Monday 18 May 2015

Bessler's Septagram/ Heptagram

When I described my findings on the MT 137 figure on my website at http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/html/mt_137_a.html
I showed how it represented the musical circle of fifths publicised by Johann David Heinichen, 1683-1729, a famous German musician who lived and worked in Weissenfels at the same time as Bessler.  See the first two figures below.  MT 137 on left, modern version of Heinichen's circle of fifths to the right

In part two of the same page of the website at
http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/html/mt_137_part_two.html, I showed how Bessler had included a hidden septagram or heptagram, which is a seven-pointed star drawn with seven straight strokes, and sometimes drawn inside a circle.  Deleting the black lines on the original MT 137, or circle of fifths illustration, as in the middle figure below, and redrawing them to skim the edge of the inner black circle produces a heptagram, as shown in the third figure below.   This geometric figure has numerous associations with occult and religious symbolism, but lack of space prevents those discussions here at this moment.

What I had not appreciated was just how difficult it is to draw a circle with seven equal divisions, and that means that the inclusion of the heptagram in MT 137 cannot be considered as a coincidence, but is deliberate.  A circle divided into seven equal segments has seven interior angles of 51.428571 degrees.  This makes it impossible to get an accurate measured angle and there is no system available using ruler and compass, although you can get an approximation by dividing the circumference by seven and walking a set of compaases around it, or simply dividing the circle into seven angles of 51.5 degrees. I drew a heptagram and tried inscribing a circle within it to match the inner circle in MT 137, it is not at all easy!

The two figures lend themselves to a simple code - draw the connecting lines from one point numbered 1 and then follow the logical progression clockwise or anticlockwise and you get, for instance in the septagram,
1 to 4
4 to 7
7 to 3
3 to 6
6 to 2
2 to 5
5 to 1 .  The same applies to the dodecagram using the numbers 1 to 12.

Curiously the sides of the Great Pyramid is said to have a slope angle which is close to one-seventh of a circle, i.e. 51.4°, so I guess a reasonable approximation could be 51.5 degrees.

The number 51.42857 contains six repeating digits of 1/7, and is the best-known cyclic number in base 10. If it is multiplied by 2, 3, 4, 5, or 6, the answer will be a cyclic permutation of itself, and will correspond to the repeating digits of 2/7, 3/7, 4/7, 5/7, or 6/7 respectively.

1 × 142,857 = 142,857
2 × 142,857 = 285,714
3 × 142,857 = 428,571
4 × 142,857 = 571,428
5 × 142,857 = 714,285
6 × 142,857 = 857,142
7 × 142,857 = 999,999

The last one, 7 times, is a surprise..  (found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/142857_(number)  )

So another mystery beckons - why did Bessler include a heptagram in MT 137?  5 or 7 mechanisms?

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’

1. John, you asked "...why did Bessler include a heptagram in MT 137?" and then, after noting how difficult it was for you to draw a heptagram inside of a circle, you write "...that means that the inclusion of the heptagram in MT 137 cannot be considered as a coincidence, but is deliberate." To tell you the truth, I don't see Bessler including any sort of heptagram in the dodecagram of MT 137. It seems to me like you have forced one to exist there for some reason that is unclear to me at the moment. If one tries hard enough, he can create any polygram within a circle. What is the point you are trying to make with this blog topic?

1. If you look at the modern duodecagram there is no inner circle, only the appearance of one created by the network of lines. MT 137 has a solid circle with a small gap between it and the network of lines. I thought why did he include the solid circle, why not omit it altogether? In my experience Bessler has always included two clues where one would do and I shall prove that later.

Try my suggestion and draw in the thinnest lines on the middle figure you can, and just have them graze the solid circle in passing. Unless you get it exactly right, the lines will either meet outside the outer circle or too far inside. So I suggest he is showing us a seven and five divided circle - odd numbers and that fits in with his unique numbering of the pages of MT. see my page at theorffryreuscode site So not a coincidence and a relevant piece of information Ken.

I've always thought MT 137 was the odd one out among all the mechanical arrangements in MT, so why was it included? Obviously to convey some kind of message and the above is the one I believe was there to be found.

JC

2. Okay, I think I get this now. You are trying to use this heptagram you think is in MT 137 to rationalize the use of 5 or 7 mechanisms inside of Bessler's wheels or something like that. Well, I hope you're right, but, I'm committed to the use of 8 mechanisms in my version of Bessler's wheels. This is the number that makes the most sense to me in terms of what the witnesses testing the wheel claimed they heard: 8 weights gently impacting on a wheel's descending side with each single rotation. 8 is, of course, an even number unlike either 5 or 7. Come to think of it, I don't recall seeing any wheels in MT that showed an odd number of mechanisms in them. Even a dodecagram has an even number of points.

3. No Ken, I'm not trying to rationalise anything, I found what might be one of Bessler's little clues and I'm simply offering a reason for it. If you wish, ignore my suggestion that it might hint at 5 or 7 mechanisms, but I think it's there for what ever reason.

JC

4. HI John

The clues I have found seem to indicate that the Heptagram is being included to show a distance or measurement, I know we all have own own pet theories and in my case in the last year I have been finding connecting graphics / objects that seem to show a similar design and it appears in many pictures that Bessler left MT / DT etc. Also I have found the need for two separate diameters within the design, see my answer to Ã˜ystein below.

Anyway as always good luck to all.

Terry

2. "So another mystery beckons - why did Bessler include a heptagram in MT 137? 5 or 7 mechanisms?" - John Collins (N & N+++)

To the worthy question I am happy to supply the best answer, along with some collateral explanation / colour:

It is because Bessler didn't!

He placed the dodecagram conspicuously so that it could / would be understood to BE such and no other. There is nothing whatever that is encoded about it. (I understand. I understand. From quarters certain, such a cheeky and impudent declaration promises to draw maximum fire. So-be-it.)

As it's name implies the complete octave consists of eight whole tones, namely c, d, e, f, g, a, b and c, these plus the five semi- ones c#, d#, f#, g# and a#, all these adding up to thirteen total.

Only by a connecting of the five semi-tones' points, might a five-pointed configuration be obtained.

Notionally, might this seem a thing likely, or not?

[J.S. Bach's Well Tempered Clavier (Das Wohltemperierte Klavier) established the finality of equal temperament for all keys as being best. In this, naturally the great master was correct, and we have taken his lesson to-heart. Since then, Western ears have become quite used to the slight dissonance necessary, for this accommodation made to all.]

Uncharacteristically and somewhat uncomfortably, I find myself agreeing (!!!) with K.B. himself, and posing the self-same questions as does he, as based upon bewilderment, as one might presume?

To wit

". . . If one tries hard enough, he can create any polygram within a circle. . . ."

Yes, it would seem that one can and, that some do. (Within many of varying things, I've imagined almost everything!)

Plainly and simply, just as the twelve sided star means here ". . . the number 12 has special symbolic meaning in the Bible, often depicting completeness." so it did as well to Bessler, as 'the' number of devices that would render perfect, constant torque from his wheels. See: http://www.religionfacts.com/christianity/symbols/12-point-star

"Completeness"

Just as it is not because never could be in the case of our own U.S. Constitution's Preamble, wherein it refers to some proposed "more perfect Union", so it was contrarily with Bessler's ideal configuration, his wheel being a thing-perfect truly. (Yes, as in a thing Heaven-sent!)

For any having perceptive eyes, the dodecagram that Bessler makes so conspicuous by it's singularity IS to be found elsewhere but . . . for ones bereft of knowledge of organ building per se, of-doing this may prove a task more difficult than not.

(Eventually, ALL knowledge will be found to have been of some tangible use, this one area cited being not at all any exception. Tragically and tellingly, four-square against this, our world of 'training for specialization' labors very, very hard.)

James

PS Please see all about Bessler's dodecagram here at the WikiPedia site http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodecagram and, the Star Polygons at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_polygon which will make clear the relationship of the Isotoxal Stars to our own pet polygon of most intense interest. When at the first, be SURE to see the "Complete graph". This is extraordinarily inspirational of something important derived of the Higher Way . . .

1. 8 whole tones in an octave, yes James but to my mind there are only 7 letters used, the first and last being the same. I do understand why - AND I bow to your inestimably greater knowledge concerning music and the mighty organ.

BTW did you ever come close to accepting my suggestion described in detail about how the dodecagram was used by Bessler to imply Heinichen's circle of fifths?

These ideas I publish are here for discussion James, and I always appreciate your input even when you're not in full agreement with me.

JC

2. Yes James,

I think you have your interpretations of the visual clue MT137 exactly right. I completely agree with your observations "the' number of devices that would render perfect, constant torque from his wheels" and "Completeness" as in a thing Heaven-sent!
This is good stuff, as far as it goes...
But what of the black circle in the middle? This also needs the attention of a perceptive eye since it is clearly a Bessler addition; this symbol is not normally rendered in such a fashion.

3. Dear John,

Exactly as you say, "only 7 letters used".

"BTW did you ever come close to accepting my suggestion described in detail about how the dodecagram was used by Bessler to imply Heinichen's circle of fifths?"

I certainly did and found it both interesting and helpful, these leading me on to further thought. Thanks very much for it. It is good, I think, that that one of 24 or so got modified. The result seems perfect like Bach, and Bessler's Wheel do

"These ideas I publish are here for discussion James, and I always appreciate your input even when you're not in full agreement with me."

I understand, and I appreciate the clarification.

I believe this is the very first time that our positions on matters have ever diverged. 'If all were to agree, how dull 'twould be'.

By no means am I a musician. I only learned to build the things (organs), erect them (that's what one does with organs) and then, tune. I could not do the actual artistical part which is voicing, on account of having high frequency tinnitus. Later, it was to be piano restoration and tuning. (Good money!) After exposure to all of such over a forty year period, one naturally acquires some minimal bits of awareness, concerning music per se, and so I did. (And this added to the fact that I am also a music lover.) The knowledge that is essential to any cracking of the Besslerian puzzle, I believe, lays in that of the tooling and procedures of the designing / constructing regimens.

Hope that fills things in a little.

James

4. "Yes James," - John Worton (N & N+)

This and that what followed would bee musik to me ears sure, Johnny!

"This is good stuff, as far as it goes..."

Uh-oh! Always the catch! :-)

Ah yes, that circle.

Perhaps else-where to bee found might bee yet an other one to "combine"?

Johann seemed big on putting, say, three-and-three together?

Yes, for any manifesting of true progress, perceptive eyes ARE needed eyes.

James (N & N)

3. John,
I've just dug out my old Zeus engineering data book, and provided you know the constants, dividing a circle into 7 is easy, don't know if Bessler was aware of them though.
If I was into Black Magic etc. I would simply have a string that would give a circle with a circumference divisible by 7 exactly, i.e. 21ft. then use my magic wand / staff, which would be the correct length / marked to give 7 equally spaced points.
Personally, I think the wheel of fifths could be an optical illusion, if you try to find patterns with the lines, they seem to constantly change, giving the impression of movement.
If you concentrate on the inner black dot, different patterns appear.
NO ! I've not been on the ganja ! :-D

4. Whatever the meaning of MT 137 is, it can not be related to the imbalanced pm mechanics Bessler used in his wheels. That's because he confessed that he had removed, then burned and buried all illustrations which related to that mechanism. So, what could MT 137 be? I don't think it was some idle doodle that Bessler did because he was bored at the time. No, rather, I think it might be an incomplete illustration. Perhaps the lines in it represent ropes that were supposed to be connected to weighted levers mounted on the outer circle and would activate them in such a way as to keep the center of mass of the weights and levers on the wheel's descending side. Maybe after he had put in his network of ropes, Bessler realized that they would not work the way he envisioned and so he never bothered to include the levers. Why he did not destroy the incomplete illustration is explainable. Maybe he liked the way it came out and was hoping to use if for some other design in the future. In any event, I don't think it's really that important. I do, however, think MT 10 and 18 are very important. Probably the most important illustrations in MT, especially the notes to them.

1. Ken,

You should not rely on one translation of MT (if indeed you are). I have seen on besslerwheel.com that Stewart, 0ystein, and Jim Mich, to name a few, frequently provide translations which differ from those given by JC's translator. The differences are enough to change the meaning in some cases.

By reading all the translations of a piece of text, you get a better idea of what Bessler was saying.

Since you mentioned the importance of the MT10 and MT18, I think MT11 may also be equally important. Regarding the presence of an inner or doubled wheel, Bessler says "there is more in it than meets the eye, as will be seen when I pull back the curtain and disclose the correct principle". It sure sounds like this could be a necessary part of the wheel. Could the inner wheel be the prime mover that shifts the weights in the outer OB wheel? Who knows, and I am relying on one interpretation of MT11.

I find in interesting that you get harped on about your translations or interpretations of the portraits when all the experts can't even agree on the proper (valid) English translations of Bessler's writings.

2. I always try to find as many different translations of Bessler quotes as possible and even try to do my own translations. In practically all cases, a particular translation tends, to a high degree, to reflect the translator's particular contextual interpretation of the passage and these interpretations, ultimately, are influenced by what the translator thinks the structure of Bessler's secret imbalanced pm wheel mechanism was. My selected translations tend to be influenced by my belief that Bessler's wheels were just simple imbalanced wheels that only used weights, levers, ropes, and springs. And this interpretation is based upon what I believe the various described properties of his wheels suggest. Could I be wrong? Well, unfortunately, yes. Even Einstein made mistakes and, toward the end of his life, admitted that he sometimes wondered if any of the conclusions he reached in his early research were actually correct!

I agree that MT 11 is important, but not in the way you suggest. In that illustration we see a smaller wheel inside of a larger one and both arranged so as to turn the axle clockwise. Here Bessler wants the reader to see that the axle torque could be increased by mounting two concentric wheels with their turn directions the same. However, he could have gotten even more torque by simply doubling the mass of the weights on the outer wheel. There is something more to this illustration which only makes sense when one has the correct design that Bessler used. That design does use two separate one direction wheels inside of a single drum, but they are not concentric. Rather, they are side by side, the same diameter, and arranged so that they will want to turn in opposite directions. That then places the composite center of their masses right below the axle and no motion is possible since there is no net torque on the axle. Giving such a composite wheel a push in either direction, however, quickly changes the situation. When this is done, a clever mechanism Bessler added to his one directional wheels would then cause whatever wheel was made to rotate counter to its preferred direction to rapidly lock down its eight weighted levers so that their weights remained in contact with wooden stops near the drum's rim. That action then caused that one directional wheel's center of mass to retreat to the center of the axle. When that happened, the drum was then only propelled by the single remaining one directional wheel which happened to be rotating in its preferred direction.

I'm hoping that if my research is successful, I will finally be able to provide a working mechanism that was, indeed, the one that Bessler used. At that time, with the proper context available, we will finally be able to have near 100% accurate translations of the Bessler writings. Of course, even then, there will be some who will resist accepting the new context, but, hopefully, with later successful physical duplications of Bessler's wheels, they will come around to accepting it. Don't expect my or anybody else's successful interpretation of Bessler's secret imbalanced pm wheel mechanism to change anything overnight. It will take years, but, at least, we will finally have some solid traction and be on our way.

5. The principle I found from his codes show an inner and outer system. But it is almost obvious from reading MT, isn`t it? Yes MT 11 show inner/outer. But most importantly MT11 show two systems (inner outer) that differ, even if they look equal at first glance. One (the outer) acts "normal" the other (inner) acts "OU".

Reading closer you will also see that in MT 14 he writes that the MT14 could actually be used (as a part of a working system).

PS! I returned from Germany today, and I got some help solving the rest of the last missing words in AP. I also got a YES from my "wife" when I proposed to her in the German woods! We have been going out for 15 years and have a son, so it was about time lol

1. MT 14 is totally unworkable as shown and the reason is easily seen. Note the weighted lever at about the 1:30 position on the descending (right) side. It has to lift 7 other weights as it drops. No way! However, it might be workable if each descending side weighted lever only had to pull up two of the inner wedge shaped weights on the sliding cross rods while its diametrically opposed lever helped to push those two inner wedge shaped weights up. We're going to have to "agree to disagree" about Bessler's wheels using "inner" and "outer" wheels. Anyway, congrats on your marriage proposal being accepted in the German woods. They are really beautiful and certainly conducive to "popping the question".

2. Hi Ã˜ystein

It seems that the principle you have found and the graphic objects I have found are pointing to a very similar design, in the graphics it indicates that the inner and outer sizes / diameters are of a special size. it gives me more confidence to carry on finding clues as these ideas are very similar.to what you are finding.

Terry

http://www.hdwallsource.com/beautiful-black-forest-wallpaper-30413.html

4. Ken as you know, I will not go into more detailed "discussions" with you because you seldom "digest" what you read. Bessler wrote specifically that there exist a way to use the mechanical constructions in MT14 (and others) in a working wheel, why?

You say MT14 is "totally unworkable", and so said I. you just need to digest what you read. We all know the machines in MT don`t work (basic knowledge). So MT 10 and 18 won`t work, but you say they are important! If I reason like you, I would say: Ken, MT10 and 18 are totally unworkable..

So, what does MT14 include, what mechanical principles?

- Sliders from left side to right side.
- Interconnections.
- Inner and outer systems.

NB! If this is true, Johns idea of 5 or 7 bumps (and mechanisms) has no meaning, as mechanisms always would come in pairs!

5. Just because Bessler suggests that a particular MT design could be make "workable" really means nothing until and unless he actually tried to apply his connectedness principle to that design to see if it could be made workable. Yes, I do agree that MT 10 and 18, as shown, are unworkable. However, I am more concerned with what he says in the notes to those two illustrations. Those notes hint at the approach he used. In MT 10 he says the "principle" is good, but implies that it will not work without a different lever design and different arrangement of ropes. In MT 18 we are told not to dismiss the use of spring tension in lifting the weights back to their rim stops. He says he will discuss this in more detail in the appropriate place which I interpret as the section of MT where he reveals the design he found that actually did work but which was destroyed after his arrest. So, I have no doubt that spring tension plays a very important role in the operation of his wheels.

That quote about the weights "coming in pairs" is often used to "prove" that Bessler's wheels had to be symmetrical and, obviously, that means they contained an even number of weight carrying levers. One might expect me to jump on this and then say it is further evidence for the 8 lever wheel designs I work with. However, I will not do that since I believe there is enough evidence for the use of 8 levers in other quotes and illustrations. I believe that the word "pair" here actually may refer to the use of two weights at the ends of each lever! If that is the case, then it would allow for the use of a wheel with 5 or 7 levers. Everyone will seize upon the quotes, whether accurate or not, that supports his "pet" theory. But, in the end only a correct theory will lead to a working wheel. I wish I had a crystal ball so that I could see what will be discussed on this blog a year from now...assuming, of course, that it is still in operation. Hopefully, we will have "the" solution by then.

6. V1

"Design of my machine is analogues to world system. I have put eight heavy weights in my machine,
which represents eight planets of our world. The large axle of my machine represents the sun.
Heavy weights in my machine encircle around the axle to form an elliptical path, in the similar manner,
as planets encircle around the sun...." Bessler (Ramananda, "Dialogues at the Castle of Weissenstein")

Questions from here ..:
Why here Bessler talk about "8 weights"!? Because Bessler really said so, or is there some miss translation.. or something else?! How Bessler know it own time (18 th century) that there is 8 planets!? This time scientiffic world know´s only 6 planets only!! Mercury, venus, Earth, Mars, Jupiter and Saturn. Thus, Earth became included in the list of planets, whereas the Sun and Moon were excluded. Uranus was discovered in 1781 and "so called 8 planet Pluto" in 1930. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planet)
From "where" other 2 planets (weights) is coming to Bessler wheel? Are those planets sun and moon!?! I think not, because Sun is "large axle" in B. wheel and moon WAS NOT planet. All known moons of Jupiter and Saturn was named mostly satelites, in that time. Because of knowing that there is 8 planets, is Bessler because of that maybe quest from future or maybe have been contacted with "external mind" (God, Extraterrestial ...). From where B. knows real planets situation!? Or is there miss translation ... and this maybe made by purpoose..!? But why? Or is this a Bessler "joke", to misslead real amount of weights inside the wheel!? Who exactly is Ramananda and from witch script it takes those words?!! Have someone verifyed those sayngs!?
OK. there is also documented, where one witness say that "..he heard falling of 8 weights in one revolution ..". My question here is, how to hear correctly falling weights? How it was done, at this test, and how it was described in this document?! Was this witness destimonial made before or after Bessler sayng "...I have put eight heaevy weights ...". Was this wheel uni or bi directional? How to measure, in real life, when wheel turns about 30...50 rotation per minute, all needed 8 "falls" per rotation? This mean need to hear in 1,2 ...2 seconds totally 8 "loud sounds" ... minimum 4 "cliks" per second!?! This is quite quick. Also, was there all sounds sound like same continious "clik-click-click-click..." or was there heard "click-clack-click-clack..." !?! Shortly , was there little difference between falling sounds? Here will be finally big difference when there was/is difference between the sounds...

Eastlander

1. I think Bessler used 8 weights because that then caused his system of weighted levers to return to their starting orientations every 45 degrees and also kept the number of levers he had to install in the drum to the minimum. Maybe he could have done it with only 6 levers, but, then again, maybe that number does not allow the levers to shift smoothly enough. 8 is also an important number in numerology and suggests perfection and completeness; meanings Bessler would have been familiar with. Counting off 8 impact sounds during a single wheel rotation is not that difficult, but it requires that the person doing the counting know when a particular wheel rotation has started and when it ends. Most likely, those doing the counting found something, perhaps a seam, near the drum's outer rim and used that as a marker to keep track of when a single rotation had ended as they counted off the impact sounds coming from inside the rotating drum.

2. "I think Bessler used 8 weights because that then caused his system of weighted levers to return to their starting orientations every 45 degrees and also kept the number of levers he had to install in the drum to the minimum. . . ." - Ken Behrendt (- -N & N)

DO you!

Some nice prejudice and guesswork as based on surmise all hooked to, what?, one report coming through to us from antient tymes? (Or, was there a second, and, I do recall that it came complete with an "about" or "around" or "near" and certainly NOT an "exactly"? Details, details, details!)

Bessler very much was an "as above . . . so below" sorta chap.

One will not get THERE on an "eight" however will go like his pendulums DID elsewhere - perpetually!

Cheers!

James (N & N)

3. Eastlander, I should take some of what is attributed to Bessler on the web site you acknowledged as (Ramananda, "Dialogues at the Castle of Weissenstein") as merely his own interpretations of what he thinks Bessler was thinking. Much of it is completely undocumented elsewhere.

Even the reported 'sound of about eight weights falling on the side toward which the wheel turned', has been also reported as 7 or 8..

Bessler never stated the number of weights he used.

Without wishing to cast aspersions on the Ramada web site, I suggest you read it, enjoy it and forget it.

JC

4. I confess I'm puzzled at this constant reference to eight weights, when doubt has been raised about the accuracy of that number - and also because this was a two-way turning wheel and surely people are not trying to build a two way wheel before they've managed a simpler one-way version, in which case the seven or eight weights or even 5 might or might not be the correct assumption. b

Since Bessler never said how many weight there were in his machine, and has hinted extensively at the number 5, 5 seems not just as likely as 7 or 8, but far more likely.

JC

5. I copy/paste my last comment as it applies to you thought of 7 bumps, and that 1 bump = 1 mechanism. (5 or 7).

Since Bessler write that MT 14 can be used, I have made the following notes:

- Sliders from left side to right side.
- Interconnections.
- Inner and outer systems.

NB! If this is true, your idea of 5 or 7 bumps (and mechanisms) has no meaning, as mechanisms or weights always would come in pairs!

This is as far as I will go.

6. I'm almost amazed that there is so much contention about how many sounds issued from Bessler's wheels. This is a perfect example of the near total confusion that reigns in this subject. Consider the following quote concerning the Merseberg whee from the Leipzig Post Zeitungen published in June of 1715:

"To demonstrate its effectiveness, four stampers of considerable weight have now been attached. They are lifted by means of eight cams fixed to the shaft, and at each revolution they are lifted twice."

Bessler probably arranged the cams on the wheels axle so that they began lifting a stamp at the exact instant that the arrangement inside of his wheel's drum had just reset itself to the orientation it had at the beginning of each 45 degree segment of drum rotation. If the center of mass of the eight weights and levers inside of one of the two one directional wheels driving the Merseberg wheel tended to move around during each of the 45 degree segment of drum rotation (I've noted this wandering effect in many of the model wheels I've worked with), then it may have been as far, horizontally, from center of the axle at the beginning of each segment and at that time the axle torque would have been maximum. That is the precise time that one would want to be applying a load (the weight of the stamper) to the axle and that is why Bessler put eight cams or pegs on the axle which were arranged in four sets to two diametrically opposed cams. One of those cams would have been just grabbing a stamper at that instant. This arrangement is clearly visible in the diagram of the Merseberg wheel he published.

Other than eight levers in his wheels? Very highly unlikely, imo.

7. V3

... if there was difference in example 8 sounds, then this lead to different weights in inner mechanism. Why!? Here all talks only about falling weights (click-click-click ...). My thoughts here are, maybe half of sounds came from upgoing weights (click - clack - click -clack...). This mean 8 weights is wrong then, there must be 4 or 5 weights in wheel. The weights must go up also in some point and somehow. Why not "half" of sounds coming from this "liftings" of weights instead!?

Eastlander

8. Surely we can all agree that Bessler's wheel contained an even number of weights?

He said very clearly "Weights are arranged in pairs, such that as one weight moves closer to the axle the other moves further away from it"

And surely we could also all agree that the fundamental construction is that of crossbars (self-overbalancing beams) because Bessler said "if I have just one crossbar, it revolves very slowly, however if I have several such crossbars in the machine it revolves much faster"

The number of pairs of weights on a 'crossbar' is less clear from what he said, however two pairs seems likely to me, bearing in mind his statement "four weights can be raised as easily as one"

1. Well, if there was only one weight attached to a lever and there were an odd number of levers, then that would mean that there were also an odd number of weights in a wheel. Also, I think like many others, you are making the erroneous assumption that Bessler's mentioning of "crossbars" refers to something inside of the drums of his wheels. I, however, do not think this is the case. Those "crossbars" may refer to the axles of pulleys that were arranged on some sort of external overhead pulley system that he used to multiply the lifting force from a rope wrapped around his wheels' axles. With only one crossbar, the axle has the full load of a weight applied to the rope wrapped around the axle and the resulting drag on the axle causes the wheel to rotate slowly. By using more crossbars or pulleys, only a fraction of an external weight's mass is applied to the axle and, as a consequence, the axle and the wheel will turn more rapidly. There is a quote made by an examiner of the Merseberg wheel in which he states that it could only continuously lift a 60 lb weight when the rope from the weight to the axle was passed through some sort of pulley system that increased the lifting power of the axle by a factor of more than four times.

Some bad news this morning. I thoroughly tested model #1149 and only achieved failure with it. The problem remains that single 6:00 o'clock lever which does not part company with its rim stop as soon as it passes the 6:00 o'clock position of the drum. That delay immediately causes the center of mass of the wheel's weights and levers to begin dropping or actually swinging toward a position directly below the axle as the axle's torque drops to zero.

All looked hopeless to only an hour or so ago when, suddenly and quite unexpectedly, a possible solution to this apparently unsolvable problem presented itself. Fortunately, it only requires a slight modification in my present design. I need to think about it a little more, but I'm fairly sure I'll be trying it in another day or so. I'm either extremely close to a solution or a million miles away. Time will tell.

2. Ken,

Here is the passage concerning the crossbars (AP p340);

If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in the machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself at all, but, on the contrary, when I arrange several bars, pulleys and weights, the machine can revolve much faster, and throw Wagner's calculations clean out of the window!

It is the phrase "crossbar in the machine" that has made me think there may be crossbars in the machine!
How did you get from "crossbar in the machine" to your conclusion that Bessler is referring to "some sort of external overhead pulley system that he used to multiply the lifting force from a rope wrapped around his wheels' axles"?

3. You are assuming that when Bessler wrote:"cross bar in the machine" he meant that the cross bar was actually inside of the wheel's drum. I think that by "machine", Bessler meant the wheel's drum, its external axle, the vertical uprights, and anything attached to the axle or even near it. I believe that this quote has not been properly translated and that a better and more accurate translation should have been "If I arrange to use just one crossbar with my machine...." which would more accurately depict it as external to the drum.

9. This morning's modeling effort was very disappointing. I was excited to try my "new approach" and by the time I finished testing model #1152, it was painfully obvious that it didn't have a prayer of working. I actually raised the spring constant to 4000 lbs per inch for the Merseberg version and could not keep the imbalanced collection of interconnected levers from collapsing toward the wheel's ascendings side. At that point I had had enough. So, now I'm back to model #1149 which looks like should work, but does not. I'm going to have to study it more thoroughly to see if there is another alternative way to make it workable that uses far lower spring constants. It's pure torture to think you might actually have "it", but there's one little glitch in the design that needs to be corrected before it will run. Well, that comes with the territory and one just has to accept it if he is serious about solving the Bessler mystery.

10. This is not good news but, at least things are fast-progressing toward that very magical #1200 that many so-look forward to.

What happened to the in-between ones, K.B., namely wheels #1150 and #1151? Are these in-process between the others?

"It's pure torture to think you might actually have "it", but there's one little glitch in the design that needs to be corrected before it will run."

I'd have no argument with this one and, yes, 'tis always that little glitchy thing that so naughtily intrudes upon Gloire Triumphante, that and riches, riches, riches!

Personally speaking, I've only ever had but ONE wheel. It is still undergoing (enjoying) my loving attentions.

"Well, fine, BUT has the singly little thing yet yielded any results past still?" as some very few interested here might inquire?

To which I would respond with dutifully:

"THAT would be telling?!!", just like No. 6 to No. 2.

And it would.

And so I won't.

James

11. # 1150 was a stripped down version of # 1149 which I decided to make into a "source" wheel, a sort of template to be used, with various modifications, to make future models. One of those variations was # 1151 and it failed. Then I had my bright idea and made another one, # 1152, using the template, # 1150, which required an additional and never previously tried attachment point be added to the levers...all 8 of them. That model, # 1152, was the big disappointment that I referred to in my last post. It was a real dead end even though in my imagination it made some sense. Shows how much one can trust his imagination!

With only 48 models left to go before I reach my limit as to how far I will pursue the ghost of Bessler's wheels, I will try to increase my efforts somewhat. Already I have an idea which will be to return to my last model which "almost" worked the best and then see if I can get it operational. There is only one way I can see this being done which is to concentrate on the interaction that takes place between the 6:00 o'clock and 7:30 levers as the wheel rotates through 45 degrees. That single interaction seems to be the "bottleneck" that is preventing my design from keeping the center of mass of its weights and levers on the descending side during rotation. If I can not get that problem solved, then I will have to accept defeat and my decades of research into this subject will have been for nought. Yes, it's a very depressing potential fate, indeed, but one which, absent a final generally acceptable solution, awaits all who try to solve the Bessler wheel mystery...if they do not drop dead before it happens, of course!

12. An interesting history.

Even if not getting one to run, I am sure you will take the Grand Award for Best Effort.

"Better to have tried and failed than not and succeeded."

(I, myself, have one thousand one hundred and ninety nine to go.)

Similarly to Letterman's last show, I am sure we will all be keeping a sharp eye on those 48 remaining.

J.

13. Dear John and all Bessler Fans,

Its been along time coming but I am now bringing together an international organisation to create a well supported, well funded and well organised research & development company whose sole aim will be to recreate the Bessler wheel.
So, if you are a researcher or engineer, please feel free to get in contact with me if you wish to join the organisation.
Obviously we can all stay in our sheds/garages slogging away, hoping to succeed BUT I think the Bessler wheel deserves much more than this. It deserves its own dedicated, well funded research and development programme.
its about time people got together to work at this - a joint effort.
The quicker we do this, Im convinced that the quicker we will solve the mystery.We crack this, there will be fame and fortune (if thats what you want) but we will have done a whole lot of good for the environment too.
I think it will be a tragedy if individuals went to their grave, and their own research was the missing link to another man's research and had the 2 worked together, there would have been success.
If you wish to be involved, please email me
MrJamesFowles@gmail.com
Thank you

1. I sent you an email so that you can contact me privately, JF. However, while your idea of a well funded organisation to finally crack the secret of Bessler's wheels is certainly a nice one, I think that there have been numerous attempts at things like this in the past. All eventually failed because of a lack of a working design to build. However, if I do finally manage to find a design that works, what you propose certainly sounds like a good way to get a working physical model made as soon as possible and thereby verify the reality of the design I had found. I would certainly be interested in something like that.

2. Thank you.

3. And what, Mr. Fowles, will you pay for a Bessler Wheel already DONE and GOING???

The amount, please. How much??? (In Swiss Francs, not British Pounds.)

Thanks,

James

4. Hi James,
Can you please send me an email like all others have if you are interested
Sincere thanks
James

14. Okay, I started model # 1153 this morning and, so far, it's showing the 9:00 o'clock lever going to 10:30 "in a flash" just like Bessler said his wheels' levers did. However, it only does this so long as the 6:00 o'clock lever going to 7:30 is not interconnected with the other 7 levers. Now my focus will be solely on the interconnections between the 6:00 and 7:30 levers. If I can get that right (with the help of the DT portrait clues, of course), then the design should work. Time will tell,

Yes, it's really a frustrating situation I'm in. Basically, I have all of the internal mechanics of Bessler's wheels except for this one little remaining area which, I believe, is the last obstacle the reverse engineer must overcome if he is to finally be able to say the mystery has been solved. Somehow, I have the feeling that this is the way Bessler planned the whole thing. He gives you a set of various lever connections points, weight masses, and spring constants and it's then up to you to sort through the collection and find the ones that work. I think he wanted any future reverse engineer to work just as hard as he did to find the secret! However, in a sense I am cheating because he couldn't have anticipated that future reverse engineers would have access to computers and simulation software.

1. So, matters are proceeding apace and will climax, most likely, with the #1200th being THE operating one and finally, given the Smile of Providence as expected, we will have arrived at Glory Itself !!

If meant to be by the sister Fates (and all other lesser interested parties onlooking) then to this I say

SO-BE-IT

Yes, "We shall see . . ."

James

2. Yes, I am really hoping for final success before I hit the 1200th model. I started working on the remaining obstacle in my design this morning and made a little initial progress. At first sight what I need to do looks absolutely impossible and violates every thing I know about the mechanics of levers. Yet, if my design so far is correct (and I am certain it is), then Bessler had to find a way to do the apparently impossible in this one remaining region of the wheel's design. And, what he found that worked had to be "simple". Well, I'll keep poking around with it. I'm starting to realize that there is another way to stretch a spring and that all of my previous failed designs were, apparently, not using it. Bessler's wheels, however, were!

15. I managed to complete model #1153 earlier this morning and found a very interesting way to interconnect my 6:00 and 7:30 levers. Unfortunately, I did not have enough time to full test the wheel, but, if it works, it will be fairly simple and, as usual for everything I try, only uses weights, levers, ropes, and springs. The "bad" news is that it is also a design that depends upon a total of 56 coordinating ropes for a single one directional wheel. That is certainly more than I would like, but they are manageable as long as they are broken up into sets that are confined each to their own "layer" within the drum. This assures that no two ropes will touch each other as the drum rotates and coordinated shifting of its eight levers begins to take place. Fortunately, at any moment during drum rotation only a fraction of the ropes are actually "in use" which means that they get tight and thereby coordinate the shifting of two adjacent levers. If the "shot in the dark" rope configuration I came up with this morning does not work, then there are several others that are also possible candidates. I will, if # 1153 fails, have to try each one of them. I spent about a half hour working on my present design using wm2d, but, if I had to set up a physical prototype in the shop, it would have taken several hours. This is why I always try to encourage Bessler wheel reverse engineers out there to use simulation software if possible: they turn hours into minutes and days into hours.

1. "...I always try to encourage Bessler wheel reverse engineers out there to use simulation software if possible..."

Great idea assuming the simulation software allows for OU results. Lets hope this is the case, otherwise you could have found the solution a long time ago only to be mislead by software programmed to obey the laws and principles of physics as we understand them to be.

2. Wm2d will show a net torque acting on a rotating object and causing it to continuously accelerate. That is sufficient to prove a particular glitch free model is, indeed, displaying the pm effect. Also, it is important to remember that nothing Bessler invented was actually disobeying any of our currently known laws of physics. The mechanical energy his wheels outputted did not come out of nowhere. It was "paid for" by a equivalent loss of mass of a wheel's weights and levers. Thus, his wheels were obeying the Law of Conservation of Energy - Mass which was not fully appreciated until the beginning of the 20th century. If anyone out there seriously wants to get some real results with an overbalanced pm wheel design, the use of simulation software will maximize the probability of that happening in his / her lifetime. No guarantees, of course, because even when one cheats with this approach, he will still have to work his tail off. I speak from personal experience about that fact!

3. " The mechanical energy his wheels outputted did not come out of nowhere. It was "paid for" by a equivalent loss of mass of a wheel's weights and levers."

Interesting idea Ken. I certainly can't disprove it but I find it difficult to image. Bessler's one-way wheels were overbalanced and self starters. I would image some investigator held on to the wheel allowing it to start turning slowly, feeling for any irregularities or pulses in torque. This probably could go on forever, so a very slowly turning wheel is supposed to lose mass and convert that mass to energy how? As I said I can't disprove your assertion, and I know of no existing theory or observed phenomenon that would lend credence this idea. Good luck to you though. Until the mystery is solved, nothing can be ruled out.

4. "This probably could go on forever, so a very slowly turning wheel is supposed to lose mass and convert that mass to energy how?"

The process might not go on forever. At some point the in the distant future, all of the mass of the wheel's weights and levers would have been drained off and outputted as mechanical energy. At that point the center of mass of the wheel would just be determined by the mass of its stationary (with respect to the axle) parts and would be at the center of the axle. There would be no offset center of mass and no net torque acting on the axle. How is mass "converted" to energy? Mass is already energy and does not need to be "converted" into energy. As one of Bessler's wheels outputted mechanical energy, the mass of its moving parts would just slowly simultaneously diminish. Remember that whenever one increases the mass of a system, he also increases its energy. And, whenever he increases the energy of a system, he also increases its mass. The two are always simultaneously added or subtracted from a system together. This is because they are actually the same thing although we call them by different names and use different units to measure them. Once these physics concepts from the early 20th century are understood and accepted as real, explaining Bessler's imbalanced pm wheels or any pm device becomes an easy matter.

5. I agree with the mass/energy equivalence, but do you know of any real world examples of this conversion - something we can grasp and experience for ourselves, other than an atomic explosion of course.

There is the Ed Leedskalnin thing but I think that was due to magnetism and so it may not have been part of the Bessler wheel, even though the technology pre-dated Bessler.

Further, I suggest you pad each of your builds with more thought and experimentation so as to extend the 1200 model through 2020. Misery loves company and it will surely be a sad day when your posts go silent.

16. Well, K.B., I must admit that yours would be the most elegant possible explanation for a B-W's operation.

What I cannot understand is how you propose that this conversion might happen on an atomic level, by the means of falling and rising repeatedly.

It would be really nice to know that a heap of rocks might power one's home for a hundred thousand years.

As just a guess, what might be the rate and time of such a dissipation cycle? .

- James

1. A long time ago on a free energy website far, far away, I once did a calculation for the Merseberg wheel's maximum "run time" assuming that it was freely running at its maximum speed. According to the calculations, using 4 lb weights, the wheel would be able to run for several billion years before all of the energy in its weights was dissipated and they became massless. If the wheel was performing significant work as it ran, then that maximum run time would be reduced to the range of tens to hundreds of millions of years. All of these projected run times assumed, of course, that the wheel was routinely maintained so that any parts (other than the weights and their levers) such as bearings, ropes, and springs were replaced whenever they wore out from "wear and tear".

2. Well thanks for filling that in. It would be interesting to examine a weight having no longer any mass. Perhaps it would have become transparent.

It seems to me but another case of Voodoo Physics, honestly. Also (and rather more meaningfully) for Vibrator your theory seems to not get much traction as well.

I'll take: 'Energy Appears From Nowhere' Now, THAT would put a nice kink in the Physicist Drivel Tube.

J.

3. Oh, and Something Coming From Nothing is not "voodoo physics"?! If one makes that assumption, then he might as well say Bessler's wheels worked via magic and not mechanics. It's sort of the secular version of those that think his wheels were animated by angels, demons, or poltergeists. Heavens, we need a solution to this mystery and we need it soon!

4. Aha!

Your soft underbelly now lays self-exposed!

I always suspected this.

Cheekily, you ask the question: "Oh, and Something Coming From Nothing is not "voodoo physics"?!" - Ken Behrendt (- - -N & N)

No. Absolutely there would be no aspect whatever of voodoo about it. It would just 'be' and confound you life and reality lovers until you slit your wrists or, come to be right with actual necessity. (As distinguished from Necessity - the uniformly deadly enemy of Law but, you don't want to have 'knowledge' of that, do you? You are not alone. Most are bone heads and like professing wonderment at untoward, ugly happenings rather than understanding and applying remediations before the fact. Typical.)

What "assumption"?

It was a proposition that it might, if observed manifesting in such a way.

FACT:

Not you nor I or anyone else KNOWS that Bessler's wheels were NOT ". . . animated by angels, demons, or poltergeists," or by the presence of the pure Will of God, for that matter.

In the authentic sense of the word, we 'know' what we experience, all the rest being but the usually removed-by-many-steps reportage of others for better or worse, usually the latter. (A lab experiment, for instance, as personally successfully produced or reproduced, constitutes "sure knowledge" about which one could testify under oath in a law or equity court, all else not of that order qualifying as mere 'belief' corresponding to a some factor of certitude or other (usually of lower quality as talk and blather are cheap, as you yourself demonstrate here amply, with reliable consistency).

"Heavens, we need a solution to this mystery and we need it soon!"

Heavens?

Odd choice of exclamation for you, young man.

Sorry, old buddy, but that Big Test humanity FAILED FOR GREED, lo those long three centuries ago and so, we got the Devil's Power: NUCLEAR! (Smart monkeys!)

You think you had probs with mere mercury in your sea chicken??? Ha! Soon enough it is to be bio-accumulating radio active cesium or some-such, or, for the truly unlucky, an inhaled plutonium atom or two, then . . . 'pathetic life show o-v-e-r' in weeks!

Indeed, if that ONE individual had but parted with a mere 20,000 L. three centuries ago, very likely it would be, that there would have been no need for such a provably absolutely deadly energy source, as is now poisoning our planet and all it's creatures. Come on over and take a swim in the Pacific. Got the nerve? Plus, there are dozens of others near YOU just ready to go bad due merely to aging! Just as I said.

It's TOO LATE, understand???

We FAILED the big test long ago! Now it is to be only lamenting of the fact, that and weeping.

J.

17. Every 6th grade science student learns that energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change form. The implication of this is, of course, that the universe, which is just an infinite amount of energy and its "condensed" form mass, must always have existed and can never perish. It did not depend upon an eternal God for its creation and it will not be destroyed by a displeased eternal God. Modern science (and an ever growing percentage of the world's population) has dispensed with the deity. They want things that work like science and technology. One need no longer run to his local church for a sensory experience of candles, incense, chanting, and magical Latin language. He can simply turn on his latest tablet and see all sorts of flashing images, stereo music, and fascinating movies. Silicon Valley is slowly replacing all of the anachronistic religions! You can be sure that when Count Karl inspected the interior of Bessler's prototype wheel he did not find an angel, demon, or poltergeist inside of it. He coughed up the 4,000 deutschthalers because he saw a mechanism that he immediately realized was doing exactly what Bessler claimed it would: maintain the center of mass of its weights and levers on the wheel's descending side during rotation and thereby provide continuous motion. My "soft underbelly" is a lot tougher than it appears to be!

18. "Modern science (and an ever growing percentage of the world's population) has dispensed with the deity." - K.B.

Charming!

Now we are getting somewhere . . .

"My "soft underbelly" is a lot tougher than it appears to be!" - K.B.

It may be the case as you say or not but, at least one of it's more interesting aspects is now known, and can be examined.

"Every 6th grade science student learns that energy can neither be created nor destroyed." - K.B.

Even though never having witnessed such a teaching myself, yes, I can believe they are taught it but, could any of then, after having received such "knowledge," prove for it?

Might it be proved to them?

Again the correct answer being 'no'.

Could YOU prove it to them or to me?

Not likely.

You see it is really tough, so I hear, to prove for negatives; that things or whatevers do not in fact exist. This is why assertions that there is no this or no that or the other simply do not work. It is because they cannot, being not knowledge but rather, just hearsay of one degree of believability or another.

They are faith-based acceptions, just like the ones you and the impudent conceited plague of so many that are like you, do operate within. Just as it is with religious faithers themselves, you and yours can prove nothing but the presence of belief of one quality or another, but never ever to 100% certitude so as to constitute any evidence that would be acceptable to judges while under oath. THIS is the test for workable, rational knowing. Pass or fail? That simple.

(Once again, so handy for checking is the under-oath court testimony example. I would suggest that you learn of it's utility and consider adopting it for handy use.)

It it really, really rough, being a down-the-nose viewing atheist operating from high places, as it all is just so much belief.

The great difference between the two feuding opponents is that the mystics do not deny that much of the realm they entertain is faith-based, whereas the snarling atheist pack MUST or perish argumentatively! This is a very great difference existing, and needing to assert that it is not the case actually, and then to work to prove for that, is rough.

The mystics have a far easier time of it . . . except for when having to confront the likes of yourself and your defective, destructive hearts which will and do argue and work in ways deceptive as well as beguiling.

"By their fruits ye shall know them."

You and yours and such ways are known well. The work of your hard-working predecessors also . . .

When official atheism was established as the new belief system in Soviet Russia thereby "replacing" God Almighty, they then proceeded upon an fantastic, gigantic orgy of murder, getting about 60,000,000 mostly Christians. Such is the legacy of this kind of mega-hatred. (In myself these and their like or mere similars even, will not find any ready friend.)

Your seeming hate for those that have faith-capacity is noted duly. Others' too. Perhaps it is merely a matter of your objecting to religious organizations and the nonsense and mal-behavior that they do and have sponsored. Might it be this simple or, is it a matter of some seething, reeking pathology that you battle?

Reasonably, I would expect that you and ones like you would harbor massive contempt for Bessler excepting, of course, for that of his which you and yours SO-COVET. Well, try as you might, you will not be allowed it. (This is a guarantee. Mark my words as of here and now.)

-J.

"The Iconoclast, like the other mills of God, grinds slowly, but it grinds exceedingly small." - Brann

". . . Brann was a journalist known for the articulate savagery of his writing. . . ." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Cowper_Brann

19. You seem a bit hung up on the word "proof". Ultimately, in life we never really "prove" anything. We simply begin to accept it because it seems to work and does not bring us into too much conflict with reality. Energy and its equivalent mass have, so far, always seemed to be conserved during their various transformations and no one has ever observed or measured them suddenly coming into existence or going out of existence. Bessler's wheels did output measurable amounts of energy and, if sufficiently sensitive instrumentation was available, measurable amounts of mass. I have zero doubt that, after one of his wheels had outputted, say, a single picogram of mass and its equivalent energy content, a carefully measurement of the weights and levers inside of the wheel would have shown it was then missing a single picogram of mass. Denying reality never makes it go away...at least not permanently.

20. But, when it IS working and free-running on it's own, can it DO work? Blow air. generate electricity, Pump air,... My experience is that once running and perfect, you add asnything to it (to perform a useable 'task' and it STOPS running.