation.

Because gravity is only responsible for the vertical distance the scissor mechanisms which forced the weight to move sideways as it fell, it did not use more energy than if it had fallen straight downwards, but it borrowed a little from the potential energy being generated by the falling weight. That potential energy produced during the fall, is largely wasted in making noise when it lands, but moving the weight sideways caused it to land much further back along the wheel’s rim, thus providing a larger mechanical advantage (MA), or torque; more than if it had fallen through the normal unextended 90 degree arc.

When the extended scissor mechanism lands on the edge of the wheel, it lands gently because it has been diverted from its vertical path by the potential energy accumulating in the vertical fall.  NB, Fischer von Erlach commented on this by saying that the weight could be heard landing gently on the side towards which the wheel turned.

Bessler showed us that although the weight fell through 90 degrees, a previously fallen weight only needed to be lifted 30 degrees to reduce any braking effect it would have suffered without the lift.  This also provided an additional increase in torque leading to the rapid acceleration of the wheel, as noted by many reliable witnesses. These two actions happened simultaneously.

The five mechanisms worked in pairs and were arranged quite close to each other so the witnesses were able to remark positively on the extremely smooth rotation of the wheel. 

The fact that every time a single weight fell, a previously fallen weight was launched upwards,  in effect nudged the centre of gravity backwards continuously.  The wheel itself was recorded as needing its brake set to stop it rotating, and it would immediately beginning rotating as soon as the brake was released.  This tells us that the wheel was permanently out-of-balance.

Using a metronome set to the Merseburg wheel spin speed of 50 rpm, with five weights falling at every turn of the wheel, means the sound of weights landing 250 times per minute, or about four times every second! 

The Kassel wheel had nine mechanism so each one was separated from its neighbour by just 40 degrees.  Its spin speed unloaded was 26 RPM. Each weight landed 234 times per minute. Just under 4 times per second!  No wonder Fischer Von Erlach could only describe the “sound of about 8 weights landing gently on the side of the wheel”. 

The Solution

Using the scissor mechanisms to push the falling weighted levers sideways comes naturally to this device, it’s the way it moves most easily. Bessler commented in his Apologia Poetica,

 “A crab crawls from side to side. It is sound, for it is designed thus.” 

Not only does it move easily opening in one direction but is easily reversed and closing when the wheel is reversed.

All my versions of Bessler’s wheel are designed to turn clock-wise.

‘

The information box is smaller than I planned so here a bigger version.

The first red line shows the weighted levers.

The pink lines show the scissor mechanisms.

The green lines show the scissor guide arms.

The blue lines show the short extension to the green scissor guide arms. Each has a cord attached which provides a link to the weighted levers.  When a weighted lever falls, the end of the arm follows edge of the wheel, pulling the cord, thus lifting a previous fallen weighted lever.

The red dot on the end of the green scissor guide arm shows where the cord is attached.

The grey and black lines show the aluminium retaining bar, controlling the lateral sway I see when the scissor mechanisms fall.

Unfortunately my own model has not been finished yet.  I had hoped to finish it in time for my birthday but other calls on my time prevented this happening. I need to add the connecting cords and I’ll post a new picture when I’ve finished. At least this post shows where I’ve go to and hopefully explains my latest concept.

There are a few facts about Bessler’s wheel which I have been able establish with absolute certainty. I will explain more later, but for now;

1.  There are at least 5 mechanisms required.  

2.  An odd number of mechanisms are required, 5, 7 or 9.

3.  5 mechanisms produce the fastest RPM, more mechanisms produce slower RPM. This is because more mechanisms take up more room, leaving less space for their actions.

4. It is necessary for the starting point of the weight’s fall to be higher than its landing point.  This may seem obvious but it cannot be achieved with some current designs being made suggested, for instance 4 mechanisms cannot accomplish it.

JC

A Short Preview About My Planned Reveal of Bessler’s Wheel.

I’ve taken some photos of my wheel, and I’m colouring the parts to make the descriptions more readily understood.  This is being done on the assumption that either it isn’t finished by February 5th, this year, or it doesn’t work.  There could be two or three reasons why it doesn’t work.  Firstly,  maybe I’ve made a mistake in some calculations causing it to lock up; or secondly it doesn’t work because my whole concept is totally wrong.  Obviously I don’t seriously believe that, but I have to admit it is a possibility, however convinced I am that I’m right. 

The most likely reason why it might not work is simply the difficulty of building it the way I have.  Many excellent models I have seen over the years have gained my admiration, not so much for the attempted solution to Bessler’s wheel, but for the craftsmanship exhibited in the way they have been constructed.  If I had built in  three dimensions the whole structure would have been much more robust and rigid and not, like mine, prone to lateral sway and/or locking up, amongst other faults.  My wheel consists of a single three foot diameter of MDF, (Medium Density Fibreboard). Every anchor and pivot is a bolt fixed through the MDF. Each weighted lever rotates about a single bolt fixed through the MDF.  The levers should be double to rule out lateral sway;  the pivots should be supported at top and bottom, not just the bottom.  I got into the habit of thinking; check the design first by building something cheap and cheerful, and if it works then build something of better quality. Anyway, time will tell if it works and then others can test the design.

So it seems to me that I should explain the concept first, explaining  what is usually referred to as the work-around.  By this I mean overcoming the age old problem of producing a device which is made to rotate and do work.  This is to be achieved by designing a unique configuration using the fall of a limited number of identical weights, attached inside a wheel, which cause it to rotate continuously.  The work-around requires that the device is able lift the fallen weights back up to their pre-fall position, with no external input or assistance and no subterfuge.

There are many people who have studied this problem and built endless models, who believe there is a special configuration still to be found which will prove to be the answer, and also confirm Bessler’s claims to have found the solution and proved it over 300 years ago.  I believe I’ve found it, thanks to Bessler’s clues, but if it fails please don’t dismiss the “work-around” it’s correct even if the build doesn’t  work.

JC

UPDATE and Progress Report.

I’ve finished writing the text of the full explanation of how I believe Johann Bessler’s gravity-enabled wheel worked.  I’ve read and reread it umpteen times and I don’t think I can improve it much more.  But it definitely needs drawings and/or photos added, to make it fully understandable, which is what I’m working on at the moment.

I only got into my workshop a few days ago after being away over Christmas with my family, visiting my granddaughter, Amy.  She is a disabled TikTok influencer with over 4 million followers.  She has always supported me, in my efforts to solve Bessler’s wheel and in fact she only recently lost her beloved Hungarian Vizsla whom she named Bessler!  He was ten years old but had health problems. 

So, I’ve got a bit longer before I have to share what I’ve got, (yes I know - whether it’s finished or not and whether it works or not).  I will share my solution, as promised and include several photos of the wheel.

Anyway back to the task in hand.  I’m adding some short pieces of aluminium screwed into the backplate but bent over to catch and guide any weighted levers which are still subject to lateral sway - and occasionally miss the stop, ending locked up and immovable.  Same problem at the other end of some of the levers, which sometimes lock up in their contracted position, in their case a suitably placed bolt stops their over contracting.

I mention these minor but annoying matters because these additional features will probably be visible in the photos and add confusion to what might appear to be an already complex mechanism.  It’s not that complex and the once you see it in action, you will understand how it works.

So I’m confident about the design but not so much with the build, but I’ll do my best to finish it so you can all get to understand it, and make simulation or actual models.  Imagine being the first since Bessler to make a successful gravity-enabled continuously rotating wheel, capable of doing work.

Thanks,

JC