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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JC

Words of Encouragement

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

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

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

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

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

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

HAPPY CHRISTMAS ALL!

JC

Don't patent Bessler's wheel!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JC

Is this really the only alternative to fossil fuels?

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

"Generate your own energy!

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

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

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

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

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

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

Addition to www.theorffyreuscode.com

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

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

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

JC

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

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

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

Good luck!

JC

Update on wheel progress and decoding chapter 55

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

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

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

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

JC

Bessler's "Connectedness Principle".

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

In his Maschinen Tractate number 9, Bessler says:-

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JC

Curious Coincidence or Spurious Inference?

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

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

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

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

JC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JC

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

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

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

I hope that this seems fair and reasonable.

JC

Das Triumphirende PERPETUUM MOBILE ORFFYREANUM 1719 FOR SALE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JC

Wheel update and an awsome trebuchet.

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

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

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

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

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

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

JC

Update on the wheel and some corrections to the translations.

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

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

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

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

JC

Bessler's Windmill for sale - One Euro!

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

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

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

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

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

Any buyers out there?

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

JC

Update - and five mechanisms required for proof of principle

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

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

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

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

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

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

JC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JC

Spain again!

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

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

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

JC

Will one mechanism be enough for proof of principle?

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

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

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

JC

Update and Puthoff's response

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

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

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

JC

A comment on comments

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

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

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

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

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

JC

The Bessler-Collins Gravitywheel is on line

OK! Deep breath; here goes!

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

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

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



JC

www.gravitywheel.com and the Bessler gravitywheel

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

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

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

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

JC

The sigmoid curve or elongated 'S' shape

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

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

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

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

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

JC

My own comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JC

Clarification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JC

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

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

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

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

JC

Hiatus

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

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

JC

Prototype almost finished...

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

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

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

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

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

JC

Update, no sims, no ETAs, but soon.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JC

Use it or lose it

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

JC

Hands-on wins over CAD every time

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

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

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

JC

I'll publish and probably be damned.

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

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

JC

Decision time

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

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

JC

Electricity - life without it is so basic!

My daughter and son-in-law are coming home from Spain by plane today - Hurrahhh! I thought at one point I was going to have to fetch'em. Now I can get back to work on the wheel!

Their recent experiences have highlighted two of the most important inventions of our lives. Firstly their electrical fire which resulted in no electricity for a week. No light, no heat, no freezer or fridge so no perishable food in the house;
no cooker so no cooking, no hot water so no washing, no TV, no computer, no internet, no telephone. no charging of mobiles. They played scrabble with the kids by candlelight!

The second thing was the grounding of all aircraft. The chaos that ensued was uttlerly incredible. People walked the lines of cars waiting to cross the channel offering cash for a seat in a car. Others hired cars and dumped them at the port. So many stories! We use aircraft routinely to travel to distant places in a hours - places which would have taken weeks to get to a hundred years ago, and when they fail for some reason we are thrust back to that era and rediscover the problems people used to have just getting around.

When I was researching my book, "Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?" I read about an Englishman who bought paintings done in Italy and carried them home to London where he sold them to the rich. He walked to Italy and walked back again! He did this several times and became extremely rich - and footsore!

I can't say Bessler's wheel would have had any impact on the grounding of all aircraft but it would have a major benefit for the domestic electricity user!

I have now got two designs of mechanism both of which will operate according to the principle by which Bessler's wheel worked. I'm using one design for now just to prove the principle. The two mechanisms work in different ways but they achieve the same ends and I think there may be another way too, because what I have does not accord precisely with Bessler's designs as far as I can tell. There are common parts but there is not 100 per cent match.

JC