Saturday, 23 June 2012

It's five mechanisms, not four or eight.

I discussed the importance of the number 5 to Bessler, here last year (see my web sites at http://www.besslerswheel.com/  and http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/ )  In my opinion there is so much information to be had from Bessler's books that just stress the importance of this number that I fail to see how anyone can argue with the obvious fact that Bessler intended to convey something of importance to do with the number 5.  I am therefore astounded to be told from time to time that I have imagined all of it, or that I who has become obsessed wit it!  

The only thing we don't know for sure is why.  Well I do, but until I finish my wheel I cannot prove it, but I have worked out why it is necessary to have five mechanisms and why equal numbers of mechanisms won't work, at least not with this design.  

Fischer von Erlach described hearing the sound of 'about eight weights landing gently', etc.Why was he not sure about the number of weights he heard?  He was a widely respected and talented architect and engineer and seems to have tried to carry out a thorough examination of the wheel, yet he had some doubt about how many weights he could hear. 

Let us suppose that Bessler covered a weight in one mechanism with sound-deadening material - he mentioned that he used felt in an earlier wheel - so the other weights made a heavy knock as they landed, but the remaining weight made some kind of soft thud or perhaps it landed silently on a spring and made no noise at all. Did Erlach hear another sound but as it wasn't the same as the others, he attributed it to some other action and therefore concluded that there were about eight weights, whereas I argue that there were ten - five for each direction the wheel rotated.  The only suspicion he might have had was that there was a gap in the regular rhythm  of sounds he heard, but when you take into account the sounds he must have heard from the reversing mechanism which might not have been evenly synchronised with the forward moving ones you can see how he might have had doubts.

So guys, forget the eight weights or the four weights, it's five for each direction - and they operate in pairs.

JC

71 comments:

  1. So in affect you are saying " about eight " actually meant ten although five of those ten weren't being used . Okay , gotcha .

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes the five which weren't being usd were moving in reverse and making a noise but not contributing to the acceleration in the direction the wheel was rotating, but also they weren't hindering it too much.

    See my experiments with Savonius windmills, which turned at half speed when a second counter-rotating Savonius was added to the same axle. Also spontaneous starting of double Savonius did not happen but it did turn continuously if given a slight push in either direction.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. well... does your design make the wheel heavy and full on one side and light and empty on the other? Because it seems to me that bessler says somewhere that his wheel did just that and that was how it is supposed to be. How can you ignore this?

      Delete
  3. I personally feel that only one mechanism is required for both directions because with a toppling wheel it does not matter which way it falls surely,but what do I know!
    Furthermore only two weights are required to get a movement.Remember ,Bessler said that the weights themselves were the perpetual motion device.
    That handkerchief concealed a secret design,but then again what do I know.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree. The guy said that if he put only one cross bar on his wheel, the thing woul move, slowly, but it moved around. I personnally believe that no number of mechanisms are required, either 5, 4, 8, whatever. And if we think about having a wheel heavy and full on one side and light and empty on the other, you could never have equal mechanisms around the wheel placed evenly in space.

      Delete
    2. King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
      And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is your pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:

      JC AP pg.296
      "Fourthly:- “Would I not be happy to make my devices in other
      countries?”
      To this I answer - I drink when I am thirsty, so long as I have
      something to drink. With God's help I shall always fulfil His
      wishes wherever I am on this earth, for any man who buries his
      talent ( pound ) is lazy and scarcely deserves to live.

      Delete
    3. Fourth: If I do not want
      In other countries, my things?
      Answer: I drink when I am thirsty;
      If I only have a drink first:
      I wil fulfill with God's help
      On earth, all the God's will;
      For what man buries his pound ( Pfund ),
      Is lazy, and hardly worth that he liveth.

      Delete
  4. Welcome to the club!

    ReplyDelete
  5. Just to add to that,..If two are not self sustaining,the they will only rob from the others and defeat what little torque that is left.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Does anyone get this concept I posted at BW last night(this morning) ? Given it's just an idea and assuming in can be understood :

    The total force of imparted momentum sustained within a wheel...can be calculated by the prime mover's weight at or slightly above the external speed of the revolution . The rest of the wheel can be removed from the equation since it is in effect neutral besides it's flywheel effect and can be thought of as balanced . The goal of the mobilist is to remove the natural aspect of " here and there " from the device thereby limiting expression of said prime mover to a domain of being " here or there " based on "constructed" perimeters in contrast to the natural or assumed "here and there " .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Don't understand what you are saying with the bible thing up there

      Delete
  7. King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
    Give, and it shall be given unto you; good measure, pressed down, and shaken together, and running over, shall men give into your lap. For with the same measure that you measure it shall be measured to you again.

    JC AP pg.298
    Twelthly:- (this is the last question) - “How dearly do I value my
    work? Would I be glad if just one buyer came along to take away
    just one of my devices - or would I be happier to see many buyers
    approach me?”
    Answer - this last of your questions has already been answered,
    for the whole world now knows in full the value I place upon my
    invention. My machines are to be had freely by any person for
    the same amount of money. Indeed I shall be happy to pour into
    his lap all my works of artistry! And, since I've never been
    miserly, I'd much rather, as I've already said above, that the
    whole world should at once learn about my craft, so that I might
    be able to see its fruits rise up everywhere in towns, hills and
    meadows!

    ReplyDelete
  8. I am saying that Bessler made reference to the concepts and principles of his device throughout his writings . Bessler's "art" is defined therein .

    ReplyDelete
  9. Well I miss to understand what's the point of joining religious refferences with mechanics

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You might ask yourself this of the inventor himself .

      Delete
  10. Because , like it or not , these virtues , these concepts were the referenced inspiration of the one man that eventually found their mechanical expression (in their form and function ) and built them into a machine .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yeah right... the bible told him how to build it. it was not those ten years testing devices like crazy... no, it was always on the bible the answer

      Delete
  11. So maybe you should since your views are such follow some "other" unsuccessful proponente of perpetual motion .

    King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
    But I, as a deaf man, heard not; and I was as a dumb man that opens not his mouth.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. hey man, you believe in what you want. and so do i. and i think that after he discovered it, he could find words on the bible that could apply to something on his wheel, but he didn't found the way in the bible itself. that's my oppinion and since none of us has discovered a working device, my oppinion is as valis as yours

      Delete
    2. but hey, i don't mean to disrespect you elder guys that have been trying longer than me, i'm just trying to make some sense

      Delete
  12. I'm never looking for a quarrel . It's just , when the references seem so obvious ( like JC's 5s and the letter A ) it is hard to be silent . I am the lackadaisical savant who found much but refuses to build anything . I fully expect someone else to enter into this madness at least as deeply as me ... and even moreso .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I see... I believe that there are clues out there, but i don't have the books to look for them, it's just that i've tried dozens of devices and i can't seem to be getting any closer to the answer and that's making me frustrated. springs are just too hard for me to understand.

      Delete
    2. See if this helps : all that's missing are the cords which attach the two enclosed weights to each one of the rings .

      http://www.overunity.com/12399/my-handiwork-with-some-of-besslers-drawings/dlattach/attach/111100/

      Delete
    3. well... i can't open it

      Delete
    4. is it some kind of drawing? if so could you convert it to jpeg or pdf?

      Delete
    5. It's a flash file ... it opens with IE allow blocked content .

      Delete
  13. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  14. If you are wondering "why this" it's because Trevor mentioned the handkerchief . I have written about this before ... but now I added the further reference, "pouring
    into the lap ." There is yet another reference to something " falling into the laps " in AP if you happen to have it .

    ReplyDelete
  15. As for the number 5: I doubt you are imagining things, John, nor are you obsessed with it. I think "fascinated" is a (much) better word. And that's because it IS fascinating - I am fascinated by it too - all the more since all these respected scholars and learned people of the time reported (as accurately as they could) about his wheel.

    After all, that's the primary reason for many of us to keep pursuing this seeming impossibility. There's so much credible evidence from so many credible witnesses that the likelihood of Bessler being a hoaxer and/or con artist is very, very small. That, plus the many fascinating clues -which certainly are not your imagination- in both words and his drawings is what keeps us going.

    I really believe that one day Bessler will be vindicated for the mechanical genius he must have been.

    ReplyDelete
  16. PART I:

    Okay, let me get this straight.

    Now you are claiming that each two-directional wheel contained two ONE directional wheels, EACH of which was powered by 5 weights. Whichever one directional wheel was forced to undergo retrograde rotation MAY have contributed to the count of "about" 8 gentle impacts made by Fischer von Erlach. So, von Erlach was really always counting 5 MAIN impacts per drum rotation, but occasionally some impacts due to the attached retrograde wheel's 5 weights flopping about would show up in the count and give a value of "about" 8 sounds per rotation or a count which varied about a central value of 8 by unit values such as a count of 7 or 9.

    Well, I thought that we settled this matter in earlier blog entry discussions months ago, but that apparently is not the case. At that time I proposed that if one were to occasionally UNDERcount the number of impacts per rotation at 7 and also occasionally OVER count it at 9 impacts due to the difficulty of counting impact sounds while also noting when a drum rotation began and ended, then one would be expected to obtain a DISTRIBUION of incremental impact frequencies which, depending upon the direction of its skewing, would give a mathematical AVERAGE of SEVERAL values (the more, the better) that was either a bit higher or lower than exactly 8 and that someone describing this slight statistical variation in a letter could fully be expected to use the word "about" in describing it as not being exactly equal to 8. That, however, does NOT mean that the ACTUAL number of impacts per drum was not 8. In fact, the central value of exactly 8 impacts would have to be the correct number of impact sounds per drum rotation. As I recall, at the time of that previous discussion YOU even agreed that this explanation made sense. I guess you have also changed your mind about this.

    I, of course, being a "right track" Bessler mobilist must completely reject even the remotest possibility of Bessler's wheels using only 5 weights per one-directional wheel. I have MANY reasons to do so, amoung which are quotes such as: (Continued in Part II below)

    ReplyDelete
  17. PART II:

    "Almost no clatter and rattle was to be heard with the Draschwitz wheel; the wheel was
    made up of 8 spokes and was completely empty near the circumference, as one could see through the various cracks in the casing made
    of thin boards, but there was not the slightest trace of a rising and falling weight to be heard or seen.” Christian Wagner in one of his "Critiques".

    The structurally soundest place to install the brass bearings for each of a wheel's steel lever pivots would have been in the wood of its radial drum supports. In this quote, Wagner tells us [presumerably from personal observation] that the one-directional Draschwitz wheel's drum had EIGHT "spokes" or radial supports on EACH of its circular sides. IF, as you claim, this one-directional wheel only had 5 weighted levers, then why did it not JUST use 5 "spokes" or radial drum supports? I consider the use of 8 spokes to be VERY strong evidence that his one-directional as well as two-directional wheels used EXACTLY 8 weighted levers.

    I think that you have made the false assumption that those various pentagrams that appear in the DT portraits (as well as the number 5 throughout his writings, in general), MUST indicate that Bessler's one-directional wheels each used EXACTLY 5 weighted levers. IMO, this is a VERY risky assumption to make.

    My research has indicated that those pentagrams actually refer to a distinctive pattern of CORDS that emerges from the collection of cords used in Bessler's "Connectedness Principle". Yes, the cords do interconnect 5 weighted levers or "perpetual motion structures", but these are only a SUBSET of a one-directional wheel's 8 weighted levers. Indeed, I have found that there are actually 8 of these pentagram figures contained within the 48 cords of each one-directional wheel. One of the pentagrams contained in the upper half of the wheel's drum is the most prominent and recognizable of the 8 and, I believe, is THE one Bessler intended to illustrate with the two "hidden" DT portrait pentagrams.

    But, for the sake of discussion, we must assume that you are correct and there are only 5 weighted levers per one-directional wheel. I look forward to seeing the design so that it may be more fully appraised. And, yes, I am also VERY interested in how you justify your approach ASIDE from citing only the existence of the various hidden pentagrams in Bessler's drawings.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. hi TG, I understand that you use a computer simulator and so do I, however I don't trust it fully and I'll tell you why. I've tried dozens of devices on CAD simulation, but when I tried to simulate a Newton's Cradle, the result was absolutely ridiculous and no where near reality. So, could you do me a favour and use your program to simulate that same device and tell me if your result were as disappointing as mine? If so, most of the devices we try are just not as real as we would want them to be. Thank's

      Delete
    2. What... no replies?

      Delete
    3. A Newton's cradle is one of the examples given in the free silux pdf tiled "Samples 2D" for people learning the silux simulation program. (See page 39; they title it "Colliding Spheres"). I haven't built it, but I'm sure it works as described, i.e. well! The user can vary the hardness of the spheres and see the different results obtained from doing that.

      Delete
    4. If your Newton's Cradle is a mess, then, most likely, you need to tweak the properties of your colliding spheres a bit.

      In WM2D, try the following adjustments:

      First, make sure that your spheres' sides are not overlapping each other. They should just be touching. Then, after selecting ALL of the spheres at once, click "Object" above the Workspace and then click "Collide" so that the spheres will transfer kinetic energy / mass to each other upon impact. Next, click "Window" above the Workspace and then click "Properties". The screen that appears will allow one to control the properties of all of the colliding spheres at once. On this screen set the "mass" to 1 lb, set "stat. fric", "kin. fric", and "charge" to 0. Finally, set "elastic" to 1.000. This will make your WM2D Newton's Cradle behave like you expect it to when you click "Run".

      Fortunately, there were no Newton's Cradle types of impacts taking place inside of Bessler's wheels!

      Delete
  18. hello, good to re-boost J C.

    ReplyDelete
  19. It might be interesting to note that the number 5 in scripture stands for something that is given for free and not earned or worked for,such as Grace.
    Bessler,being a religious man would have realized this because it stood for something that is eternal or Perpetual.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. 5 is also the number of fingers one hand (55 or 5+5=10 being the number of fingers on TWO hands...hmmm...BOTH of the DT portraits contain TWO hands...what a "coincidence"!). There are also 5 senses (hearing, seeing, smelling, tasting, and touch). The largest and most massive planet in our solar system is Jupiter...the 5th planet which is mentioned in the Chapter 55 verse. And, of course, the 5 pointed pentagrams inside of Bessler's wheels each interconnected 5 "perpetual motion structures" or weighted levers.

      Yes, 5 was a VERY important number to a numerologist like Bessler.

      Delete
    2. I mean, I adore Bessler, but the guy was psychotic, why in the world would he not reveal his findings? he would have been recognized as a great mechanich... it's ridiculus

      Delete
    3. Is silux a good and truthfull simulator?

      Delete
    4. I believe silux is very good, although it has its quirks,(but I know, I'm probably biassed, having used it a lot.) It's a finite differences program, rather than a finite elements one. See http://www.silux.com/faq2.cfm for an explanation. By the way, although it runs fine on 32-bit computers, I cannot get it to install on my newer 64-bit computer.

      Delete
  20. That is a very interesting piece of information, Trevor. I wasn't aware of that. Interesting!

    ReplyDelete
  21. Anonymous , its the same problem as 300 years ago , the problem being there are people in the world who want to steal Bessler's invention .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How come? If he just came to the newspapers showing his inventions... he would forever be recognized as the finder of perpetual motion. That's that.

      Delete
    2. The same way that Tesla and eddison are both recognized for their findings, newton, etc... He should've taken a more scientific approach...

      Delete
    3. Bessler is being recognized for his findings ... just not everywhere or with everyone .

      Delete
    4. Anonymous ,
      Whoever you guys are distinguish yourselves .

      Delete
    5. I made both replies...

      Delete
  22. ...and he wanted £20,000 cash.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. In that case, he got what he deserved... and i trully respect him, but he was a lunatic... these findings were too important for him to not share it with the world

      Delete
    2. From now on, in order for you guys to distinguish me from the other anonymous guys I will sign: The Portuguese.

      The Portuguese

      Delete
    3. John,
      Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't Bessler imply that if all the money were to be piled up in one place he wouldn't touch it until his secret had been published and then that all people would have an equal share (of the money ) so that fairness would prevail ? To me he is implying either that the secret "is" the division or that all people possess his secret .

      Delete
    4. Or both ...

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    6. My opinion from my experience with springs is that the secret is extremely easy... and the diffficulty is that. a million years could pass before someone would think about some of the devices i've tested, and a million years could pass before someone would think about the exact same devide bessler found. it's just too hard.

      The Portuguese

      Delete
  23. If no money then no PM wheel . Have a nice day .

    ReplyDelete
  24. Tornate indietro.....5=4+1....558....5(+)5....10! 4+4=8.....4(1) (1)4 55.....8....due ruote collegate a formare un tamburo....oscillano (altalena) ;-) ok2x4 =8! Il modo di oscillare.... E' geometria semplice costruire il comando che sposta e oscilla.... Funziona la ruota! Lo so....Chris traduci.....;-)

    ReplyDelete
  25. I may have said that your argument had merit, TG, but that doesn't mean I agreed unreservedly. I have my opinions on other people's arguments, just as everyone else has, and I enjoy reading them, but I usually try not to get drawn into them. In the same way I understand that many disagree with my own views and can say so here without me getting all hot under the collar because they hold differing views. Long may this situation last.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  26. PART I:

    Anonymous 15:07 wrote:

    "I mean, I adore Bessler, but the guy was psychotic, why in the world would he not reveal his findings? he would have been recognized as a great mechanich... it's ridiculus"

    We must always keep in mind that Bessler was "low born" meaning that he was not part of the privileged nobility. He had to earn his bread by the "sweat of his brow" all of his life and that "work ethic" was one of the main reasons he succeeded in finding a WORKING OB PM gravity wheel design while so many others had failed. The last thing he wanted was for some rich dude to come along, steal his invention, and then declare that he, the rich dude, was the TRUE discoverer of PM and not Bessler who was only a fraudster from the "lower" classes out to steal some unwary investor's money. That would have been the ultimate insult that a creative, hard working, and religious man like Bessler would have had to endure. If that had happened, he probably would have committed suicide.

    To prevent this catastrophe from happening, Bessler INSISTED on being paid ALL of his 100,000 thalers (having the same value as a TON of gold at the time!) in a single "up front" payment. I personally think that was a BIG mistake. Any good businessman knows that when one is having trouble "moving" a product or service at a certain price, then it's time to lower the price a bit to increase the perceived value of it so that the customers will loosen their grip on their wallets (or, nowadays, their credit cards). Bessler, however, was "old fashioned". He did not believe in such modern concepts as "installment payments", "leveraged buyouts", or "promisory notes". Come to think of it, maybe if today's world adopted his "cash and carry" philosophy, then we would not now be on the verge of a global financial meltdown!

    ReplyDelete
  27. PART II:

    Yes, he was a bit paranoid, but with good reason. He had grown up personally viewing how the lower classes were abused and taken advantage by the elites of their societies. He did not want to become such a victim himself especially considering the sheer hell he went through to achieve PM. Even today's "wrong track" mobilists display this trait. They can have a design that has been tried hundreds of times in the past and PROVEN not to work by bitter experience. But, they will discount all of that, remain convinced that they, in fact, have THE answer, and then become hyper secretive as they suspect anyone who makes any inquiry into how they device works and what their plans are for it. They spend half their days constantly "improving" their devices to overcome what they think are merely temporary "minor flaws" in them so they will finally become "runners" and the other half of their days fantasizing what their lives and the world will be like AFTER they patent their devices and present them to the world. Unless they are "right track" Bessler mobilists (or, I will admit, "right track" Asa Jackson mobilists!), they will eventually drop out of the quest due to boredom, death, or disability (which can take the form of a mental breakdown). Sadly, the ulimate fate of a "wrong track" mobilist can be a bitter one.


    @ JC

    I'm glad that my negative reactions to your soon, hopefully, to be revealed mechanism is not making you "hot under the collar". I would never want to offend you (who I am profoundly grateful to for making the Bessler literature available in English) or anybody else on this blog for that matter. It's just that I have found from my own Bessler research that only the STRICTEST adherence to what seems logical and justified by the clues will lead to any REAL progress toward the goal of replicating Bessler's wheel mechanics. What little you have revealed so far has already displayed a MAJOR deviation from the design that I now have, a design that took me DECADES to find. So, needless to say, you would have to have some REALLY POWERFUL evidence to convince me that I am, indeed, on the "wrong track" while YOU are on the "right track".

    Even if I must reject your approach as not being THE one that Bessler used, that does not necessarily mean that it is not a workable design or can not be made workable. ANY device that exhibits PM would be a GREAT achievement whether it is Bessler's or not. That issue, however, will require further analysis to determine.

    Meanwhile I continue to look forward to seeing your design AND the interpretations of the clues that justify it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whatever, i'm portuguese and for the economy state here right now, i'm obviously poor and unemployed... still I would show the secret to the world, in fact it belongs to mankind... that's that. He was a freek


      The Portuguese

      ps: still love the guy though

      Delete
    2. I will eventually, when it is 100% complete and operational, release the "right track" design I've "reversed engineered" from Bessler's clues to the world. Like you, I believe it "belongs" to mankind and I would NEVER try to patent someone else's ideas as my own.

      Sorry to read about your economic problems over there in Portugal. Almost all of the Eurozone countries are in BIG financial trouble at the moment (with the notable exception of Germany) and it's mostly due to the industrial jobs moving to low wage, no union "emerging" industrial states like China, India, Brazil, etc. Eventually the imbalances will even out, but not before there is MUCH additional turmoil in the West. We're only seeing the BEGINNING of it now!

      Delete
  28. Didn't he say his wheel would turn with one cross bar?
    If one magic mechanism could exhibit PM, why the fuss?
    Perhaps everyone should lower their sights.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. Bessler sure did talk about things eating . Sparrows , cat , crab , himself , the mobile , horses . The dog on the chain didn't get to eat , he got a pat on the paws for the tricks he did .

      Delete
  29. Hey John ,

    I was working on an old idea with my animation software and the funniest thing , I am halfway through it and I "think" I might have the solution to the one-directional and bidirectional wheels at the same time ! And based on what I am thinking I can see why the bidirectional wheels were less powerful . Lemme just say it wasn't because they were two one directional wheels back to back !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sounds intriguing Chris! If not back-to-back then what?

      JC

      Delete
    2. The same weights . Just a different range of motion . How much more powerful for it's size was the one directional wheel ? My guess is about 25 % ...

      Delete
    3. The big problem with Bessler's two-directional wheels was that, aside from having to be push started, once in motion, fully half of the weights within the drum would be locked up against their rim stops. Once that happened, the CoM of those 8 weights would be positioned at the center of the axle and would contribute no driving torque to the drum. It was a very inefficient design and a high price to pay just for trying to prove to his detractors that his wheels were not being driven by clockwork type mechanisms (which, presumerably, could only turn a drum in one direction...not true as noted by Wagner).

      For example, if one could somehow take apart one of Bessler's two-directional wheels and realign ONE of its sub wheels so that BOTH sub wheels then turned in the same "preferred" direction, he would immediately DOUBLE the power output of the wheel. That would have allowed the Weissenstein wheel to output energy / mass at the rate of 50 watts instead of 25 watts. This would have allowed for even more dramatic demonstrations. If one really needed to reverse the direction of the wheel's axle for some purpose, then a simple system using drive belts would have sufficed...unless, of course, the Master decided to invent the transmission to add to his wheels! LOL!

      Delete
    4. TG ,
      There was no "big problem", that's just the way you chose to start your rant . I don't subscribe to your expertise and since you have plenty to say not matter what the subject might happen to be please do not engage me . I don't usually even read your posts because they are intimidatingly long and full of ass-u-m(e)p-tions .

      Delete
    5. @ Chris

      You don't see having a two-directional wheel run at only one HALF of its full power potential as a problem? Especially when Bessler was always trying to make his wheels output as much power as possible to impress prospective buyers of the invention? Well, I certainly do!

      Please feel free to ignore my comments if you so desire. They are not meant for everyone...only for those who want to finally begin to make REAL progress in solving the BESSLER wheel mystery. BTW, I try to make as FEW assumptions as possible in the analyses I do. I am also always VERY careful in the statements I make and they are ALL based on the best interpretations of the clues (most of which, at present, are still not known publicly) that are possible.

      Delete

Bessler’s Wheel, odd numbers and the Pyramids.

You might think there cannot be any connection of interest to us, between Bessler’s wheel and the pyramids, but I will explained. As many...