Friday, 30 November 2012

Bessler's Wheel - before and after him?

It has often been remarked that if Bessler had really discovered how to make a wheel turn continuously, someone would have rediscovered the secret by now, therefore because no one has, he must have been faking it.  But I'm more surprised that no-one appears to have discovered the secret previous to Bessler.  

This observation was in my mind when I first wrote my account of Johann Bessler in my first book, "Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?"  So I did some historical research to try to discover if there was any evidence that anyone had indeed made this discovery before.  I found plenty of accounts of people who had tried to find the solution, but no convincing evidence that they had succeeded.

Following this I  reasoned that perhaps the secret had been found in the ancient past, and it might be that although no written account of it survived, perhaps an image relating to the successful wheel could have survived in some form?  Perhaps as a sacred image or sign or symbol.  The most convincing image that I was able to find was the yin-yang symbol. I have briefly touched on this symbol before on this blog but a recent email I received has persuaded me to discuss it again.

I have used this symbol for many years as an avatar on the Besslerwheel forum because it seems to me to have some resonance with Bessler's wheel, although I don't think the yin-yang symbol bears any similarity to it.

Taijitu is another name for the same image and both originated in China and a rough English translation is “diagram of ultimate power”. The Taijitu is one of the oldest and best-known life symbols in the world. At its heart are the two poles of existence, which are opposite but complementary. The light, white Yang moving up blends into the dark, black Yin moving down. Yin and Yang are dependent opposing forces that flow in a natural cycle, always seeking balance. 

Though they are opposing, they are not in opposition to one another. As part of the Tao, they are merely two aspects of a single reality. Each contains the seed of the other, which is why we see a black spot of Yin in the white Yang and vice versa. They do not merely replace each other but actually become each other through the constant flow of the universe.The image is designed to give the appearance of movement. The pattern is sometimes described as two fish swimming head to tail.

Curiously, patterns similar to the Taijitu also form part of Celtic, Etruscan and Roman iconography, where they are loosely referred to as yin yang symbols by modern scholars, however no relationship between these and the Chinese symbol has been established.

Celtic yin yang motif on an enameled bronze plaque (mid-1st century AD)

Shield pattern of the Western Roman infantry unit armigeri defensores seniores (ca. AD 430), the earliest known classical yin yang 

So by coincidence several different races from divers regions of the world have come up with an identical image and yet no connection has been established between them.  This curious coincidence implies a common beginning but did it originate from some archetypal imagery.  Wikipedia explains that 'an archetype is a universally understood symbol, term, statement, or pattern of behavior, a prototype upon which others are copied, patterned, or emulated. Archetypes are often used in myths and storytelling across different cultures.'  

To my mind the design of the yin yang is so close to the design of the Savonius rotor that it begs the question, did the yin yang symbol derive from the Savonius rotor or vertical-axis wind turbine, and not some Pseudopsychology?  Maybe, but as for an image of the mechanism inside Bessler's wheel being found in some ancient artifact.....there is no evidence that it ever existed before or and definitely not, after his far.

Thanks a usual to wikipedia for the above information.




  1. I think there is actually a very simple explanation for the "yin yang" symbol and why it appears in so many cultures around the world. It represents something that was immediately obvious to them all: the daily pattern of the dark of night being followed by the light of day over and over and over again. Perhaps they imagined themselves located on a stationary land at the center of the yin yang symbol and the light and darkness constantly chasing themselves around their point of observation. If this is correct, then, yes, the symbol DOES depict eternal motion, but it is not that of a perpetual motion wheel, but, rather, that of the natural world or the cosmos.

    I've always considered the possibility that various types of working OB PM gravity wheels were designed and built PRIOR to Bessler and that we just do not have any records of them today. Who knows, there could have been dozens of DIFFERENT designs that required the lifetime efforts of individual inventors to achieve and which all became lost in the dim mists of time.

    For example, India had rather advanced societies as far back as 10,000 BC and they were producing many mechanical gadgets that would not be duplicated in the West for THOUSANDS of years. They had the wheel and I suspect that in any culture that develops the wheel, the urge by certain craftsmen to see if they can make it turn by itself forever inevitably follows.

    There are carvings of wheels on Hindu temples that show a design that is thousands of years old. It is sometimes referred to as the "Wheel of Life" or "Wheel of Eternity" and is considered a sacred symbol in the religion of Hinduism. Here is a link to a photo of one of these wheels:

    Note that, like Bessler's wheels, it is divided into 8 "compartments" with each compartment containing what appears to be a spoke. But, are they really spokes or something more complicated like, perhaps, a mechanism that can slide itself back and forth along the radial length of the spoke in response to the radial's location so as to keep the CoM of the wheel on its descending side during wheel rotation?!

    Some think these Hindu wheels are a symbol for our galaxy and that, somehow, the ancient Hindu's were aware that we live in a rotating galaxy. I doubt that, but I do think that these wheels represent some sort of generic OB PM gravity wheel that was invented thousands of years before Bessler came along. Maybe someday soon some archeologist will discover a hidden chamber in one the temples and inside of it will be found an ancient Hindu OB PM gravity wheel that is STILL turning after thousands of years!

  2. The original symbol Yin/Yang so aptly named because it represents duality , originated in Taoist ( China ) religion as a painting ( sideways ) of a mountain , a cloud , the sky and the moon . The idea is hard/soft , yielding/force etc ... generally balance ... and one-ness .

  3. John, as you mentioned in your book, the swastika is another very old, very widespread symbol that may have some association with a rotating wheel.

    According to (near the bottom of the page) "The swastika's spectrum of meaning is centered around power, energy and migration."

  4. Bill_Mothershead1 December 2012 at 23:06

    This shape kinda reminds me of this:
    (about half way down the, fluid in 3 shaped chambers.)

    I spent many hours simulating this (I am a computer programmer).
    Tried variations of shapes, number of chambers, fluid levels, etc.

    I never did get any promising configurations. (aka, it didn't work.)
    Eventually, the "fun factor" ran out, and I lost interest.
    Over the years I have thought up some new ideas for this approach
    but somehow the novelty has worn, no ambition to do more.

    To make this post here I had to go back and re-read most of
    It is a good site...a fun read. Includes a section on Bessler.

    1. Yes, it's a good site when it comes to helping the newbie mobilist avoid duplicating the "classical" approaches to PM, ALL of which, of course, are useless.

      However, when it comes time to treat Bessler's wheels, he simply dismisses them as hoaxes. This is the old "it can't be, therefore, it isn't" approach to science. As far as I am concerned, THAT approach is NOT scientific! There is NO credible evidence that Bessler faked anything!

  5. Damn, the pages on this blog are downloading slower than ever! They must be having some server "issues" over at Maybe that's why the frequency of comments has dropped so low of late around here?

    Well, I'm continuing to work with my recently modified "magic" lever and it seems that, slowly, but surely, I'm being "pushed" back into using TWO springs, a "primary" one and a "secondary" one, again on each of my 4:1 scale model's 8 weighted levers. I would prefer NOT to have to use two springs since that, obvious, begins to take the design away from the "simple" catagory into a more complex one, but it's starting to look like I have no choice. With the addition of the interconnecting cord between my 6:00 and 9:00 position weighted levers, I now have a situation where my 7:30 going to 9:00 position weighted lever must lift the TWO weighted levers that immediately lead it, the 9:00 going to 10:30 position one and the 10:30 going to 12:00 position one! There is just not enough energy / mass being provided by the single dropping 7:30 going to 9:00 weighted lever to raise those two leading levers. However, if those two levers are carefully counter balanced by a set of "secondary" springs, then it starts to look like it might be possible.

    In any event, I'm still not seeing the "Bessler Effect" in my models which would be displayed by a 9:00 going to 10:30 weighted lever's weight rapidly and smoothly rising toward its rim stop (but NOT contacting it yet!) as the drum rotates CW through 45 degrees. Without that effect being produced, the CoM of the model's 8 weights will NOT stay on the drum's descending side THROUGHOUT the 45 degree interval of rotation.

    It's becoming apparent to me that Bessler's design did not waste a single erg of energy / mass in its operation. When a weight was dropping with respect to its rim stop, its lost gravitational potential energy / mass was either directly contributing to lifting other weights or was being stored in a stretched spring for later use or BOTH! A VERY efficient design, indeed, and probably this detail accounts for its ability to achieve PM while all other designs (with the SOLE exception of Asa Jackson's wheel, of course) failed to do so.

    Back to work for me.

    1. T.C. Iv'e noticed a lot of talk about levers, pulleys, cords, cogs etc. But has anyone checked out the Milkovic 2 stage oscillator ? I have not seen any reference to him, or am I being a heretical newbie ? I have E-mailed J.C. a few drawings of my wheel design which incorporates just one ( yes one ! ) lever in the middle of the wheel to turn it. I hope to get a favourable response from him soon. regards, Stephen Burke.

  6. " The man who is really serious, with the urge to find out what truth is, has no style at all. He lives only in what is. "

    Bruce Lee

  7. “Impossible is just a big word thrown around by small men who find it easier to live in the world they've been given than to explore the power they have to change it. Impossible is not a fact. It's an opinion. Impossible is not a declaration. It's a dare. Impossible is potential. Impossible is temporary. Impossible is nothing.”

    1. I would only label something as being "impossible" IF its existence / operation violated ALL of the physical laws that exist. Obviously, we can not say if something IS violating ALL of them until we know, for a fact, that we have ALL of those physical laws. To be honest, we may NEVER have all of the physical laws of our universe and so we may NEVER be able to declare anything as being "impossible" with 100% certainty. I think those that declare something as being "impossible" are actually guilty of reaching an UNfounded conclusion. The TRUE scientist tries to keep an open mind and not adopt any extreme positions.

      Bessler summed it up nicely with this quote directed at Wagner:

      "Because Wagner is incapable of inventing such a device as mine,
      he thinks no-one else in the world can. He's the cleverest man of all
      who live on this earth. But, if only he could thoroughly cleanse his
      ears of the wax of hatred which is blocking them up, he'd soon
      realize, as many honest people do, that the world of mechanics is
      one that no-one can fully fathom. This being the case, why
      shouldn't the great Perpetuum Mobile have a place in it

  8. I've just completed yet another "marathon" computer modeling session and reached the following conclusions.

    1.) After checking and rechecking all DT portrait clues, I am now 100% convinced that I DO have the correct "magic" lever design, the correct cord placement scheme required by the "Connectedness Principle", and the correct arrangement of springs for the weighted levers.

    2.) I now accept that each of the 8 weighted levers within one of Bessler's one-directional wheels or two-directional wheel's sub wheels required TWO springs: a "primary" spring and a "secondary" spring.

    3.) The maximum allowable spring constant or k value for the PRIMARY springs used in the Merseburg wheel would have been 16 lbs per inch. Anything greater than this does not permit the 6:00 going to 7:30 position weighted lever to arrive at 7:30 in a vertical orientation which is necessary for maximum projection of the 8 weights' CoM onto the drum's descending side.

    4.) I had previously stated that I thought the correct spring constant for the SECONDARY springs on each weighted lever was 32 lbs per inch which would be achieved by using TWO secondary springs in parallel with k values of 16 lbs per inch each. Now, however, I'm starting to see that a value of 40 lbs per inch might be better (again achieved by using two secondary springs in parallel with k values of 20 lbs per inch). I'm now searching the DT portrait clues to see if this increased k value for the secondary springs can be justified.

    5.) A MAJOR issue I continue to wrestle with is whether the weighted levers whose pivots reach the 3:00 position of a CW rotating drum have their weights land on their rim stops BEFORE their pivots reach the 3:00 drum position OR AFTER their pivots pass the 3:00 drum position. The DT portrait clues suggest BOTH possibilities, but only ONE can be correct and THE one Bessler used.

    I shall soon be testing a "right track" design that has the weights land on their rim stops BEFORE their levers' pivots reach the 3:00 drum position. IF that fails to give me that CRITICALLY necessary "Bessler Effect", then it will be time to move on to the alternative design that has the weights land on their rim stops AFTER their levers' pivots pass the 3:00 position.

    If luck is with me, I might have this thing solved by Christmas. I've already had a TREMENDOUS amount of luck to have made it as far as I have. I just need a little bit more.

  9. Had an unusually busy day today, so I did not have time to get any "building" done on my "right track" computer model wheel. However, I did manage to do a bit of further analysis on the DT portraits and came across something that further reinforces my belief that I am, indeed, finally getting very close to the end of the "right track" and a successful rediscovery of THE design that Bessler found and used in his wheels.

    Incredibly, I found a very obvious clue (obvious, that is, now AFTER studying the portraits of years!) that indicates that the secondary springs used in Bessler's Merseburg wheel had a spring constant or k value of exactly 21 lbs per inch so that when TWO of them were used in parallel, their combined k value was 42 lbs per inch.

    In my last comment I mentioned that I thought a value of around 40 might work better, but now that this new portrait clue has surfaced, I will be trying the k value of 42 lbs per inch to see how it works.

    Sometimes I feel like a child wandering across a dark and foreboding forest hoping to reach the other side where I will find a great treasure waiting for me. Occasionally, I stumble, fall, and must crawl along on all fours to make any progress. Often, I become lost, confused, and all seems hopeless at those times. Then, suddenly, I notice a marking on a tree. It's an arrow placed there by a wise woodsman to guide adventurers to the treasure that awaits them and I begin moving in the direction the arrow indicates.

    Bessler was the wise woodsman and those arrows on the trees are the DT portrait clues!

    1. I await proof of your claims - an actual self-turning wheel - real, not simulated.

    2. I do not believe that I am destined to produce a "real" duplicate of Bessler's Merseburg wheel, but only a "virtual" one. THAT, however, will be sufficient to satisfy ME that THE solution has finally been found. I can only say that IF I find a virtual design that works, then there will probably be close to a 100% probability that the real version of it will also work. No guarantees, of course, because that assumes that the craftsman who constructs it has the requisite skills. I'm more confident in success now than I have been in the last several DECADES and I owe it ALL to those marvelous DT portraits!

    3. " I await proof of your claims - an actual self-turning wheel - real, not simulated."

      I didn't know we were in the presence of royalty . When my wheel turns I will offer no claims nor proof , no matter who " awaits " ... especially if they are anony-mouse . Be a man and use your real name ... your highness .

    4. "Proof" can mean different things to different people.

      For some, just reading the various details of the Bessler story alone proves to them that Bessler DID, in fact, achieve PM. For others, a working, glitch free simulation would be sufficient (I'm in that catagory currently). Many, however, will not be content until they learn of working physical replicas having been constructed by several INDEPENDENT craftsmen. A few highly skeptical types will not be content until THEY are the ones who duplicate the design with their OWN hands in their OWN workshops and SEE it spinning away with their OWN eyes.

      Anyone who claims to have a working design, whether virtual or real, will have to cope with these various types of people. We've all been told for centuries by the "intelligensia" that what Bessler claimed to have done is a physical IMPOSSIBILITY. Overcoming such a tremendous barrier of disbelief will NOT be an easy matter.

      Hopefully, as the first independently constructed wheels begin to surface, things will become a bit easier. Sooner or later, some prestigious engineering school (like, say, MIT) will obtain one and study it and then make an announcement. IF they say it is genuine, then that, more or less, will settle the matter (they will be the modern equivalent of Count Karl!). Then watch as the skeptics suddenly start "back pedaling" on their former pessimistic opinions. All of a sudden they will claim that they really did not have ALL of the facts when they expressed those opinions (and "taught" them to others!), that such a machine IS, OF COURSE, possible IF the design presented was the one Bessler used (I can verify that it IS based on the DT portrait clues!), and that anybody that does not accept the confirmational pronouncement of the engineering school's professors as legititmate is a block head!

      Oh, yes, the resurrection of Bessler's wheels is going to cause quite a stir in the academic world. It will certainly be one of the more entertaining periods in the history of science!

  10. No invention will ever be discovered by symulation.
    It is only there to help you see how things work.

  11. I agree Trevor. I think you can test a design but you will miss all the other possibilities that only reveal themselves when you are building. A simulated design requires certain assumptions that can be tested first in a build, and subsequently adopted, adapted or abandoned.


  12. I now have several simulations which show running wheels. However, it is a situation of forced resonance, which tends to make the simulations fickle and faulty (yes, even Working Model 2d seems to get upset about it and stops displaying the moving parts inside the wheel, but does show the wheel revolving). Of course, only a build will prove anything. Am now working on a larger desktop wheel and finding it hard to get time and space/privacy in my house (same problem as JC: my grown up kids are moving back home and cluttering my workshop). But I am confident that I will get there by Christmas.

    1. I'm not that good with this simulation stuff, but I find that things like Fc = M v2 / (r0 + Δr) (calculating centrifugal force, the latter is the delta of the radius of a moving pivot pendulum) often chokes or completely messes up my simulations. The software doesn't cope properly with vertically-driven pendulums and horizontally-driven pendulums exhibiting important effects of non-linear dynamics, such as instability and bifurcation. In short, the s/w doesn't cope well with parametric resonance and excitation.

      I wonder if others have these troubles too?

    2. @ Andre, I know you've had a look at silux, and I'd be be surprised if silux is failing as you describe. If you are using it, and your models are immediately "exploding," try adding a light mass, one gram or less, and set it to interact with other objects, but otherwise not take part in the simulation. (Locate it so it doesn't actually collide with anything).

      If a silux model doesn't immediately explode, in my experience it should always give a correct answer.

      I'm currently looking at the Russian program Universal Mechanism for 3D analysis. It's not free, but not too expensive, and quite good, if you can accept a fairly steep, intermittent learning curve at first (i.e. "get stuck/breakthrough/get stuck/breakthrough," etc!)

    3. Thanks for the tip, Arktos! Actually, Silux is indeed pretty good. One of my parallel clusters is giving me trouble, on which I use a "parallellized" version if something that resembles Silux, and that thing has indeed a tendency to explode, dump core, even hang up GPU's and stuff like that. But boy when it works it is unbelievably fast. That trick might just work with this program too. Thanks!

  13. Yes John,..Only the material you are working with can unexpectadly reveal something new.
    Even with the wheel configuration I have put together I realize that if I am going to get it to work it is going to take some careful manipulation to the balance between the participate parts,of which there are five per set.
    The job of each part is esential for the wheel to work.No wonder Bessler said that we would never get it right without perseverance,(The reason for his headache).
    There is connectivity,but only between the weights confined to it's own set,of which there are four sets,(eight weights in total).

  14. Well, all I can answer to the various laments here about the limitations of simulation software is that the automotive, aeronautical, and aerospace industries ROUTINELY use CAD and simulations today to design and "test" various types of mechanisms. AND, when constructed these devices work, AS PREDICTED, about 99% of the time. No, these programs are not perfect (yet!), but their use saves HUGE amounts of time and money. NONE of these industries would ever consider going back to "doing it the old way". They design and simulate FIRST and then construct and test SECOND for final verification purposes. If I was still constructing physical models by hand in my shop, then I'd be lucky to be 5% of the way to the end of the "right track" instead of my current 99.5%!

    I've found that, basically, Bessler's wheels are really just a matter of GEOMETRY and NUMEROLOGY and that is why so many of the clues in the DT portraits deal with these matters. When one's design incorporates the SAME geometry and numerology that went into Bessler's wheels, then his design WILL work! It MUST if it obeys the laws of physics and mechanics which Bessler's wheels ALWAYS did.

    I have found that the various simulation programs tend to handle geometry rather well. Their main handicap is that, as the number of parts in a design increases beyond a certain point, they tend to take too long to accurately calculate each frame of the simulation and things can begin to seriously "bog down". Even in my own computer models, I have to reduce the number of parts to ONLY those that are in ACTUAL motion with respect to each other during a SINGLE 45 degree increment of drum rotation. IF I tried to use ALL of a design's weighted levers, cords, and springs to simulate several ENTIRE 360 degree drum rotations, then the simulation would take forever to produce and the amount of data that had to temporarily stored would probably exceed the available memory of my PC (indeed, this HAS happened to me with past computer models!).

    Sometimes I wish I had one of those "super" computers that NASA uses to calculate the trajectories of their space probes!

    1. Actually I've been "out of the loop" for quite a while now with this wonderful organization, but I still have some great friends there. In my day, they freely released a product called "Beowulf". It's Linux-based NOS software to construct your own COTS based massive parallel cluster. These days with cheap h/w its easy to setup a hypercube gigabit network with lots and lots of CPU's with breathtaking power.

      I'm sure Beowulf has been further developed since my days. It might be worth looking into it. I can assure you its impressive to do some Teraflop numbercrunching stuff - it used to be one of my hobbies until I ran out of space and cooling, lol.

  15. I'll also weigh in on the pro-simulation side. While I can accept John's point that a simulation could miss possibilities that a builder would see, I think the opposite can also apply. In our simulations we can do things that are difficult or impossible in the real world, such as setting friction absolutely to zero, running models at extremely high or low speeds, etc.

    In a storage room, I have two one-meter diameter discs of 4mm aluminium plate, full of holes, remnants of much earlier failed attempts at a wheel. I look forward to returning to them some day, to make another attempt, but I won't do it until I have a simulation that I'm confident in.

    1. I agree with you too, Arktos - it can be very useful. But with reference with my post of 20:49 (above), what is your experience with bugs? You still prefer Silux?

    2. Our comments crossed! See above at 21:16

    3. I still prefer silux for 2D analysis, but although it was well ahead of its time when released, it no longer seems to be supported. It won't run on 64 bit computers, and I don't think the documentation that a "power user" needs is available now.

      Here's another coincidence — I typed "" into Google, remembering that's the website of Fritz Leibundgut, who developed silux. (I'm in an admittedly tiny minority with him in preferring Finite Differences analysis progams rather than Finite Elements). The first item Google returned associated with Beowulf!

    4. For those interested in parallel computing, the wikipedia entry is not a bad start. See

  16. Bessler Numerology 101:

    Ever wonder why Bessler's wheels had the diameters and radii that they did? Actually, there IS a very simple NUMEROLOGICAL reason which involves the number 9.

    Consider that his "House of Richters" prototype was 3 feet or 36 inches in diameter. The Gera wheel was 4.5 ft or 54 inches in diameter. The Draschwitz wheel was 9.3 feet or 111.6 inches in diameter. And, finally, both the Merseburg wheel and Kassel and Weissenstein Castle wheel were 12 feet or 144 inches in diameter.

    What do all of these wheels' diameter sizes have IN COMMON? Simple, their equivalents in INCHES all, numerologically, SUM to 9! Thus, for the prototype we have 36 inches = 3 + 6 = 9. For the Gera wheel we have 54 inches = 5 + 4 = 9. For the Draschwitz wheel we have 111.6 inches = 1 + 1 + 1 + 6 = 9. And, finally, for both the Merseburg and Kassel wheels we have 144 = 1 + 4 + 4 = 9. Note that the fact that I use English feet and inches while Bessler undoubtedly used his local versions of these does NOT affect the NUMERICAL portions of the dimensions he used and it is these that count in numerological analysis.

    This summing to 9 ALSO applies if one only uses the radii of the various wheels in inches!

    It's obvious to me that Bessler, being a numerologist, would have been fascinated by these particular diameters because of their common numerological property and, perhaps considering them lucky, incorporated them into the construction of his wheels. However, one could actually construct a working Bessler type wheel with ANY diameter just so long as the ratios of its internal components and their parameters with respect to each other stayed the same.

    1. Your Gera wheel dimension differs slightly with that listed on . They show the diameter of Gera to be 4.6' which is 55.2" (5+5+2=12). What is your source for the dimension?

    2. I should have pointed out that I measure the "radius" of one of Bessler's wheels from the center of its axle to the INSIDE surface of its outer curving periphery wall which really makes my radius value a sort of "inner radius" value since it does not really include the thickness of the curving layer of wood that formed the periphery wall. Twice this inner radius value then becomes the wheel's "diameter" which is then actually an "inner diameter" that I use in the numerological analysis. In the case of the "right track" computer model I am currently working on, the radius of 18 inches I sometimes cite is BOTH an inner AND an outer radius because, being a WM2D wheel, it has no periphery wall.

      If an actual Bessler wheel's periphery wall thickness was very thin relative to the inner radius value I assign to it, then the outer diameter's given in the Bessler literature for the wheel will be close to the inner diameter value I assign and the numerological pattern I described above will be valid. If, however, the periphery wall is a bit thicker relative to the wheel's inner radius, then its outer diameter will be a bit larger than the inner diameter value I used in the numerological calculations above and the pattern I've noted may not hold.

      No doubt, this was the case with the Gera wheel. It was the first larger wheel Bessler made for public display after his 36 inch prototype (which probably did not even have a periphery wall) and its periphery wall thickness would have been the largest relative to its inner radius. If its periphery wall was about 0.6 inches thick, then that would have added the 1.2 inches to its "inner diameter" of 54 inches to bring it up to 55.2 inches and, thus, throw off the numerological analysis. If Bessler had used thinner wood of, say, only about 1/8th or 0.125 inches thick, then that would have resulted in an outer diameter of 54.25 inches which is much closer to the value of 54 inches that I used.

      If he continued to use curving layers of wood that were 0.6 inches thick for the outer periphery walls of the wheels after the Gera which all had much larger diameters and radii, then the discrepancies between a wheel's inner and outer diameters would get smaller and smaller and the numerological pattern I pointed out would become more and more prominent.

  17. Let's face it guys,..The hands on approach is the only sure way to get a reliable result.
    What the use of having a simulation that you cannot trust for a genuine result.
    Up with the builders,..I say!

  18. TG, for the best and most up-to-date information on the wheel sizes visit my old friend Bill's site at

    We have exaustively researched and corrected the sizes and will continue to do so when and if they are challenged by conflicting data. I hope this doesn't spoil your numerological approach.


    1. My numerological approach is based on the internal dimensions of a wheel's drum which will tend to agree more with its outer dimensions as its outer diameter increases (see my last comment above). I stand by the analysis I've done even though, as I also previously stated, the actual dimensions of Bessler's wheels were NOT critical to their operation. What was critical was the various ratios and proportions of the internal components that the drums contained. Those values HAD to remain constant regardless of a drum's outer diameter.

  19. "simulation vs. building"
    ...or rather "simulation and building" in my opinion. Of course, only a real physical build will ever prove anything, and physical builds are terrific for getting a feel of things, plus battling with real world issues such as friction, stability, etc.
    But simulations are terrific for getting a hang of principles, for varying parameters. When I have a physical "almost runner", I like to replicate it in the simulation and then start varying things. Otherwise, I have to start taking apart the physical model or keep building new ones (I still do all of that at times, but find simulation extremely helpful in shortening these cycles). How trustworthy are the simulations? Well, they seem to have a problem with resonances. Engineers are taught how to avoid resonances - this would not be something they would be all that interested in modeling! However, I would bet on it, that that is what we need here. So, yes, simulation of the Bessler wheel has limitations. But I still find it very useful.

    1. Indeed, Mimi, engineers try to suppress any form of resonances, as it can be very destructive if not controlled. I completely agree with you that Bessler in many ways did exactly and deliberately the opposite.

    2. @ Mimi, Using silux, I haven't experienced the problems that you, and Andre, have reported, and some of my models have involved resonant oscillations. If you wanted to check out silux, go to There are also three .pdf documents there which are enough to get started.

      Silux only works on 32 bit computers. (You probably already know this, but to find out, click "Start," right-click "computer," click "properties," look under "system type".) If it says "64 bit" then forget it!

  20. Okay,I suppose we should live with both worlds.
    You've made your point Mimi!

    1. I guess the "bottom line" of this discussion is that, while virtual computer models are very easy to "construct" and simulations much fun to view as they "run", they do NOT equal a PHYSICAL prototype wheel. Virtual wheels, however, can certainly provide a clear direction to head in as one performs the labor of constructing a working physical prototype.

      Even if I am lucky enough with my current "right track" computer model wheel to have found THE basic design that Bessler found and used, someone somewhere is going to have to roll up his (or her) sleeves and BUILD it. More likely than not, there will be obstacles encountered during that construction that were NOT anticipated by my computer model. I don't think, however, that they will be "fatal" obstacles that would render the design permanently inoperative, but, rather, minor problems with such things as axle bearings and lever pivots, spacing the various interconnecting cords properly so that they do not rub against each other during drum rotation, and making sure that the lead weights are securely attached to the ends of the levers, but yet can be easily removed when it is necessary to move the "empty" drum and its attached axle.

      I can't really be that concerned about these issues at this point in time. My focus has to be on finding THE correct orientations of the one-directional wheel's 8 weighted levers at the start (and finish) of each 45 degree increment of drum rotation and the correct cord interconnections and spring tensions that make this possible. Only when these factors are correct can one expect the CoM of the design's 8 weights to remain on the drum's descending side during rotation.

      Speaking of which, I finally finished the design for my current wheel that is based on the assumption (gotten from certain DT portrait clues that MAY have been false "decoy" clues!) that its weighted levers whose pivots were approaching the 3:00 position of a CW rotating drum had their weights alighting on their rim stops BEFORE the pivots reached the 3:00 position. This design seems to give the maximum horizontal projection of the CoM of the wheel's 8 weights onto the descending side, but, unfortunately, because the weight already AT the 3:00 drum position (and moving toward the 4:30 position) is resting on its rim stop, applies LESS lifting torque to the weighted levers whose pivots are approaching the 10:30 and 12:00 drum positions. This is because the weight that is already resting on its rim stop at the 3:00 position can drop no farther and thus can contribute no more energy / mass to lifting the weights on the wheel's ascending side. So, in one way this is a "good" design, but in another way it's a "bad" design.

      I'll be testing it later today to determine if it works and produces that ALL IMPORTANT "Bessler Effect" which will signal me that my search for THE solution is finally over. IF the design fails, then it will be time to move onto the remaining alternative design which does not have a weight alighting on its rim stop until AFTER its lever's pivot passes the 3:00 position of the CW rotating drum (and, again, there are portrait clues that indicate that this is what happened).

  21. This platform is integrated with social media logins like Facebook and Yahoo; enabling
    customers to use their own login for registering on the site.
    The one significant aspect is that the total number of bitcoins will be capped and held at a strict and abitrary expansion rate.
    What do you think when a new potential supplier approaches you with the selling phrase, "I'm as good as the one you use now".

    my webpage - check this out

  22. There's a chance you qualify for a new solar program.
    Click here to find out if you're eligble now!


The True Story of Bessler’s Perpetual Motion Machine - Update

At the end of March we sold our house and moved in with my daughter, son-in-law and granddaughter, expecting to be there for no more than tw...