Saturday, 3 December 2016

One-way wheels and two-way wheels - the best way forward.

I thought it might be useful to rehearse my own thoughts here as I have not written about this subject for a long time, although it's in my mind constantly.

Bessler's largest wheel, the Kassel wheel, was approximately 12 feet in diameter, and 18 imches thick.  It turned at 26 RPM unloaded and 20 RPM when lifting a heavy box of stones.  It could turn in either direction if given a slight nudge in one direction or the other, after which it accelerated to its full speed in 2 to 3 turns.  This wheel's predecessor, the Merseberg wheel, was of a similar size but thinner at only a little over 11 inches thick.  It could turn at 40 RPM and was also able to turn in either direction.

These two wheels were designed and built to answer the accusation that the earlier ones were driven by clockwork.  The earlier ones were able to begin to spin immediately their brakes were released.  This fact suggests that they were in a permanent state of imbalance - or that a weight was always able to fall at the exact point that the wheel reached a balanced position thus continuing the imbalance.  In the Merseberg and Kassel wheels I visualise there being two sets of weights -  one for each direction, a kind of mirror image arrangement.  The two-directional wheels obviously would not turn without a nudge in one direction, because the weight which fell as soon as balance was reached was counteracted by the weight which fell into position to turn the wheel the other way.

Once the wheel was turning, howver, one of the weights would move backward and therefore have no positive effect on rotation, while the other continued the imbalancing process. That's the theory; of course designing an arrangement of weights which fulfills the theory and works is another matter.  

It seems clear that there were several variables which could be applied to the design of the wheel, which could make it turn faster or slower, using weights of varying size.  Bessler claims such in his Apologia Poetica, and his demonstrations seem to prove that.  The obvious variables include weights of different sizes and more or less of them; thinner and thicker wheels and large diameter wheels and potentially more mechanisms.

In my opinion the first one-way wheels hold the key to success, assuming that the internal mechanisms in the later ones were based on the earlier ones.  Although we know that the Kassel wheel produced about eight bangs on its falling side, we have no knowledge of how many noises accompanied the spinning of the earlier ones - just that a loud noise was produced.  I mention this because it might be wise to leave aside any assumption that there would need to be eight bangs to somehow include in the earlier more basic wheel.  Bessler implied that he was able to barely induce a wheel to turn with just one cross-bar inside it, which could mean one pair of weights operating within a single but complete mechanism.

So I, at least, continue to work on producing a one-way wheel, but with five mechanisms which I believe Bessler indicated, is the most that can be fitted into the wheel.  That indicates to me that the more mechanisms the better - and five seems to me to be the answer, or part of it.  So four would not produce as much torque as five and three even less.

Many people work on the theory that because there were about eight bangs on the side towards which the Kassel wheel turned, that fact can be assumed as relevant to the other wheels, but I believe that the earlier ones were simpler with less mechanisms inside and therefore fewer sources of noise.  Being of a simpler design they should be easier to replicate - why try to build a two-way wheel when a one-way wheel would prove the point.

JC

Wednesday, 23 November 2016

Update - new workshop imminent; working wheel still impending; house alterations beginning Monday.

Once upon a time it was usual for a perpetual motionist to create within his own mind, a mechanical arrangement which he believed might work, and then bring it to life in a physical three-dimensional real life creation. Then he could study it and perhaps tweak it to try to get the device to begin to spin continuously - or nderstand why it didn't work.  It was not felt necessary to introduce mathematical formulae to discover the solution.

Of course whether he knew it or not, maths guided the way his mechanisms moved but Johann Bessler did not need to include it in his research because he simply used his knowledge of organ-building to devise new ways of moving the various parts.  But this knowledge was not sufficient to find the solution.  It required a spark of inspiration which came to him in the middle of the night - a principle upon which he based his new mental creations and which eventually led to his success. He discovered the correct premise and used it to deduce the correct conclusion.

Now I see that the Besslerwheel forum is filled with discussions concerning spreadsheets, simulations, obscure acronyms, modernised metrics, technical jargon that covers subjects which, back in the day, were labelled differently and whose means of calculation would probably be as difficult to understand by today's minds as their own working methods are to those of us who learned it all in a different way many years ago. Fortunately I have never seen the necessity for including all this stuff in my work, as I operate in the same way that I described above and which I believe Johann Bessler did.  Visualisation, seeing it in my mind's eye, imagining it, sketching ideas on paper, building a bit at a time and testing the part to check that it works as I envisaged - that is my method.


I've had this basic principle in my own mind for more than three years now and the reason it has taken so long to produce a working version of the wheel is due to the difficulty of incorporating the requirements of this principle in a way that works.  Johann Bessler reported that, following the discovery of this principle in a dream, he returned to work with renewed vigour and hope, yet it still took him many months of toil to produce the first beginnings of continuous rotation.

If I'm correct in my own belief that I do have the solution, I don't want to just give the answer away without at least building a proof of principle wheel, not because the concept needs the proof, (it's that simple!) but just for the sheer joy of being the first since Johann Bessler to demonstrate to the public how it works (unless, of course,someone else does it first!)

My new workshop will be built soon, hopefully before Christmas, but if not then, it will be ready in January, and after that I hope to complete my Bessler wheel, video it with a full explanation and publish it here and elsewhere. 

Work on the house we moved into in the Summer is due to start next week and we will be staying with my daughter sometimes, assuming that the electricity will have to be turned off from time to time as work progresses and although we have a wood burning stove I think its going to be a mighty cold Christmas, with some walls being taken out and new ones to be built!

JC



Friday, 9 September 2016

UPDATE

I have again replaced my usual blog with a brief account of the legend of Bessler's wheel.  I'm currently unable to maintain the frequency of my blog due to commitments which are keeping me exceedingly busy!  

I've opened the comments feature just for this page, but as soon as I have something of interest I'll be back and open for all comments.  In the mean time all the books detailed on the right are available and I hope that any new readers will want to obtain copies for the information Bessler left for us.

I would just like to add something that seems to me to be extremely important.  Many people around the world are attempting to duplicate Bessler's wheel or make something that does the same thing even if it the inventor is not sure if it is the same as Bessler's, or works on a different principle.  The chief criticism in all this endeavour is that such an aim in life is doomed to failure because a gravity-driven machine is regarded as impossible according to accepted scientific principles.  In which case we have a paradox, if Bessler did it, how can it be impossible? - is it impossible?  Was Bessler a fraud?  The answer to both final questions is  NO!

The truth is that Bessler's machine was genuine and such a machine is not impossible, the evidence in support of this is convincing.  The difficulty in accepting this is due to the conviction that it is impossible.  I shall show how it can be achieved without conflicting any accepted physical laws.  The proof is so simple that once it is explained, any scepticism is permanently removed.

 I worked out the explanation several months ago and the answer is stunningly simple but it is not so easy to design and build.  I am going to get back to work on it as soon as I have finished modernising the house we recently moved into.  Hopefully most of the work will be completed by early next year and I will have my workshop back.  Then I will construct my final design and show my proof of principle for all to see.
8th September 2016

JC

The legend of Bessler’s Wheel began on 6th June 1712, when Johann Bessler announced that he had invented a perpetual motion machine and he would be exhibiting it in the town square in Gera, Germany, on that day.  Everyone was free to come and see the machine running.  It took the form of a wheel mounted between two pillars and ran continuously until it was stopped or its parts wore out. The machine attracted huge crowds.  Although they were allowed to examine its external appearance thoroughly, they could not view the interior, because the inventor wished to sell the secret of its construction for the sum of 10,000 pounds – a sum equal to several millions today.

News of the invention reached the ears of high ranking men, scientists, politicians and members of the aristocracy.  They came and examined the machine, subjected it to numerous tests and concluded that it was genuine. Only one other man, Karl, the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel, was allowed to view the interior and he testified that the machine was genuine. He is a man well-known in history as someone of the greatest integrity, and  the negotiations between Bessler and Karl took place against a background in which Karl acted as honest broker between the warring nations of Europe; a situation which required his absolute rectitude both in appearance and in action.

There were several attempts to buy the wheel, but negotiations always failed when they reached an impasse – the buyer wished to examine the interior before parting with the money, and the inventor fearing that once the secret was known the buyer would simply leave without paying and make his own perpetual motion machine, would not permit it.  Sadly, after some thirty years or more, the machine was lost to us when the inventor fell to his death during construction of another of his inventions, a vertical axle windmill.

However, the discovery of a series of encoded clues has led many to the opinion that the inventor left instructions for reconstructing his wheel, long after his death.  The clues were discovered during the process of investigating the official reports of the time which seemed to rule out any chance of fraud, hence the  interest in discovering the truth about the legend of Bessler’s wheel.

My own curiosity was sparked by the realisation that an earlier highly critical account by Bessler's maid-servant, which explained how the wheel was fraudulently driven, was so obviously flawed and a lie, that I was immediately attracted to do further research. In time I learned that there was no fraud involved, so the wheel was genuine and the claims of the inventor had to be taken seriously.

The tests which the wheel was subjected to involved lifting heavy weights from the castle yard to the roof, driving an Archimedes water pump and an endurance test lasting 56 days under lock and key and armed guard.  Bessler also organised demonstrations involving running the wheel on one set of bearings opened for inspection – and then transferring the device to a second set of open bearings, both sets having been examined to everyone’s satisfaction, both before, after and during the examination.

So the only problem is that modern science denies that Bessler's wheel was possible, but my own research has shown that this conclusion is wrong.  There is no need for a change in the laws of physics, as some  have suggested, we simply haven't covered every possible scenario in the evaluating the number of possible configurations.

I have produced copies of all Bessler's publications, with English translations.  They can be obtained by clicking on the appropriate links on the right.

JC

Saturday, 3 September 2016

Bessler's Clock

This particular piece of encoding is another one whose legitimacy is hard to argue with but although its purpose may seerm vague I believe I have the right answer.  Again it is to be found in the wheel drawing from Das Triumphirende.

Initially I simply tried marking in the lines of perspective which ran through the centre of the wheel.  Starting from the bottom left side of the central supporting column, I extended the line which connects the bottom end of the two columns numbered 12. Continuing in a clockwise direction, I drew a line linking the two number 8 weights, then the straight horizontal line.  The next line we have already encountered; it marks one of the pentagonal points on the far side of the wheel. I extended the line which connects the tops of the same two columns numbered 12 and finally the vertical line down the centre of the main column.

Twelve to six, three to nine, one to seven, eleven to five and ten to four all followed lines of perspective.  The only one that did not follow a line of perspective was two to eight, but interestingly the line exactly lined up the two number eights attached to the weights.

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.  Remember in my previous blog I mentioned dividing the total of all the numbers by twelve?  To recap, 649 = 59 x 11, add the missing 11, making 60 x 11=660, the clock hints at 12, and 660 divided by 12=55!

Notice the most convincing feature, in my opinion is the alignment of the two number 8 weights occurs at the eight o'clock line. And it connects the 2 o'clock with eight o'clock line with two eights.

Also of note is the green line which I have drawn in, which follows the hatching lines, is 60 degrees from the vertical, but the line connecting eleven o'clock and five, runs at 55 degrees from the vertical - 5 times 11 = 5.  It's that number 55 again!  Ingenious.

JC


Thursday, 11 August 2016

Update

I have again replaced my usual blog with a brief account of the legend of Bessler's wheel.  I'm currently unable to maintain the frequency of my blog due to commitments which are keeping me exceedingly busy!  

I had hoped to create more interest by revealing a few of the many pieces of code I have found, but there have been limited responses to what I've published and perhaps the best thing is for me to concemtrate on bringing to public view a working model of Bessler's wheel.  This is going to take some months as I am still settling in to our new house and we are waiting for some building work to be carried out.  My workshop is going to have to wait until this has been accomplished. 

I am closing the comments feature for the time being , but as soon as I have something of interest I'll be back.  In the mean time all the books detailed on the right are available and I hope that any new readers will want obtain copies for the information Bessler left for us.

11th August 2016

JC

The legend of Bessler’s Wheel began on 6th June 1712, when Johann Bessler announced that he had invented a perpetual motion machine and he would be exhibiting it in the town square in Gera, Germany, on that day.  Everyone was free to come and see the machine running.  It took the form of a wheel mounted between two pillars and ran continuously until it was stopped or its parts wore out. The machine attracted huge crowds.  Although they were allowed to examine its external appearance thoroughly, they could not view the interior, because the inventor wished to sell the secret of its construction for the sum of 10,000 pounds – a sum equal to several millions today.

News of the invention reached the ears of high ranking men, scientists, politicians and members of the aristocracy.  They came and examined the machine, subjected it to numerous tests and concluded that it was genuine. Only one other man, Karl, the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel, was allowed to view the interior and he testified that the machine was genuine. He is a man well-known in history as someone of the greatest integrity, and  the negotiations between Bessler and Karl took place against a background in which Karl acted as honest broker between the warring nations of Europe; a situation which required his absolute rectitude both in appearance and in action.

There were several attempts to buy the wheel, but negotiations always failed when they reached an impasse – the buyer wished to examine the interior before parting with the money, and the inventor fearing that once the secret was known the buyer would simply leave without paying and make his own perpetual motion machine, would not permit it.  Sadly, after some thirty years or more, the machine was lost to us when the inventor fell to his death during construction of another of his inventions, a vertical axle windmill.

However, the discovery of a series of encoded clues has led many to the opinion that the inventor left instructions for reconstructing his wheel, long after his death.  The clues were discovered during the process of investigating the official reports of the time which seemed to rule out any chance of fraud, hence the  interest in discovering the truth about the legend of Bessler’s wheel.

My own curiosity was sparked by the realisation that an earlier highly critical account by Bessler's maid-servant, which explained how the wheel was fraudulently driven, was so obviously flawed and a lie, that I was immediately attracted to do further research. In time I learned that there was no fraud involved, so the wheel was genuine and the claims of the inventor had to be taken seriously.

The tests which the wheel was subjected to involved lifting heavy weights from the castle yard to the roof, driving an Archimedes water pump and an endurance test lasting 56 days under lock and key and armed guard.  Bessler also organised demonstrations involving running the wheel on one set of bearings opened for inspection – and then transferring the device to a second set of open bearings, both sets having been examined to everyone’s satisfaction, both before, after and during the examination.

So the only problem is that modern science denies that Bessler's wheel was possible, but my own research has shown that this conclusion is wrong.  There is no need for a change in the laws of physics, as some  have suggested, we simply haven't covered every possible scenario in the evaluating the number of possible configurations.

I have produced copies of all Bessler's publications, with English translations.  They can be obtained by clicking on the appropriate links on the right.

JC

Tuesday, 26 July 2016

Numerology and Alpha-Numerics in Das Triumphirende.

Here's another little coded example.  Please be aware that it has been abbreviated from my own writing and I have omitted some detail but the facts are there for anyone to check.

I noticed early on that there seemed to be an excess of numbering in the wheel drawings in Grundlicher Bericht and Das Triumphans. It looks as though some of the items are ‘over-numbered’.  By that I mean that Bessler seems to have labelled the parts with a particular number more than seems necessary.  For example the main pillar supporting the wheel is numbered 4, three times.  The slimmer pillars are numbered 12, and two of them to the left are numbered twice each, and 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, Bessler 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 too quickly so he labelled everything once and having acquired a total, he added more of the smaller numbers until he had achieved his desired end. There are other peculiarities in the labelling and why this should have been done was unclear to me at the time.

There are discrepancies between the two drawings which I shall discuss in a later post but for now be aware that in the first drawing 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 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 (NOTE 5 x 11 =55).  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.  55 is a number we shall see many times during these posts.  This choice of the number twelve to introduce yet another example of the number 55, may seem too speculative, however, fascinating proof that it is the right assumption will appear in my next post

All the drawings in Das Triumphans contain similar number manipulations, the 'Andere Figura' and its companion, 'Secunda Figura', use the numbers from one to ten.  There is obviously a case of overlabelling in the right picture, with four number eights.



The numbers in the left picture add up to 28; those in the right, 62, to total 90.  There are 15 numbers used and 90 divided by 15 is six. This does not seem to be a significant number, however knowing that Bessler’s favourite number was 5, I realised that it divided 90 exactly 18 times – the ubiquitous pentagonal numbers again.  Secondly the numbers used, 1 to 10, add up to a total of 55 – the other Bessler number.
 

The wheel drawing containing the archimedes pump (see above) also uses overlabelling to achieve a specific number. One of the differences between this drawing and the other ones is the fact that in this one the parts are labelled with letters rather than numbers.  However there is one labelled part which is strangely ambiguous and that is the main supporting column which supports the wheel.  It looks like a ‘W’ however it can also be mistaken for the number ten, but this cannot be right because the other parts are labelled with letters.  The answer lies in the attached list of labelled parts; here the list is entirely in letters except for the last item which is undoubtedly labelled 10.  You can see the ambiguity in the expanded detail below, which has two examples of the number ‘10’, or the letter ‘W’.





Why then is the last item called item 10?  The solution seems obvious; the intention is that the reader should replace all the letters with numbers. The letters run from ‘A’ to T’, plus the letter/number 10.  Since 10 is the last item on the list one might suppose that it would represent the letter ‘U’ as ‘T’ was the last letter, but in fact it represents the letter ‘J’.  We know this for the simple reason that ’J’ is omitted from the list of parts and does not appear in the drawing.

 Bessler's use of the letter 'W' was often used as a way of implying the presence of the number ten, consisting as it does of two letter V's or Roman numerals to produce two more 5s.   He wrote it in the style shown below, which was taken from one of hos many handwritten examples.  The letter 'J' it replaces is the 10th letter of the alphabet.
There are 39 numbers, running from 1 to 20, totalling 355.  This does not seem significant until you discover that one of the letter ‘e’s representing the ropes which run around the spokes on the axle, has been omitted in the left side picture.  The one ‘e’ missing could, if replaced, increase the numbers to total 20 in each picture, and the total from 355, to 360.  360 divided by 20 eqals 18, our favourite pentagonal number again - of course 360 divided by the missing 5 equals 72, another pentagon number.


So the first drawings have 24 numbers, apart from an apparent hiccup over the number 24 getting transposed to number 42 which was deliberate, as I shall show in a later post.  The Andere figures use ten numbers, and the waterwheel uses 20.

There is so much more than these simple examples, but clearly there is a reason other than blinding us with mathematical mystification.  It has to be something useful to us for reconstruction his wheel.

JC