Thursday 30 January 2014

Update - will this one work, or will I have to share what I know?

My wheel is taking shape but I realised that because of the other attractions over Christmas, I had not looked at it for about three weeks and had forgotten that I had made a small error on drawing in the mechanism and had turned the wheel over to start my drawing again.  So on my return I was somewhat puzzled to know where I had got to - this is what happens as you get older, the memory starts to fail you! Fortunately I eventually turned the wheel over again and saw my error and was able to put it right on the other side.  

Because I (believe I) have now got the complete design with angles and lengths and of course the secret principle, I am actually drawing it out on the wheel, and I can then drill holes measure levers etc., and fit them exactly where they should go and all the stops are located in their proper places.  The hold-up occurred because I missed out a vital calculation which resulted in the levers being drawn on the wheel but incorrectly placed.  

I have to confess that a younger person would probably have finished the wheel by now but I am aiming to finish this one in a week or so and thank goodness!  It's been a long haul to get to where I am now.  I have always said that if my wheel fails I will share what I know and I guess that moment is approaching, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed for this one.  I shall be 69 next Wednesday, 5th Feb, and that would be a good day to succeed but it could be a few days after.

If it doesn't act as I designed it to do, there is one more additional movement to make which I suspect I shall have to incorporate which I think (hopefully) complies with Bessler's comment about 'connectedness' or as I prefer to say 'interconnectedness'.   If these fail then I shall finish the document I have been writing and publish it and await the reaction.  If my previous 'revelations' are anything to go by then a fairly muted response can be expected because no one accepts any theories without a working model, I know I don't.

But there will be one thing in the document which will hopefully get a more excited response, however I'm jumping the gun here - the model's not finished yet and I'm kind of optimistic about this one.



Monday 27 January 2014

When is a Conservative Force Not a Conservative Force, Answer - When it is the Wind.

I mentioned recently their seeming reluctance to expand on the answers to some questions I had put to my teachers many years ago, when I was trying to understand why Bessler's wheel could not work.  I had received the standard physics tuition and understood what I was taught, but there were still questions bothering me which related solely to Bessler's wheel, and I have never ever been able to get a satisfactory response, not once in the intervening 50 odd years.

I shall try to be as succinct as I can.  The laws of physics were designed to describe as accurately as possible each possible action and reaction, but sometimes they remind me of a legal document.  They describe the simplest of actions in the most accurate terms possible and in the event often obscure the precise meaning they try to convey.  It can sometimes help to look at the broader picture to get an idea of what is happening.

I'm assuming that we all know and understand the definition of a conservative force - and that gravity is conservative.  It's not path-dependent and it can store or regain potential energy, unlike non-conservative forces.

For the above reasons we are assured that Bessler's gravity wheel did not work - except that it did. If gravity is a conservative force, what non-conservative forces are there?  Well actually there aren't many.  Oh they will point to friction and springs and some magnetic attractions. and the like, but it seems that it is difficult to identify non-conservative forces, because they are so few and not really relevant to our cause.

Now it is a curious fact that when discussing conservative and non-conservative forces no mention is ever made of the wind as a force.  I've searched everywhere for a statement which affirms the wind's status as either conservative or non-conservative, but it just isn't there.  Occasionally you will find a brief reference to the wind as being non-conservative within some other calculations but nothing else. I have maintained for many years that the wind should be identified as a conservative force and because it is capable of driving rotatable machinery i.e. windmills; then gravity too should be capable of driving a wheel continuously, but of course wind is non-conservative isn't it?  No! This assumption is wrong and provably so.

All you have to do is compare the defining criteria for a conservative force as applied to gravity with those of the wind. Gravity is path independent, the object moved from A to B can travel by any path and this applies to the wind as it impacts on a windmill's blades.  Gravity can store mechanical energy as demonstrated when one lifts a fallen book back on to its shelf; a balloon can be pulled along into the wind and held there with the potential energy of the wind available to carry it away.  There are a number of similarities which confirm the wind's status as a conservative force and I have no idea why this fact has not been picked up by the establishment.  I assume it is because the conservative nature of the wind does not raise questions the way the gravitational force does. We understand how the wind is generated and why it flows in a particular direction at any one time.

If the very idea that the wind is a conservative force disagrees with your own impression of it, consider the opposite side of the coin; if it is non-conservative how does it turn a Savonius windmill, or an anemometer?  How could you even measure the strength of the wind because non-conservative forces are of brief duration.

I mentioned looking at the broader picture when considering conservative as opposed to non-conservative forces.  I think of conservative forces as enduring forces, not explosive actions of extremely limited duration which non-conservative forces tend to be.  Enduring forces conserve mechanical energy, non-conservative forces expend their mechanical energy and the energy released dissipates as heat etc.


Tuesday 21 January 2014

Will Bessler's wheel have a place in today's world?

The simple answer is yes, but why?  First of all it has investment potential and therefore it could be profitable. Today there are thousands of investment companies looking to invest in new technology, but imagine that, 300 years ago, in Bessler's time, a group of investors had sought something to put their money into, they would have been advised to put it in coal because the steam age was fast approaching; but that would only have happened after  the arrival of Thomas Newcomen and his coal-burning water-pumping engine, and  later, James Watt with the first steam engine that produced continuous rotary motion, which led to the railways and steam ships.  They would also have attracted investors first..

150 years later, they would have been  looking at oil as an investment, thanks to the efforts of  James Young, who invented a process to distil kerosene from petroleum and also produced a heavier oil for lubrication.In 1848 Young set up a small business refining the crude oil. This led, through a tortuous path and a number of experiments, to the invention of the internal combustion engine which burned a derivative of Young's crude oil refinement - gasoline.  Where would today's cars, ships and planes be without gas?

During the 19th and 20th centuries it was and is still oil, but electricity was a burgeoning industry and the means to produce it has become so diverse that the multiple investments have spread across a number of differing methods.  Solar panels, photovoltaic cells, wind farms, tidal and wave generators, geothermal units, hydroelectricity, and of course the fossil fuel as in coal and oil.  In addition the U.S. Department of Energy evaluated the Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program on May 13–17, 2013, in Arlington, Virginia.  Unfortunately, Hydrogen-powered vehicles are not as green as they are portrayed and although they might be an alternative to gas-powered vehicles, one problem with this is that the hydrogen is typically produced from a fossil fuel—natural gas—in a process that releases a lot of carbon dioxide.  Obviously there are more technologies than I can cover in a brief blog, but the picture is clear, there are many competing technologies but they all have one or more negative aspects which have so far precluded complete global investment.  Any other problems?  Here's three.

Pollution, the peak of available oil production has passed, and global warming is affecting the climate.

The search is on, like never before, to find the ultimate solution to the three problems identified above.   Clean energy to combat pollution, and yet which is capable of replacing most of the oil-based (and coal etc.) electricity generators.  What ever reason you subscribe to, carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect - or the changing output from the sun - the climate is changing and even though driving a smaller car won't make the slightest difference to the global output of carbon dioxide, reducing pollution anyway has to be a good idea.

Bessler's wheel has no negatives - except for one, and it's a biggy!  It's believed to be impossible - against the established laws of physics etc. But I intend to challenge this view with my working model and call to account all those so-called experts who taught us so well, that we all believed them. One of the curious things I intend to comment on in  a later blog, is the number of questions I and others asked to which no one ever gave a sensible answer, they just repeated parrot-fashion the old cliches.  I don't want to present any of the questions without the reasoning that lies behind each, so I'll leave that aside for now.

So given the industries I mentioned briefly above and how they started so small, each as an idea in one man's mind, and yet were able to colonise the globe with the ramifications which followed their development, what path would Bessler's wheel take?

I can't list all the possible future developments ahead but the first thing to do would be to attach it to electricity generator.  Now some say it wouldn't be powerful enough.  I don't know why they say that. Bessler said they could be much bigger and obviously if several wheel were placed in series on one axle the power might be sufficient for a whole street let alone an individual house.

Miniature device could be developed so small they could might power tablet computers for instance; or they may become large enough to power  cars, ships and trains.

My point is, as it always has been, we must produce the evidence in the form of one working wheel ....and give it away and the entrepreneurs will run with it.  Who knows what uses they will find for it, but I know for sure that when it does appear the world will go crazy for it. 


Thursday 16 January 2014

Let Us Ponder upon Bessler's Rich Pageantry of Words!

I have been meaning to comment on the rather strange passage in Bessler's Apologia Poetica, in chapter XLVI.  Bessler introduces it by urging us to study his 'rich pageantry of words'.  Having returned to the original many times, I can only find the following amateur translation of the original translator's valiant efforts . The original German words appear to describe the passage as containing resplendent words or flaunting words, which doesn't seem to me to a million miles from my original translator's efforts, if a little less poetic. It appears to be a poetic description of something which we suspect is related to the wheel, but quite how is hard to determine.  I decided to put my thoughts down about it, as far as I can, which isn't far.  It is almost all speculation although I have tried to use common sense, avoiding the higher realms of speculation.

It begins thus:- "Those who are keen to ask questions should ask them of this little book. My work will not be revealed prematurely. Should anyone wish to speculate about the truth, let him just ponder on the rich pageantry of words which I now cause to shower down upon him!"

Are they metaphors, similes, analogies or what?  I cannot say but they seem to contain some kind of truth which to me is not apparent but here goes anyway.

So the first thing to do is to identify where it starts.  Many people assume the translation from my book which commences "for greed is an evil plant..." is the beginning of a metaphorical description of the mechanism. My own view is slightly different.  There is a little trick that Bessler uses that some people may not be aware of or have forgotten.  We are all familiar with the names of his avowed enemies, Christian Wagner, Andreas Gärtner and Johann Gottfried Borlach, and Bessler would frequently include their initials in the text, easily identifiable by using Roman characters instead of the usual Fraktur font.  Often the letter would form the first letter of a mildly offensive word probably for his own satisfaction and to poke fun at his enemies.

In the adjacent image taken from the original. I have ringed in yellow, the particular letters to illustrate the point. In the image you can read in order, Gärtner, Wagner and Borlach, twice. Throughout the book there are many examples all aimed at the same three people. 

From the following line, Bessler begins his metaphorical descriptions.

"An anvil receives many blows. A driver drives. A runner runs. The seer sees. The buyer buys. The rain drips down. Snow falls. The shotgun shoots. The bow twangs."

I see these as descriptions of various forces and/or actions within his wheel.  The anvil receives many blows, but it is immoveable, despite the heavy blows it endures. This may relate to the part of the wheel on which the weights land. 

A driver drives and that is a proactive action as demonstrated by the blacksmith hitting the anvil with the hammer.  It seems to indicate that something causes the weights to move. The runner runs, and that is a reactive force moving swiftly without hindrance, perhaps like an object which has been hit and just moves quickly as a billiard ball might move across a table.  The seer sees, is perhaps a non-reactive object which awaits an action upon it.  The buyer buys is the opposite in a way, it is proactive again and awaits its chance to act not react.

Next we see the forces available.  Rain drips down, under the influence of gravity (not in response to an action such as a hammer blow).  Snow falls but it is lighter than rainwater so it falls slowly.  The shotgun is an explosive force and not conserved as gravity is, so it's a once only push.  The bow is similarly explosive but actioned by tension rather than a chemical agregate.  

"A great fat herd of fat, lazy, plump horses wanders aimlessly."  This may refer to the weights hanging without any control from levers or stops, so they hang and swing without guidance, at a certain point during rotation.

"The flail would rather be with the thresher than with the scholar."  The flail was a kind of threshing device and bit like a whip. This suggests that the flail/whip strikes the scholar/pupil but does not linger but instead returns quickly to its 'cocked' position, ready to strike again.  It may relate to the so-called 'stiff fops' mentioned later in the passage.

"The children play on the little/toy pillars/columns with loud heavy little/toy clubs."  There has been much debate over the translation of this piece so it's anybody's guess which is correct., and I cannot suggest something that might be taken seriously as to its meaning!  

The rest is so open to speculation that without the design of the mechanisms in front of me, I cannot relate to any of it, although I have plenty of ideas!

I've added this blog primarily to point out the starting point of the description and perhaps to put aside any thoughts about interpreting the 'greed is an evil plant' line, as it is a dig at his enemies and probably not part of the so-called pageantry of words which the study of, will help those who seek answers from this little book.



Tuesday 14 January 2014

Bessler's Codes - why did he create them?.

Johann Bessler was christened Elias Bessler and added the other two forenames at about the time he exhibited the Merseburg Wheel, the one which could turn in either direction.  Although these additional names were added some time after the first exhibition, and they seem to have been part of a plan to leave information about this wheels hidden within certain documents he was publishing, his pseudonym, Orffyreus, was being used almost from the start.  This seems to indicate that he always planned to encode information about his wheels in published documents s.  

Why he felt the need to do this we can only speculate, but as patents were not available to him at that time we might assume that he undertook this action to try to establish, should it become necessary, his priority claim in the event that another should try to lay claim to being the first to invent the gravity-wheel.  Upon consideration, this action seems hardly worth the effort, because if someone else succeeded in duplicating Bessler's wheel before Bessler himself had sold it, then the result would be the same as if he had openly given away the secret of its construction.  The pretender would have to show how his wheel worked and Bessler would have to prove his priority by showing how his own wheel worked and that it was as described in the encoded information he had buried in his publications.  So perhaps there was another reason also.

He does say at one point that if he fails to sell his wheel he will be content with posthumous recognition. But this was written in 1715 when he had excellent prospects before him and such a plan at the age of 35 seems somewhat pessimistic, so perhaps there was a third and more compelling reason for the code.  Bessler certainly demonstrates that he had a deep and abiding curiosity about codes and the pleasure he derived from its use, drove him to tantalise us by dropping subtle hints in many places about the existence of codes and also leave obvious examples such as chronograms, and the ROT13 ciphers he used to establish his pseudonym, Orffyreus, from Bessler.

I think he would still have enjoyed pointing out his codes and their meanings in the event that he did have to prove his priority, even if it denied him the pecuniary rewards he sought.  But also the posthumous recognition desire was  self-evident so perhaps it was a bit of each reason that led him to devise his complex network of codes.

I'm aware of Øystein Rustad's work on deciphering codes and I look forward to seeing what he has done, and I have also deciphered a different set of codes and like Bessler, and Øystein, I think, I can't wait to share what I know!  There are other pieces of code awaiting someone's more  incisive analytical attention, such as the Bible references, and the whole of Das Triumphans,which I believe, contains some hidden gems.

Like many before, I too have found it useful to hide a little code containing what I call the Bessler-Collins principle.  It's not as if I would ever patent anything I found, but it would be good to know that I was first and could prove it, and that is what, in the end, I think was in Bessler's mind when he began devising codes.

There have been many illustrious scientists who used a similar idea to attempt to confirm their discoveries and thus receive their due honour, in the course of time; such people as Galileo, Sir Christopher Wren and Sir Isaac Newton, to name but three.



Thursday 9 January 2014

Bessler's Wheel Required Only Gravity as an Enabling Force.

I'm still being asked why I think Bessler's wheel worked purely on gravity and required no additional forces, and without giving away my own theory, it's difficult to bring something new to the table.  However looking back at the evidence it still seems obvious to me that nothing has changed

Leaving aside, on this occasion the evidence we are all aware of regarding the numerous examinations and tests the wheel was subjected to, Bessler said in Das Triumphens, "NO, these weights are themselves the PM device, the ‘essential constituent parts’" There are several other examples where Bessler discusses his weights and to my mind there is no other option than to consider that his claims were sincere.

There is another point and it is this.  Either we assume that Bessler told the truth and there was no additional force supplied, or he lied and there was another force present; in either case the wheel worked.  If there was another force available how come no-one has discovered what it was and replicated Bessler's wheel?  Such a discovery would be equally amazing and useful as one which only relied on gravity.  If another force was present why wouldn't Bessler hint at it?  He enjoyed dropping obscure hints about the way his wheel worked but he insisted that the weights were all that was needed.  On the Besslerwheel forum several suggestions have been made at what such additional force might be, and none of them are as convincing as the idea that it was simply gravity as Bessler said.  There was very little else available to Bessler at the time apart from ambient temperature changes or perhaps some kind of static electricity. Both ideas to my mind, simply won't do.  Others have suggested centrifugal forces or some such derivative, but in all cases no continuously rotating wheel has surfaced, therefore I am certain that Bessler told the truth and gravity was the sole provider of power to the wheel.  It's a case of Occam's razor which states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.  Just one assumption is necessary and that is that Bessler told the truth, there was no additional force.

When Sir Isaac Newton wrote his 'Principia', he wrote the whole thing in Latin, which was the accepted way to introduce matters of scientific and intellectual interest.  University lectures were given in Latin and publications such a 'Acta Erditorum' were also published in Latin.  Latin was a universal language at that time and thus students from various countries attended universities in England, France and Germany with equal ability to understand what was being taught.  Newton used the word 'gravitas'  for the force and in this sense, 'gravitas'  translates as 'heaviness'. Everyone understood the term 'heaviness' as a concept but the use of the word 'gravitas' and thus 'gravity', came to be applied later to the concept of 'heaviness as if it had been coined specifically for that purpose.  So when we say that Bessler used the word gravity he didn't mean it in the way we do, he just used the word 'heaviness' as the provider of the force which turned his wheels.

In other words Bessler did not think of gravity in the way we do with all its preconditions about how it can be used, he simply meant heaviness, and weights had heaviness and it was that which he was able to manipulate to his advantage.

Heaviness is a pressure or resistance we feel when we lift something up, or hold it.  I liken it, for example to the same pressure we experience when we fight to hold an umbrella from blowing inside out in the wind; or a gust of wind hits you when you come out from the shelter of a building, or a strong current of water encountered when swimming.  It is simply a pressure.  I used to sail a lot as a young man and it's the same thing when you haul in a sail, the wind pressure fights you all the way.  Gravity is a conservative force; so is the wind, and so is a current of water.  Just because gravity is conservative does not preclude its use as a continuous pressure to drive around a wheel.  The word conservative, as used in this instance, simply means that it does not stop, it continues to apply pressure, just as the wind does when it blows and water too when it is a current. Conservative forces don't really conserve their energy but they conserve their force or momentum. Hitting a ball, on the other hand, is an explosive event and therefore not a conservative event,  It is not continuous in the way that gravity, wind and water streams are. Conservative means that it is not used up with nothing left, the force is conserved not exhausted.  The opposite of conservative or conserved is un-conserved or not conserved, so the three examples above must be conserved or continuous otherwise we could not sail ships, turn windmills, use watermills etc., etc.

Lastly all calculations seem to apply to one weight moving in a circle, they seem to ignore the presence and effect of correctly configured multiple weights.



Bessler’s Wheel is the answer to Global Warming.

We've all heard the term Carbon net zero, but what exactly does it mean? Put simply, net zero refers to the balance between the amount o...