Thursday, 10 May 2012

The Elephant in the Room.

I think we are due for a sea change or should that be a paradigm shift?  A paradigm shift occurs when axioms, long trusted as self-evident truths, gradually get weakened by contradictory evidence previously ignored as being anomalous. The result usually involves a new way of thinking which accommodates the anomalies.  A sea change, in modern parlance, tends to indicate a complete change from what was thought to be true in the past, but it seems to be more of a transformation than a change.

It seems to me that there is an elephant in the room!  If an elephant was in a room it would be impossible to overlook; thus, people in the room who pretend the elephant is not there have chosen to avoid dealing with a looming big issue. There are certain inescapable facts attached to the Bessler legend which are ignored or circumvented, the result of which is that the possibility of using gravity as an energy source has been dismissed.

One, Karl the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel validated the wheel.  It is inconceivable that he would be involved in fraud.

Two, no evidence of fraud was ever found, and Bessler never stopped declaring his innocence.

Three, Bessler stated that "these weights are themselves the PM device, the ‘essential constituent parts’s".

Four, there are no other forces sufficient in either speed or strength, to react quickly enough or strongly enough to assist gravity in turning the wheel.

Conclusion, Bessler's wheel was enabled to turn by the force of gravity alone.

So let us suppose that the wheel was genuine and it depended on gravity alone.  We are told gravity is a conservative force and therefore incapable of supporting continuous rotation.  Why should that be so?  Wind is conservative, so is a stream, but they support continuous rotation.   I used to liken the action of  gravity to the wind, or a stream of water but people get too hung up on where the wind comes from, what causes it, the action of the sun etc., to consider the implications of that fact.

I think the sun is not the ultimate cause of the wind, gravity is.  Air can be warmed by volcanic action or man's actions so not necessarily the sun, but gravity is essential.

The passage of air molecules (mainly a  mixture of nitrogen oxygen and carbon dioxide)  from a higher pressure area to a lower one, is discerned as wind.  The lower pressure air results when its molecules are warmed and it expands and rises, leaving the surround molecules to rush into the potential vacuum which would result. When the air warms it expands and becomes less dense.  The higher you go the thinner the air becomes until there isn't enough to breathe. Why is that?  The simple reason is that the air is subject to gravity the same as everything else is.

Air close to the surface of the earth is at its densest with the molecules most tightly packed together.  When warmed the molecules move further apart so become less dense.  They also rise, squeezed upwards by the denser cooler air at ground level. 

In Bessler’s wheel the lead weights were composed of lead molecules.  It doesn't change shape unless heated to melting point so when used as a weight it is uniformly heavy unlike the more volatile air molecules. Gravity lies at the heart of  the motion of the air molecules and the sun is only responsible for warming them.  Without the action of gravity on our atmosphere there wouldn't be any wind - there wouldn't be any air either!.  Gravity enables the air molecules to move continuously creating the air currents which drive windmills.  And it’s gravity that enables the weights in Bessler’s wheel to rotate it continuously.

The air molecules which, in the wind drive the windmill and in the lead weights can drive the gravitywheel,.are each driven by the force of gravity.



  1. John ,..My comment on your previous blog does not exclude the fact that perpetual motion was accomplished and is a fact and that it was solely gravity that turned the wheel.
    I do not believe that energy was extracted from any other source outside but within the wheel itself.

  2. More than bit off topic (for which I apologise) but . . . which of your publications might feature the image of the GERA attestation certificate???

    Also, is it of decent resolution or not so good, as are various in your PM-AAMS?

    Thanks very much.

    Anonymous H-XVIII

  3. There is a copy in 'Grundlicher Bericht' which covers several pages and another neater one with Latin translation by Bessler adjacent to it. You can get digital versions of these from my web site at

    There is no separate certificate as such but they are included in both publications.

    They are pdf format and quite good copies.


  4. I've said this at least a dozen times on this blog; the sun is responsible for mearly all of our energy: wind,hydroelectric,fossil fuel,nuclear,radiant,etc. Geothermal being a possible exception. If the sun wasn't there, geothermal energy wouldn't be an exception.

    " Air can be warmed by volcanic action or man's actions so not necessarily the sun, but gravity is essential."

    I can assure you beyond any doubt that volcanoes and man's actions together would never be able to warm the atmosphere enough to create wind. I'll look up how much energy hits the earth every day from the sun. Be right back.

    So according to the infamous wiki, the earth absorbs about 3,850,000 exajoules (EJ) per year. In 2002, this was more energy in one hour than the world used in one year. An exajoule is a 1 followed by 18 zeros. I'll let everyone do the math themselves. Talk about an elephant in the room ?!

    A gravitational field is like a battery. You can store energy in it, for later use, but it doesn't take the stored energy and multiply it, and neither does a chemical battery. They release the same amount minus irreversible waste. That's the real elephant in the castle!

  5. I think you misunderstand me Doug, I meant that for the air to move it needs gravity but the sun or something else can warm it to make it rise.

    The main thrust of my post today was that the evidence that gravity was the sole source of energy for Bessler's wheel was very strong and perhaps we should explore the possibility with a little more determination.

    Given that so many people insist that gravity is a conservative force and therefore incapable of supplying that source of energy (via the weights)I repeated my oft repeated suggestion that there were many forma of conservative forces all of which are used to supply energy and therefore just because gravity is conservative does not rule it out as an energy source. I then sought to link the idea of gravity and molecules in the air and in the lead weights in Bessler's wheel. Simple.


    1. I understand. It doesn't need gravity to move, that's where we disagree.
      Imagine the air is the same temperature everywhere for a period of time. Will it continue to move under the influence of gravity? No. Once the air quickly reaches equilibrium from the force of gravity, then all movement would stop; just like any thing else: a pendulum, etc. Gravity just holds the air here in a big shell around the earth. The movement is from pressure differentials, created from temperature differentials.

      Your oft repeated suggestion about wind being a (conservative) force is a misconception. Wind is a form of solar energy conversion, as was shown above. It can't be used to support an argument that gravity can be a source of energy. The analogy you make between the two is incomplete and misleading, and really, just bad science, no disrespect intended. One is renewable energy conversion, and the other is a "storage" field of force. The same applies to waterwheels: a form of solar energy conversion, not a conservative force. It is simple.

  6. JC, what was Karl's motive when he invited Bessler to his castle? Did he invite anyone else before or after as he invited Bessler? I want to rule out the fraud, that's most frustrating thing in this research. In my head, there is always this doubt of a secret partnership which is,I think, a big distraction for all of us.

  7. Karl had just let Denis Papin go to England to demonstrate his 'steamer' to the Royal Society. He had carried out a number of experiments for Karl including trying to make a steam-powered boat.

    Karl was looking for a new interest for his scientific experiments. His cousin Landgrave Wilhelm had written to him about Bessler, as had other ,members of his court, including Leibniz.


  8. But Doug I agree that once the air reaches equilibrium from the force of gravity, then all movement would stop. My point is that the force of gravity acts on the molecules of the air and that is the primary force acting on them. The sun's heat comes second. Because gravity acts on the molecules of the air it also acts on the molecules in the weights. Wind is a conservative force, as is gravity, yet wind moves windmills round and so can gravity. Just because gravity ios a conservative force that does not rule out the possibility of rotating a wheel continuously.

    It doesn't matter how the wind originates whether from the sun or my backside - it is still a conservative force (albeit a smelly One!).



      From the infamous wiki:

      "The two main causes of large-scale atmospheric circulation are the differential heating between the equator and the poles, and the rotation of the planet (Coriolis effect)."


      "Wind is caused by differences in pressure. When a difference in pressure exists, the air is accelerated from higher to lower pressure. On a rotating planet, the air will be deflected by the Coriolis effect, except exactly on the equator. Globally, the two major driving factors of large-scale winds (the atmospheric circulation) are the differential heating between the equator and the poles (difference in absorption of solar energy leading to buoyancy forces) and the rotation of the planet. Outside the tropics and aloft from frictional effects of the surface, the large-scale winds tend to approach geostrophic balance. Near the Earth's surface, friction causes the wind to be slower than it would be otherwise. Surface friction also causes winds to blow more inward into low pressure areas.[1]"


      "Wind energy is the kinetic energy of the air in motion. Total wind energy flowing through an imaginary area A during the time t is:
      E = A·v·t·ρ·½ v2,
      where v is the wind velocity and ρ is the air density. The formula presented is structured in two parts: (A·v·t) is the volume of air passing through A, which is considered perpendicular to the wind velocity; (ρ·½ v2) is the kinetic energy of the moving air per unit volume.

      Total wind power is:
      P = E/t = A·ρ·½ v3
      Wind power is thus proportional to the third power of the wind velocity

      It's a long entry in the wiki, and gravity isn't mentioned. Wind is not a conservative force, that's incorrect, as shown above. Gravity acts on air molecules, but it doesn't lift them up in their own air. It doesn't move them sideways. It only holds them where they are. It only holds the weights in a wheel where they are.
      Your smelly wind is a form of energy conversion waste and it has a better chance of turning a wheel than gravity, if it was recovered! But no one would want one!

  9. Look guys lets face it,the over balancing part is a fact whether you use one set of weights or four sets.
    You just have to figure out how to lightly raise the weights and your there.
    I don't know about you chaps,but my wheel is going to be working by the 6th June regardless.

  10. Thanks, John and everyone, for all the posts and great reading.

    If gravity wasn't used as a motive force within Bessler's Wheel, then he should have been able to turn his wheel with the plane of rotation in any orientation that he desired. How many times did he demonstrate or utilize his wheel with it laying on its side? None that I know of.

    I've concluded that the maximum efficiency of Bessler's Wheel has to be with its plane of rotation parallel to the gravitational force vector.

    Thanks for reading, everyone.


  11. Doug I'm going to have one more try tomorrow to persuade you.


  12. Interesting discussion as always!

    My view remains that Bessler's wheel's derived their outputted power from the extracted energy / mass contents of their lead weights. However, it was the combination of the sustained eccentricity of the weights and the Earth's gravity field that allowed that energy / mass to be slowly siphoned off so it could perform useful "outside" work.

    Differential heating of the Earth's surface by the Sun is what causes winds. That requires that the Sun LOSE a small percentage of its particles' energy / mass contents as fusion reactions proceed inside of its core. The portions of the Earth's surface heated more then warm up and emit infrared radiation which in turn warms up and lowers the density of the air above them to a greater extent than do the cooler portions of the Earth's surface. Weighing less, the heated air can then be lifted as the cooler, denser, and heavier air rushes in to replace it. As a column of heated air rises, the top of it cools and then spreads out laterally so that its mass is constantly removed from the rising column of warm air. Result: wind.

    In a VERY loose sense, what went on in Bessler's wheels can be compared to the process above that creates Earth's winds. In such an analogy, the weights in a wheel correspond to the fusing nuclei at the core of the Sun that lose some of their energy / mass with each of their revolutions around the axle (although, I'll repeat it again, there were NO fusion or fission reactions going on in those weights!). The Earth's gravity field is the same for this analogy. However, there is no gross change in the density of the weights going on in Bessler's wheels that resulted in big changes in their masses and weights. The ascending side weights WERE lifted by the descending side weights, but NOT because of a big difference in the masses of the weights on each side of the axle. Rather, the ascending side weights were lifted because they were a bit closer to the axle than the descending side ones and, consequently, produced a counter torque that was LESS than the driving torque of the descending side weights. Bessler's mechanism managed to keep the CoM of the weights more or less fixed on the descending side of a wheel and this, of course, always kept the driving torque on its axle greater than the counter torque of the ascending side weights.

    @ JC

    I've always found it interesting that Denis Papin (who many French today consider to be the first person to build a steam engine!) seems to mysteriously drop out of the historical record around 1712 just as Bessler suddenly appears in it with the public demonstration of his Gera wheel.

    I often wonder whatever became of Papin?

  13. I believe he came to England and gradually dropped out of sight In 1712 he was destitute, and it is believed he died that year and was buried in an unmarked pauper's pit. Very sad.


  14. All these arguments will become irrelevant once the wheel makes its appearance.What counts is a hands-on constructive approach. Then we will look back and laugh slightly embarrassed at out bold assumptions.
    There is a way to by-pass the constraints of gravity which results in perpetual motion.
    Never mind what the physicists say,there is a property in physics that has been overlooked because it is not understood.
    It will enable us to reap energy from gravity amazing as it sounds.

  15. Thanks very much for the information - a sale is in the offing.

    Now, on topic . . .

    And here following we have The Four Inescapables, as put forth by this blog's esteemed author/moderator,

    "One, Karl the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel validated the wheel. It is inconceivable that he would be involved in fraud."

    On it's face this needs be so for if otherwise what might the Landgrave have gained, except for likely egregious loss to his august, semi-regal European station?

    And then,

    "Two, no evidence of fraud was ever found, and Bessler never stopped declaring his innocence."

    Given all that is yet-known as summing to this fair assertion, how COULD it be regarded contrarily? And so, it may here be adjudged prima facie true as well, no?

    And then, again,

    "Three, Bessler stated that "these weights are themselves the PM device, the ‘essential constituent parts’s"."

    By the very quoted power of the Orffyrean words THEMSELVES, is the fact of this utterance proved.

    And then, finally,

    "Four, there are no other forces sufficient in either speed or strength, to react quickly enough or strongly enough to assist gravity in turning the wheel."

    Of the four this one is but only apparent, though very strong, obviously.

    They all conjoin in force so as to underscore yet more words coming from the very SOURCE itself.

    To wit

    "My invention-plant is exceedingly energy greedy or selfish (or you may say 'thrifty' if you prefer) in that it greedily draws energy to itself. It works in layered parts but it fights energy-loss-friction at all places possible, so as not to lose any of the precious energy which in greedy fashion it sips out of the energy-rich raging river of gravity." - Bessler from his Aplologia

    To repeat this most salient point, as the master maker made,

    " . . . it sips out of the energy-rich raging river of gravity."

    Presuming the translation as one essentially accurate, then WHAT do we NOT understand about our man's very words?

    To this considering mind, at least, it is as clear as the finest crystal could ever be, that what he wrote SAYS what it means, and MEANS what it says; no more - no less!

    If memory serves well, at elsewhere, he instructed particularly that he HAD FOUND success in the very place where others had been, but had not!

    This anonymous One respectfully suggests that we might re-double (or, re-treble even) our efforts back into those areas now presently abandoned, FOR THEREAT success is surely to be found, just as we have been instructed by one knowing far, far more than we!

    Mercilessly and shamelessly pecking at the esteemed author/moderator, and nit-picking the already well-pecked, will not get any good thing done and, what's more, will only serve as practice for becoming yet more of the dreaded, stinging Hell-hornets of legend!

    (Best, it might be, to not mimic likewise, for bedeviling Bessler by three were enough already - this trio of fiends' eventual doom to a blackened infamy of history, being a just fate all but assured. By all, the Sinistral Path is the one best avoided.)


    Anonymous H-XVIII

  16. Thank you H-XVIII. You have hit the nail on the head. I mentioned a few days ago what I regard as an extremely important clue, that Bessler said that he HAD FOUND success in the very place where others had been, but had not!

    This clue I will enlarge on in a few days because I think I understand why he said it. An innocuous seeming comment but one of great importance once you understand why he said it.


  17. "My invention-plant is exceedingly energy greedy or selfish (or you may say 'thrifty' if you prefer) in that it greedily draws energy to itself. It works in layered parts but it fights energy-loss-friction at all places possible, so as not to lose any of the precious energy which in greedy fashion it sips out of the energy-rich raging river of gravity." - Bessler from his Aplologia

    Bessler, like many of his time, considered gravity to be "flow" of "something" down from the heavens toward the center of the Earth. He would, naturally, have thought of his wheels as sort of acting like horizontal windmills (even though their planes were perpendicular to the Earth's surface!) whose weights could "catch" this flow of gravity and use it to power rotation.

    Yes, it SEEMS so logical, but there are some fatal flaws in this view.

    Bessler would have been completely unaware (as most physicists were until the beginning of the 20th century!) that energy and mass are the SAME thing and that ALL of the power his wheels outputted could only come from its weights and NOT the Earth's gravity field.

    He would have had no concept of what a space station would be or look like let alone how "artificial" gravity could be created aboard one by rotating it and letting CF serve as a substitute for natural gravity. Aboard such a space station, his wheels would have CONTINUED to rotate despite the complete ABSENCE of a planetary gravity field. His wheels did NOT need Earth's gravity and would have run REGARDLESS of the source of the force acting on their weights. These alternative forces could have been provided by electric or magnetic fields, spring tension, or even wind or water pressure!

    Indeed, if he had replaced all of a wheel's lead weights with hollow, airtight cylinders and then immersed the entire wheel upside down in a tank of water, it could have been run by the forces of BUOYANCY! The SOURCE of the force is irrelevant. What counts is that the resulting CoF or "center of force" would, because of the wheel's unique mechanism, have CONTINUOUSLY remain displaced onto one of its sides (which would be the ascending side when it is operated via buoyancy).

    Notice in the above quote that Bessler mentions the wheels were constructed in "layered parts" and that all internal friction is minimized. As I've said in prior blog entries, EACH of the two one-directional sub wheels found inside one of Bessler's two-directional wheels required the use of 48 cords to utilize the "Connectedness Principle". That's ALOT of cords and they had to be carefully arranged into SEPARATE parallel planes in order to keep them from rubbing together, fraying, and failing prematurely.

    When I think of the MANY engineering hurdles Bessler had to overcome to achieve rotary mechanical PM, my admiration for his accomplishments soars even higher. Sadly, despite his achievement, his ending was not much different than that of Denis Papin. But, at least, he had a "decent" burial.


Bessler’s Clues Here and on Besslerwheel forum

I’ve decided to go back to my original plan which was to share everything I’ve discovered and know, or believe about Bessler’s wheel.  It ha...