Monday, 30 November 2009

My new frictionless and wobble-free wheel

Recently I have managed to refrain from giving updates on my attempts to reconstruct Bessler's wheel because time keeps slipping by and my frequent estimates for completion slip away too. I was receiving a certain amount of flak, good-humoured I hope, but it made me think twice about making promises I might not be able to keep. However I have had a few emails requesting an occasional update so this is the situation at present.

The current prototype is still under construction and looks like it will be finished before the end of the year - in order to win my wager with Bill! I have built a new wheel stand for this model because the previous one looked so bad when compared with those I see posted from time to time and I anticipate posting pictures of this one, working or not. The bearing supporting the wheel has been improved with the addition of a bicycle front wheel bearing and there is very little friction to interfere with any spontaneous rotation that might occur - I wish!

I have argued repeatedly that friction should be the least of our worries because we wish to build a wheel which will do work, and therefore overcoming friction would be a breeze. But I have to admit that seeing the new backplate spinning easily and without the lateral wobble which seemed to be an intrinsic component of all my previous models, I'm now converted to relatively friction-free assemblies. The wobble I referred to had a tendency to throw my previous mechanisms into disarray, so it is all to the good that it has been eliminated. I remain confident that this design will work.


Friday, 27 November 2009

Gravitywheels and bogywheels

The email address for this site uses the word bogywheel and it has been pointed out to me for the umpteenth time that this spelling is incorrect and it should be spelled bogey or bogie. Bogie wheels are used, typically under railway carriages and I think they are called wheel trucks in the USA. I was well aware of this fact and deliberately mispelled it because I intended it as an acronym for Bessler/Orffyreus GravitY Wheel, BOGY wheel for short.

This brings me to something that has bothered me for some time. I used the word 'gravitywheel' because the wheel is driven by gravity - alone. Everyone knows that I am firmly of the opinion that Bessler's wheel only required gravity to work - no other forces were necessary for its continuous rotation. This viewpoint is certainly not universally agreed with, even among those who support my contention that Bessler was genuine. To try to answer such criticism I have attemped to argue the point from time to time, for instance, via my web site at under the heading 'The Collins Conjecture'. My words have bounced off the skins of the vast majority with little effect and I have to admit that the arguments were probably too speculative, confusing and poorly worded and what we need is something that is simpler to understand.

I have argued that because gravity is a conservative force does not mean that it cannot be used as we desire and that wind and water flow are also conservative which we already use for energy. There is one major problem with likening gravity to the wind and flowing water; despite the fact that it can be argued that each force is conservative and therefore capable of being tapped directly for such purposes as generating electricity, both wind and water act directly on windmills and water wheels, respectively, while gravity wheels require the addition of weights. It seems to me that there must be a better way of comparing the three forces to obtain a deeper

To compare the three forces under the same circumstances the following would have to apply. To drive a gravitywheel requires that moveable weights should act on the wheel to cause it to overbalance and turn, or alternatively, a succession of falling weights from some external source; for a windmill to be tested under the same strictures we should have to picture a test in which we released into the wind-flow a succession of objects, helium-filled balloons for example, each carrying a small weight, which were designed to hit the blades of the windmill causing it to turn. But we would need endless numbers of balloons striking the windmill on one side to keep it turning. The same test could be applied to water flow; there would have to be a succession of floating objects striking a submerged wheel in such a way that it too turned.

Under these circumstances, the wind would be driving the weights, not gravity. No one would seriously suggest that that was the way to turn a windmill and it is obvious that if you tied the balloons to the blades of the windmill that it would not turn in the wind just because of the pressure of the wind on the balloons. But that is what we are suggesting with a gravity wheel. To solve this problem We have to design a weight-driven wheel that reflects the interaction between the wind and the windmill blades.


Friday, 20 November 2009

Two principles and Orffyreus or Bessler?

This has been an interesting week for me. I am still finding difficulty in allocating enough time to building Bessler's wheel according to my design. But during one of the brief moments when I managed to get to work on it I discovered that there are at least two completely different ways to achieve the same result i.e. a gravity driven wheel. My original design and the second method each use the same kind of mechanisms, but obviously configured slightly differently. The second method looks easier to build and once I've finished the first design I shall build another wheel according to the second method. This seems to back up Bessler's claim to have built wheels which worked on different principles. They are different but one leads to the other.

I have also had subjective confirmation that my design is right because of questions raised in In some of Bessler's more literary descriptions of his wheel the inventor makes use of metaphors to aid understanding and at the same time confuse. Two metaphorical descriptions had left me clueless as to the reason for their inclusion, but recent references to them brought them back to my mind and at last I understood them - and as I've said before, the understanding of these descriptive clues seems to come after the solution arrives which is a pain but also useful in confirming that you are going the right way. As I said this is a purely subjective experience and open to the accusation of self-delusionment!

Someone wrote to me expressing doubt that I should refer to the inventor as Bessler because he chose the pseudonym, Orffyreus. I have wavered from one view point to the other ever since I first began to write his biography , "Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?" I decided on using the name Bessler rather than Orffyreus almost as casually as flicking a coin to make the decision, simply because I could not make my mind up which was better. I think he would approve of my use of his real name because I have written so extensively about the reasons for the name change that no-one could be in any doubt as to whom I am referring to, which ever name I use.

He adopted the name Orffyreus for a very good reason; he wished to make people question the name and seek the reason. This, in my opinion, he did to provide a pointer to the use of alphabetic substitution and alphanumeric codes - and we all now know the reason for that. It was his intention to provide encoded information about the design of his machine for posterity.


Wednesday, 11 November 2009

Put the horse before the cart!

Bessler the crafty old fox, almost outwitted me again and then I remembered his advice in Maschinen Tractate - don't forget to put the horse before the cart! All the indications were there that I had it right, but I couldn't for the life of me understand why the weight wanted to move in the direction it seemed to be determined to move in! Then I noticed one of Bessler's little pet mistakes - not really mistakes at all but rather clues as to how the thing should be put together. Not that I hadn't seen the error previously - I once made a long list for my own amusement of all his apparent mistakes and came to the conclusion that every single one was deliberate - but I just couldn't come up with a convincing explanation for this one before today. As is always the case with Bessler's clues, when you see it you realise how simple they are, and wonder why you didn't see it before.

So. I wasn't going to give any more commentary on how things are going with the build, but I was so pleased with this discovery, I just had to share my glee with you. Well it's back to the work shop again.

There are a set of clues that I haven't published yet but which are, in many ways, more informative than the ones I have discussed on As I suggested above, look for errors by the inventor. They turn out not to be errors at all but clues as to how the machine was constructed. The trouble is, it isn't clear what they mean until you happen on the right design and then afterwards when its too late, the meanings become clearer.

Then there is the 'Toys' page, a collection of drawings which show you various details about the mechanism. 'A' for example shows the mechanism before it has moved, notice the horizontal lever mounted in a slightly off set way.

'B' shows the same mechanism but a different part of it - after it has moved.

'C' and 'D' show two clues each, not difficult to grasp. Each mechanism has one weight up and one down, and each also has two sets of levers somewhat in the form that you see them on the page.

'E' connects those two parts of the mechanism, which is why it falls roughly between the two.

Too much already!


Thursday, 5 November 2009

Global Warming; both oil and time are running out.

In an address to members of the European parliament a while ago in Brussels, HRH Charles, Prince of Wales stated that "climate change presented such a threat that, uniquely in history, it will surely require the effort of every nation and every person to find and implement a solution before it is too late."

On an earlier occasion He said, "The evidence on climate change is both frightening and alarming. Doing nothing is simply not an option, it can't be any more, because of the urgency of the situation. This is not about saving the planet. Actually, it's about saving us. That is where each and every one of us has a responsibility to do what we can."

In July this year HRH said that if the world failed to heed His warnings then we all faced the "nightmare that for so many of us now looms on the horizon".

Others such as Al Gore and Gorden Brown have also commented similarly. Gordon Brown warned that there were only 50 days to save the planet from global warming - 50 days, that is, before more UN talks, Mr Brown said that countries were not making progress quickly enough to reach agreement and warned of the economic, human and ecological impact of a failure to cut the emissions.

Nearly four years ago former Vice President Al Gore said we only have 10 years left.

The consensus seems to be that not only is oil running out, but due to carbon emissions and global warming, also time.

HRH's reputation as a passionate environmentalist is unassailable, I must therefore ask why it is that a technology which has been known about for almost 300 years and through which many of his concerns can be assuaged is completely ignored, derided, and scorned. I know the answer of course and the fault lies not with HRH but with our scientists. The assumption that because gravity is a conservative force it cannot be used to drive machinery is inaccurate and can be proved wrong.

I refer to a machine once known as a perpetual motion machine, but latterly referred to as a gravity-converter. It was invented in 1712 by Johann Bessler, also known by the curious pseudonym, Orffyreus. The documentary evidence that it was genuine is compelling.

I also note with a certain amount of amusement that "in a bold move to lessen our dependence on traditional fuels and decrease carbon missions, Congress voted to repeal an old Republican ban on perpetual motion machines, clearing the way for the development of self-propelled water wheels, self-flowing flasks, float belts, zeromotors, and other environmentally-friendly industrial equipment." [courtesy of]

How wonderful it would be if this single act were to open the flood gates of invention and lead to a kind of perpetual motion machine! But back to reality.

The implication of HRH's comments is that no stone should be left unturned in our search for a solution to global warming. If a potential source of free, clean energy can be identified then surely it behoves us to examine the claims put forth and develop such technology? To quote HRH's own words "That is where each and every one of us has a responsibility to do what we can." I have been doing "what I can" since I self-published a book about the machine in 1997. I have a number of web sites each offering additional information about the machine, but so far I have the attention of just one accredited scientist.

Surely the time is right for the resurrection of Bessler's wheel? He announced in 1712, yes that was almost 300 years ago, that he had invented a gravity-driven machine. It was examined by numerous people, amongst them, Gottfried Leibniz, and believed to be genuine. Unfortunately the inventor died without revealing the secret, and although the machine underwent twelve years of intense scrutiny it has been ignored, discarded and dismissed as a scam.

To me it seems quite extraordinary that, given the strong circumstantial evidence that the machine was genuine, no notice has been taken of it, other than by gifted amateur engineers and others around the world who also find the evidence absolutely convincing.

What use would such a device be? The obvious and most simple use would be to generate electricity for innumerable uses. How can such an invention be left unused and disregarded? Imagine how dramatically carbon emissions would be cut once the world was using it where ever possible to eliminate the need for fossil fuel and bio fuels.

It might be thought that such technology has been lost and that it is too late to start researching the possibilities in this area of what is generally referred to as pseudoscience, but actually there is reason for optimism. Bessler admitted that he would probably fail to get recognition for his achievenment during his lifetime and would in that case settle for post humous success and accordingly, left behind him a number of clues that were intended to guide a particularly perspicacious person to a successful conclusion and build a working model of the original machine. I am not suggesting that I am that perspicacious person, nevertheless even I have made some significant advances leading to a fuller understanding of the machine and why it does not conflict with the established laws of physics.

I just wish that there were more people who would study the evidence without prejudice, because I'm sure that anyone with an open mind and no preconceptions, would come to the conclusions that here was a machine that would solve many of the problems that we face in trying to reversae the effects of carbon emissions.

Are there others out there willing to take a step outside their comfort zone and examine the evidence? If so please pay a meaningful visit to my web site at and the others listed on my LINKS page. Maybe you will be persuaded to seek an investigation of this machine and encourage proper funding of its development. You could contribute to the rescue of the whole planet and its inhabitant, slowing the advance of global warming more speedily than any other technology even under consideration.


Sunday, 1 November 2009

Back from Spain, refreshed and reinvigorated

Well I'm back! I was forced to take a week away in Spain with my children and grandchildren. Of course I was reluctant to go, imagining the warm blue seas and azure skies that were sure to greet me, not to mention beer, wine and food at roughly half the price, or less, that it is here in the UK, but I generously submitted to the entreaties of my family. There was thick fog and rain and it was cold when we took off, something I knew I was going to miss, desperately, but one has to consider the needs of others, so I bravely soldiered on. No internet where we went! How on earth was I going to manage without my daily dose of the besslerwheel forum? Well I managed!

Seriously, it was a wonderful break and strangely, not having the wheel project right under my nose, benefitted me because I was able to comtemplate everything mentally and I discovered some additional clues that had been staring me in the face but which I was too close to see. No changes are necessary but confirmation of the actual sizes of the various parts has been made possible.

I cannot believe how clever Bessler was, not just in building the wheel but in hiding all sorts of clues in full view of everyone for so long. Maybe he was too clever, otherwise the clues would have been found years ago and not almost 300 years later.

On a completely different subject, one of the odd things I have noticed is that there is much talk about the rate of exchange between the Euro and the Pound and how bad it is for British people holidaying abroad, because of the fall of the Pound against the Euro. We are encouraged, nay exhorted, to spend our holidays in here in England, because the countries of the Eurozone are now too expensive. Well that may be true of some countries, such as France or Germany, but Spain is nothing short of brilliant! Excellent food and wine at prices that make us green with envy; wonderful people; dramatic scenery; amazing historic buildings; beautiful beaches, heart-stirring music. What more could you wish for? Who cares if the Pound is almost at parity with the Euro? It's still the best place to go and still the best value.

OK travelogue over.


Bessler's Evidence and his Critics.

There are three areas or shades of scepticism about Johannn Bessler's claims; there are those who follow the establishment line, that t...