Most of you are aware of the evidence for Bessler's apparent obsession with the number five and fifty five. I know the reason for it and I will share it later, but for now consider the following extract from his Apologia Poetica.
"He shall be called a great craftsman
who can easily/lightly throw up a heavy thing,
and when one pound falls a quarter,
it shoots up four pounds four quarters. &c.
Two clues here; firstly a heavy thing is thrown upwards - and secondly if one pound falls a quarter and in doing so causes four pounds to rise four quarters, that is another way of saying when a pound falls a quarter it causes another pound to rise a quarter followed by another three each rising a quarter. Bessler is reiterating that there are five (one pound plus four pounds) pounds falling and rising. Clarification to follow.
JC
Thanks for the continuing tidbits. I am very interested in seeing your design. You done yeoman's work digging up an important piece of forgotten history.
ReplyDeleteIt is scary how time slips by. One time I looked at the countdown it was something like 100 days, then 70 days, now 35. Please slow down!! I want my money back!! Can't wait to see your design & explainations.
ReplyDeleteJohnnyD.
1+ 4 = 5.
ReplyDeleteOk, got it.
I was thinking something similar but for the sake of kindness I didn't post it . I mean after all everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt . John is well respected for a lot of reasons . Bruce Lee said once , " Simple things carefully placed ring with an undeniable harmony . " On a personal note I'd like to paraphrase something else Bruce Lee said ," Before I studied the art a wheel was just a wheel , a weight just a weight . While learning the art a wheel was no longer a wheel and a weight no longer a weight . After studying the art a wheel is just a wheel , a weight is just a weight . "
ReplyDeleteIn that quote Bessler is telling us that there is a way to cause a heavier weight to suddenly rise through a certain distance as another smaller weight drops a shorter distance. This can ONLY be done if the heavier weight has been carefully counter balanced so as to effectively make it lighter than the smaller weight. Then, depending upon how much effectively lighter the heavier weight was made relative to the smaller weight, it indeed becomes possible for the smaller weight to drop and thereby raise the other weight through a distance that is several times the drop distance of the smaller weight! There is nothing mysterious about this process.
ReplyDeleteThere are several ways to counter balance the heavier weight and effectively lower its weight. The best way is to attach a suitable SPRING to it and make sure it is stretched to the correct length.
Bessler tells us that the search for PM will be fruitless unless one can understand this principle (BTW, you did not give the full quote!) and I quite agree because it is NOT possible to make a working OB PM gravity wheel UNLESS one is incoporating springs into its design. That is one of the requirements for those mobilists wanting to finally get on the "right track" so they can actually make some real progress in solving the Bessler wheel mystery.
As far as Bessler's obsession with the numbers five and fifty five is concerned, there is really a VERY simple reason for it. But, I shall not go into that at this time.
My way is different to yours techno, but perhaps both will work. There are no springs in my design although they maybe of assistance in a large version of the wheel.
ReplyDeleteI omitted the other part of the quote as it contains another clue to be discussed at a later time.
The number five relates to the third clue and also to others to be discussed later.
JC
JC, I have a (probably) stupid question. The use of "&c" at several occasions by Bessler intrigues me. It does mean, I suppose, "and so forth" (et cetera). But he uses it in odd places sometimes - like in this one. I understand that he tries to say "and the cycle repeats" or something to that effect, but the context is sometimes odd.
ReplyDeleteI guess what I (also) meant to say is that in (colloquial) German it would "usw" (und so weiter").
DeleteI think Bessler was being literal.
ReplyDeleteIt has been commented on before Andre. I counted up all the &s and NBs once to see how many there were and it was in the 100s but I was never able to discover the reason for so many of them. They are ubiquitous in Apologia Poetica but only minimal in Das Tri. In AP in some places they are at the end of six or more consecutive lines so I thought they were part of a code but I still don't know how.
ReplyDeleteJC
maybe tags for clues...
ReplyDeleteorffyreus is a code, I'd try the same:
in each page 3 lines from the end = 3 lines from the begin
@ Andre
ReplyDeleteI agree with your analysis. When Bessler says:
"...and when one pound falls a quarter,
it shoots up four pounds four quarters. &c."
He is telling us by the "&c" that this relationship will be retained as the weights are changed. It can, like excetera, be translated as "and so forth and so on". That is to say, when TWO pounds fall a quarter, they will shoot EIGHT lbs up four quarters. When FOUR pounds fall a quarter, they will shoot SIXTEEN pounds up four quarters.
This, of course, is easily accomplished by just adding extra springs to the heavier weights that are "shooting up". If a spring with a certain tension and stretched to a certain lenght suffices to allow one pound to raise four pounds one quarter, then one would have to connect another IDENTICAL spring to an eight pound weight in order to have it similarly affected by a TWO pound weight. He would have to attach four identical springs to a sixteen pound weight to allow a four pound weight to raise it through the SAME distance.
Bessler, being a clockmaker, would have been VERY knowledgeable about the use of springs in various types of mechanisms. They are, indeed, CRITICALLY important to the functioning of his wheels.
Don't take this wrong but it is funny to see you guys groping around in the dark ... knowing what I know . The gentleman John Collins does not have the solution to the wheel . I predict that the 6th of June will be a non-event .
ReplyDeleteI was reading on the Besslerwheel board last night and I realized that the same thing happens over and over . The senior member's have a license to be smart asses and they take advantage of it . Another thing is most of them have failed so many times going forward with bad ideas that they FULLY EXPECT EVERYONE to fail . They don't understand people who get emotional or enthusiastic because their own emotion and enthusiasm has long since burned out . Is it such a SURPRISE that an outcast like me , smart enough mind you and someone who was profoundly affected by my experience with Besslerwheel and it's member's , who's only real aim was to get people excited about this worn out subject once again , should be the one to solve it ? I am past the point of reading all this B.S. attributed to Bessler when it all just adds up to fantasy . Most everyone is very premature in their willingness to attache Bessler's name to whatever uninspired , ignorant weighted wheel that they can imagine .
I'm not sure why you hang around here Chris. You claim to have the solution and also think neither I nor anyone else has. You have a high opinion of yourself and a low opinion of anyone who has been studying this subject for longer than you. What are you looking for? Admiration, adulation, approbation? You have to give us something to consider. Your self-aggrandising posture founded on nothing more than mouthing empty, boastful words will gain you nothing but contempt.
ReplyDeleteJC
Empty boastful words huh? Yes John I have the solution to the wheel regardless of any other fact . So swallow that and you will be on your way . My "opinion " as you put it is based on this nonsense that you and other's present as a workaround to things you simply don't understand . I realize that in order to be taken seriously I have to either expose the information I have or at least explain it . And not long ago I was willing to do that as you recall . I am not willing to do that publicly and so I am content to inform people what Bessler's design was definitely "not" ... without telling people what it "was" . You know yourself that your concept will probably not work . So why the drama ? And as far as you know there is no "foundation" for my "self- aggrandising " but that doesn't make it a fact . Again you are making assumptions ...part of the reason that you and your whole group of follower's have not found anything significant thus far . What position should I take considering you take correction as an insult and any kind of confidence as self-aggrandising ?
ReplyDeleteJohn , think for a moment on what you said above "You have to give us something to consider." Have I not tried to do that ? I simply said , "Bessler's wheel was not over-balanced " and I was thought to be speaking blasphemy . So how can I take a second step without taking the first ? Maybe I am being stalled by ignorance and people's unwillingness to accept that they could be wrong ...ever thought of that ?
ReplyDeleteChris doesn't have the solution, John, we all know that. We can humour him.
ReplyDeleteIf I don't have the solution Doug , then there isn't one to be had . Please , no , don't humor me , just keep being the devil's advocate that you really are . You have not done your own homework and yet you assume that just any particular individual ( which is who I really am to any of you )can't have a solution . Let me remind you that Bessler himself can be assumed to have not invented anything ... if that's how you feel about it . You people really know how to appeal to others in a sense of yourselves . Let me remind you that history is filled with people who aspired to greatness and then achieved it within themselves . This kind of thing does not preclude that anyone like you for instance has to recognize and validate said greatness for it to be a fact .
ReplyDeleteChris, you said: "history is filled with people who aspired to greatness and then achieved it within themselves". That is right.
DeleteNow we all know you have the correct design, what is next?; nothing?, take it to the grave?.
Come on man, dont you realize?. You are your own worst enemy!
AntiChris
If I had it in my heart to impress you , Mr. Anonymous believe me I could .
DeleteWhat benefit would it be to give it away ? My own worst enemy or not I have certain things that I will and will not do . Why do you suppose Bessler didn't just blurt out what he knew ? He relished all the " smart " people making fools of THEMSELVES . I admit that I kinda get off on the same type of thing . Also , I reserve the right to:
"preserve the mystique and value of his device" .
You make me laugh, You do not know what you want. Do not come here to boast of something already said many times and it bored me.
DeleteAntiChris
What you gonna do hero ? Show your face ?
DeleteChris can't even tie his shoelaces by himself.
DeleteWhy do you not show the top of your head??
DeleteIn Bessler's day he was at odds with "established" individuals and he alone had the burden of promoting the truth in spite of everyone's "thoughts " as he put it . Suppose for a moment that Wagner had taken up Bessler on the invitation of a stretched out hand . Bessler had a daily opportunity to " give us something to consider ." But he chose not to . Instead he preserved the mystique and value of his device .
ReplyDeleteSo in essence what you are asking me to do is to betray myself , Bessler , and his device and according to Bessler , God and all for the sake of the what " internet glory " ? No thank you , I'll pass .
DeleteWell, there you go calling me the devil's advocate again.
ReplyDeleteI'll take it as a compliment.
I haven't done my homework? Can I copy yours?
I KNOW no one has the solution. No assumptions.
History will show who is great, yes. I can't argue with that. It hasn't shown our dear Herr Bessler to be great. Above average, but not great.
He preserved the mystique of it? That's being generous. Destroying his life's work is not what I would call preservational, or valuable.
That's a strange comment about betrayal. It has a cultish sound to it.
Bessler :"I read that a thing to be prized more than a ton of gold would be the invention of a Wheel which could turn of its own accord."
ReplyDeleteTurns out whoever wrote that was wrong . The value lied more with the inventor , Bessler proved that if he proved nothing else .
Interesting discussion which begs the question: If one actually finds the design Bessler used, should he keep it to himself to "preserve the mystique and value of the device" or should he publish it?
ReplyDeleteI, too, have wrestled with this question. There IS a certain egotistical satisfaction from KNOWING that one is the ONLY person on planet Earth with the ACTUAL design which works. I'm sure Bessler felt this pleasure and that it conflicted sharply with his personal moral principles. I may, indeed, experience this dark pleasure for awhile, but, in the end, I know that I will have to release the design I've found in all of its details (only about 25% of which I've released so far on this blog).
Unlike Bessler, I will not be motivated by the need to recover the cost of the labor and materials that went into finding the design because I consider the quest for a solution to be a "labor of love" and my constructions on a monitor screen do not cost me a cent in materials. I will do it mainly because, if I don't, then it may take ANOTHER 300 years before the solution is found again. That refusal to publish by me would therefore be the cause of an enormous amount of wasted effort and money by my fellow human beings and I don't want to go to my grave with something like that on my conscious.
Doug wrote: "I KNOW no one has the solution."
To which I respond: "I KNOW that I NOW have at least 98% of it!"
Can you believe this guy!?His main task is not to find the answer(Bessler's Wheel).
ReplyDeleteHis mission is to provoke and ruffle everyone on this Blog.
John, get rid of him!
The only reason Bessler gave nothing away is because the secret was for sale. The reason he chose to 'preserve the mystique and value of his device' was just because he feared that no one would buy it.
ReplyDeleteChris, your reason for not giving anything away is to ...what? You offered to show me your design and I turned the offer down for my own good reasons. I'm revealing what I've been working on with only the hope that someone will take it and make something of it. You could trump my own published explanation and get the glory you seem to seek, why not go for it now? You've got a few weeks to organise it.
JC
I offered in confidence because I think you have a sense of history as far as Bessler is concerned . In other words let's say that I have information and understanding that has not been since Bessler and Karl ; I believe that you would attest to it and not betray the truth . I don't wanna trump anything and I am not looking for Glory ... I am seeking others witness as for the validity of the information I have and it's Heritage . I am thinking that if you don't have the correct design then Bessler's 300th will be a non-event but if I do and even if it's not built by then maybe the announcement of the necessary understanding of Bessler's device and it's inevitable construction could be announced by then .
Delete“The truth is incontrovertible, malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end; there it is.”
ReplyDelete“You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life.”
Both quotes from Winston Churchill
The only thing you all have to counter what I have said is disbelief .
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteJohn ,
DeleteTell me honestly because I am in hopes of getting some reward for the discovery ... is it valuable or not ? That is to say that my effort has been more like a job than a hobby and I had to learn many things to arrive here , I have no doubt nearly as much as Bessler himself . Also I am in dire straights financially and MY hopes are to somehow profit ... which I feel is not too much to ask considering what I have put myself through including sessions like this one and worse .
This is JC's blog, not yours Chris. Please stop.
Deletebessler's value of 100,000 thaler and the ton of gold reference were correct.
ReplyDeletea ton of gold was worth 100,000 units of national coinage in use at the time.
P47.
Perhaps I expressed my thoughts a little strongly, Chris. And seeing as I am supposed to be revealing my own work to date, I can't really see any reason why I shouldn't give your ideas a look over, if you still wish me to. Obviously if you are agreeable, anything you share with me will remain in confidence.
ReplyDeleteI cannot promise to agree with what you reveal but I'll give it fair appraisal and give you in confidence my own response.
As for getting a reward for your discovery, if I have any say in the matter I shall endeavour to make sure you do, and the same applies to anyone else who nails it first.
JC
chris wilson, I have the solution not you , mine will work and yours will not. My head is bigger and I'm smarter than you , you work and writing is drivel. What are you going to do about it? say what you like you have nothing and I am sure of that. Do you think thats sounds arrogant, rude, insensitive, self centered, mean, etc. Nothing you have added will trump my discloseure but I'm not telling you what and when, flame, brag, dismiss, crow, .....all a waste of electrons.
ReplyDeletehello Ken.
DeleteWho Is this impostor? There is no picture so it can't be Chris.
ReplyDeleteIn any case Chris if you don't establish precedence with a working model by the 6 June you will lose out on the patent rights because someone else will.
Thanks Trevor for recognizing my authenticity . Whoever that is they are just trying to piss me off . I am not trying to hurt John's efforts although it may seem so . I am just in a place where all the preparations have been done yet I have no way forward . I am also a bit of a dependent personality so I feel that I need others help , approval , validation ,...ect . I am going to show John what I have in hopes that he will finally see what my true motivation is here . There is still time to produce a working model although there is an aspect to the supposed design that I don't understand ... and hopefully the problems that I see with it can be worked out ... and could possibly be trivial . John , which email should I send it to ? It will include a video and some drawings .
ReplyDeleteThat's a very constructive approach, Chris, and I applaud you for that. I can assure you that John is a very fair, moral and honest man. Your design(s) and ideas are safe with him.
DeleteEmail me at bogywheel@yahoo.com - Chris. BOGY in this instance stands for Bessler Orffyreus Gravity - wheel.
ReplyDeleteJC
IF and when Cris' design is released, I will carefully compare it to what I now have which I KNOW is 98% accurate. His design will either be in agreement with it or it will not.
ReplyDeleteWithout even seeing his design I can state with 100% certainty that if it contains no springs and interconnecting cords, then it is NOT the one Bessler used. However, the Asa Jackson wheel design was not the one Bessler used either and there seems to be some evidence that it did work. But, the "prime mover" in Jackson's wheel was not rotatory in nature, but, rather, oscillatory. So IF Chris' design incorporates such a system, then it MIGHT work, but it would STILL NOT be the one Bessler used.
Although I do not believe we will see a WORKING design in time for the celebration of 6/6/12, I do believe that we are probably within a year of a solution at this time. That's the best prediction I can make at this time.
I sent the images and my explanation of the principle . Video animation/simulation to follow . John take your time and let it all sink in ... I assure you I have put plenty of thought into this .
ReplyDeleteVideo simulation sent .
ReplyDeleteMy daughter has an idea for P.M. using magnets . She asked me to tell you guys .
ReplyDeleteAll items received, thank you Chris. I can see you have thought long and hard about this. Excellent animation. I'll be in touch.
ReplyDeleteJC
Thank you John , that means oodles coming from you.
ReplyDeleteActually John I owe you an apology for all of this because as someone said above this is not my blog it is yours. I hope you understand now from the information I sent you why I have been so aggressive and critical even cocky with my attitude. If the anniversary is to be a joyous one there must be some kind of progress made ... and if there is indeed true progress then that is more than we have had in this arena since Bessler took the trouble in the first place . I hope I have done everyone justice .
ReplyDeleteI have an idea for an offerean aeroplane .
ReplyDelete- Ealadha
Well, that's over . John's assessment is that my design bears no resemblance to Bessler's . This is the second time this has happened . So as far as the highly regarded at Besslerwheel are concerned I have nothing .
ReplyDeleteJust for the record here is the email with John's response :
ReplyDeleteHi Chris,
I've had a good look at the video and the illustrations. You've done a good job of presenting the design. What follows is part of the reason why I dislike being offered designs for consideration, when the news is bad people tend to turn on you, but I hope you will remain a friend.
I simply can't see anything of benefit in your design and besides in my opinion it is far too complicated to make test model. I thought my own design was difficult to translate into a model but I would not be able to reproduce yours.
I don't believe this design has anything to do with Bessler's design and it bears no similarities to it.
I know this will probably disappoint you and perhaps make you think I'm blind, and perhaps you are right. But for me there is nothing in this design and in a way that it something of a relief to me as it bears no similarity to mine either.
This is just my opinion and you could always offer it to Ralph on the besslerwheel forum and he will give a more knowledgeable response and maybe offer to build it for you.
Good luck and please don't feel too bad about my response.
John
John ,
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me you or Ralph ( to whom I've already submitted an earlier undeveloped version of the concept )could at least admit to yourselves that the basis of the design which is to be found within the existing documentation is from Bessler and I didn't dream all this up out of my arse .
Don't be discouraged, Chris. No doubt there are several approaches and possibilities to accomplish a gravity driven wheel. John gave you his honest opinion from a Bessler perspective, but that doesn't necessarily mean it can't work. John's efforts are focused on Bessler - that's his interest and area of expertise. But you may very well have a viable design. It doesn't matter that much, actually - whether you re-create a Bessler-type design or a Buzzsaw-type, Jackson-wheel or anything else. It would be fantastic if anybody could come up with a working solution, as it would not only prove the viability of the principle, but also strongly support Bessler's invention. Not to mention the obvious benefits to the world. So keep up the good work.
DeleteJohn is the blind that leads the blind . He stands in his own way . As I said before the 6th will be a non-event .
ReplyDelete@ Chris
ReplyDeleteSorry to read that JC has not approved of your design. Because of your earlier admission that it did not rely upon OB, I probably wouldn't have either because I am totally committed to finding a design which DOES use OB as its operating principle (or as Bessler would have said, uses his "Preponderance Principle").
One of the problems for anyone claiming to have THE design that Bessler actually used is that it must correspond to ALL reasonable interpretations of ALL of the known or suspected internal mechanics structural clues in the Bessler literature. If it only corresponds to some of them, then there will always be someone who will pop up after a particular design is published and say "NO, my design is better because it corresponds to 15 of the 20 known clues whereas yours only agrees with 12 of them!" This is why I am hesitant to release the results of my own research until I CAN justify it by comparison to ALL of the Bessler wheel clues pertaining to internal mechanics and, of course, when that happens I should have a "runner".
I now accept that it IS possible for there to be designs OTHER than Bessler's that will achieve PM (as evidenced, for example, by the Asa Jackson wheel). However, I STILL firmly believe that when it comes to wheels that deliver a CONSTANT torque / power, ONLY Bessler's design will work (Jackson's wheel had, IMO, a PULSED torque / power output).
Regardless of what I, JC, or anyone else's opinions may be, what is important is what YOU believe. If you are convinced that you have a working design then you should try to either build it or simulate it. Building is time consuming and expensive, but computer simulation can be a realistic alternative although it requires you to obtain, install, and learn to use a good simulation program such as Working Model 2D. Such a program would quickly tell you if your design has any chance of being a "runner". Of course, you can always just publish the design to establish priority and then, hopefully, it will impress others to the point where they will either build or simulate it.
An actual WORKING design of ANY kind would be BIG news around the world and, even if it ultimately has little or nothing to do with Bessler's design, it would still help to create general interest and investment in the whole area of "free" energy devices. It would even help to stimulate and maintain interest in finding the actual solution to the Bessler wheel mystery.
Who was Bessler and expert on ? You might want to ask yourself that question .
ReplyDeleteHere, i have to agree with Andre.
ReplyDeleteJohn ,
ReplyDeleteYou should have looked at the corner of the page before you formed your opinion ... I think maybe you missed something . There is a code there that tells me that the two drawings came from adjacent pages of the same book . LOL
I agree with technoguy that simulations can be very worthwhile, although never a complete substitute for a real machine. Along with others no doubt, I'll certainly model John's design when it's available (and maybe Chris's too, if it's available).
ReplyDelete