Monday, 18 April 2016

You need a working wheel or enough of the mechanism to show how it works.

When Johann Bessler exhibited his wheel for the first time in Gera, Germany, 6th June 1712, he had worked out in his own mind that all he had to do was provide some evidence that his wheel was genuine and the rest would follow - money, fame etc.

The next few years proved his optimism was seriously undeserved.  No one was sufficiently persuaded of his claims to make an outright payment in full without seeing for himself that the wheel was genuine. 

Gottfired Leibniz tried to guide him by suggesting several tests which would add weight to his claims by being difficult if not impossible to fake.  They included translocation to a different set of wheel supports; lifting as high as possible a heavy load; driving an archimedes screw; a long endurance test under guard, lock and key and seal - and most importantly, if he could bring himself to allow it, the public confirmation by a well-respected person, of the genuiness of his wheel, by revealing the internal workings for his close inspection.

All these requirement were eventually carried out, but still no buyer could be found who was not prepared to pay up without first assuring himself that the device was real by looking inside it.

This sounds depressing and we may feel sorry for Bessler, but there is good reason to suspect that exactly the same response or lack of response would follow similar claims today.  You might think think that a patent would be proof enough, but consider how many hundreds of perpetual motion machine designs have been registered with various patent offices over the last few hundred years and you can see that a patent proves nothing even if it might offer some limited protection against competition.

The only answer, it seems to me, is to reveal the design within a video of a working model; a full explanation will need to accompany the video - or find that reputable person, like Karl the Landgrave, who will verify your wheel. But you still need that working model, I know, I'm in that situation now.

There is one more possibility to my mind and it is this.  There must be a configuration within your wheel which will demonstrate how the mechanism works, without having to complete a whole wheel.  The weights which fall have to be returned to where they started from at least once in each turn of the wheel, and your mechanism must be able to demonstrate how that can be achieved, and that is the route I intend taking once I get my workshop back.

JC

52 comments:

  1. John, please tell me why just one mechanism in your wheel wouldn't rotate your wheel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Two reason justsomeone; first I never ran a test with just one because I knew one wouldn't do it, and secondly because I know it would take five to do the job most efficiently. There is a third reason which I won't go into.

      JC

      Delete
  2. Bessler said:'the weights themselves were the perpetual motion devices'; its all in the co-ordination.

    ReplyDelete
  3. If the wheel was spinning in front of the majority of people they will believe its a Scam.

    Regarding patents, Orffyreus done everything he could to protect he's wheel, so if patent laws were about he would of patent it. Why do people like Dyson spend millions on patents?

    And last but not least, I wish you all the best with your wheel.

    ReplyDelete
  4. A modern inventor will face even more problems in proving a wheel genuine, than Bessler did. In his time, there were no high-density energy storage devices like supercapacitors, that could be hidden along with a small powerful electric motor somewhere in a wheel, and no such thing as wireless power transfer, that we have now.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "There is one more possibility to my mind and it is this. There must be a configuration within your wheel which will demonstrate how the mechanism works, without having to complete a whole wheel. The weights which fall have to be returned to where they started from at least once in each turn of the wheel, and your mechanism must be able to demonstrate how that can be achieved, and that is the route I intend taking once I get my workshop back."

    John, what route were you taking before, when you were last building, if not your above statement? Perhaps a COG shift?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I was trying to build the complete wheel, then I realised that I first needed to prove the mechanism did what it was supposed to do when it was supposed to do it.

      JC

      Delete
    2. Can you build it yourself or do you need a precision engineer?

      Delete
  6. I AM interested in whom this person of indisputable integrity might be..... I believe Bessler tried everything short of showing the mechanism and it was still not enough, what is a fellow to do?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good question, Gravitas. I used someone who is well-known, and respected, but of course without a working wheel to examine, he could not verify anything. There are people who be pleased to help.

      JC

      Delete
  7. These days we have media like tv and the matter would spread like wildfire. But the problem is that no one seems to have the actual wheel design. There is only one unique design and this is the most tricky part which unfortunately, is not realised by many. One sure way to protect the invention would be to form a proper pact by similar minded guys and work out the rest...

    ReplyDelete

  8. "The only answer, it seems to me, is to reveal the design within a video of a working model; a full explanation will need to accompany the video - or find that reputable person, like Karl the Landgrave, who will verify your wheel. But you still need that working model, I know, I'm in that situation now." - John Collins

    These are all so, the operating product being the 'bigee' of course.

    Given that, let's not forget 'crowd funding'?

    I suspect that the Crowd might be far less concerned with parting with ten dollars or so, than some one individual with millions.

    That said, there are those that understand better than any others ever could, the true value that lays WITHIN-A-SECRET kept. (Might any have a slim idea as to where I am headed with this?)

    I think that a good and right payment sans telling all, could be had but, that one proviso a prelude has so-far eluded all. (But . . . I suspect Trevor D. may have a nice surprise for us any day now.)

    Perpetually, we keep coming back to this pesky reality.

    J.

    PS Congrats, Suresh, on joining the Living Visage Club. Any others, or is it to be the in-hiding forever scene, just taping away??? (Having an avatar of one's actual appearance acts as a credibility multiplier, I believe, the various vexing anonymous' being without any, essentially.)

    ReplyDelete
  9. When Bessler's said that the weights were the essential part of his wheel, was he referring to many weights in one wheel, or many wheels with one weight? Because he built many wheels, but he doesn't specify how many weights were used.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes! there is many weights in one wheel, not vice versa.
      There must be used even number of weights. In one wheel there may be minimum 4 weights, max. is 10. But I prefer max. 8 weights per wheel, because then there is more room for weights exercise. This amount and setup is also shown in one specific, very very similarly designed, Bessler drawing.
      I tested and know that John theory about five mechanism is also correct (max 10), but I do not know exact details how all his wheel is build up.
      Hope that soon will all know about this and all is correct. "k.i.v.i k.o.t.t.i."

      There is possible to manage easily that wheel start to rotate to other direction also, this directly from this unidirectional wheel. Need only relocate "teacher" type of levers to other position in wheel!
      Have not jet found the way to do replicate that automatically.

      All the best, specially to You John in you moving and in Your future tests.


      Eastlander

      Delete
  10. Thanks to all, I have a few inner circle friends that come to mind of a person which the similar character of Karl, and bring in a certified engineer for a professional opinion. The media thing sounds awful..... but when the problem is solved we, who believe, will all rejoice in its revelation to a planet that desperately needs a cure to its carbon footprint

    ReplyDelete
  11. It seems to me that the most sure-fire way to prove the genuineness of one's machine would be to publish, along with your video, plans that everyone with at least some mechanical aptitude would be able to duplicate. Be it full scale, or tabletop size. Then they could see for themselves that your machine actually does perform as you claim. This would also give you the best chance at circumventing government and/or big business suppression.

    IMHO - Those plans need to be free of charge. Else, you won't be taken seriously.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "It seems to me that the most sure-fire way to prove the genuineness of one's machine would be to publish, along with your video, plans that everyone with at least some mechanical aptitude would be able to duplicate." - Mark

      Does it???

      Yes, this is certainly understandable as in 'just GIVE IT away'!

      Got it!

      Then you assert thus: "IMHO - Those plans need to be free of charge. Else, you won't be taken seriously." - Mark

      Really?

      Strangely, Mark, I had always been taught and experienced subsequently that 'people' generally do not value much at all what they do not labor-for in some way. Things or efforts that are merely dropped into laps unsolicited, are most usually regarded as being only so many pearls of some price to be stamped-upon by cloven hooves, unawares/indifferent.

      I do not buy your proposition, if I understand correctly what it is that you are actually selling?

      I aske: Might we not and forever keep-in-mind THE FACT that Johann took the greatest of pains in every way to assure that his great secret would be re-found only BY ONE WORTHY!!!

      (In this ever-worsening New World of falsely imagined "equality" of all things Human, which Nature does in every way possible FIGHT to make sure IT IS NOT, the concept of a "deserving worthiness" is now to be simply considered no-longer, seemingly. This consideration, for the sovereign ruling reason that I just stated, IS ONE BOGUS, and can exist actually/tangibly in Heaven only or, in Human contrary imaginations rejecting-of Nature's Rule and Dictate-absolute, in this realm we all occupy. These sorts will then too often attempt to make REAL by means of applied force [mainly statutory], what they have imagined.)

      Only The One Worthy will find the principle which Johann demonstrated symbolically when LEAPING TO HIS DEATH!!

      He sacrificed his mortality upon the very altar of HIS PRINCIPLE.

      NO, Mark, it is not be be just "given away," such a thing.

      Johann would have spat blood at the proposer of such an idea.

      I say let we humans PROVE our worthiness for any having of it, by parting with tangible, equal value for that received!!!

      This test originally our sons-a-bitches predecessors FAILED, lo those three centuries ago, and for want of a just few thousands of thalers! (Indeed a very expensive demonstration of "penny-wise, pound-foolish" cheap-hearted nonsense - the usual from us ever-grasping, ingratious human sorts.)

      We'll SEE what happens next, and observe if we have improved or not. (I would not bet many thalers pro- the proposition that we have!)

      James





      Delete
    2. You may be right James, and in fact although I agree with Mark about perhaps not being taken seriously unless it is available free, I can see a way around this in which it is free but one can also make a few pounds/dollars from a professional publication. The best of both worlds!

      JC

      Delete
    3. That's why I like you, James, you're a funny guy.

      I don't mind one bit that you use my post to keep honing the satirical pen with which you pose your witty prose. We certainly wouldn't want it getting dull from lack of practice. -wink-

      But, just in case you were serious... I will take the liberty of responding to your talking points.

      Giving away the details of the operational concept and the building plans of a working machine isn't really depriving someone of it's value or worth. They will likely receive great satisfaction upon having built it themselves. And keep in mind that the cost of said endeavor will be out of their own pocket. These things would give it some worth, I should think.
      I would certainly have no desire to be a Profiteer of the very people that would be validating the authenticity of my "impossible" machine.

      I was not aware that it's a fact that Bessler made sure that the secret will only be re-found by someone "worthy". It was my understanding that it would be by someone that had a discerning mind and could "see" in his writings and drawings, that which he saw - and created.
      Maybe that's splitting hairs?

      While making suicide look like an accident is one of the best ways of accomplishing the goal without making oneself appear to be a fool or loser, it is just as likely to me that he merely slipped on an early Winter's icy roof and fell to his death. Or, it could have been a case of someone up there with him; bumping, or outright shoving him, off his feet - and over the edge and down he went.
      Who knows for sure?

      With regards,
      Mark

      Delete
    4. John Collins wrote:
      "... I can see a way around this ..."

      Exactly!

      Delete
    5. Mark on 21 April 2016 at 09:07 wrote:

      "That's why I like you, James, you're a funny guy."

      Well, I do not believe that you do and, you yourself certainly are not.

      Your strong suit seems to be that of the disingenuous and weakest, attempted cleverness.

      SHOW yourself "Mark" . . .

      Delete
    6. OK John but, I thought I had presented a fairly decent argument con- the proposition thusly:

      ". . . I had always been taught and [have] experienced subsequently that 'people' generally do not value much at all what they do not labor-for in some way. Things or efforts that are merely dropped into laps unsolicited, are most usually regarded as being only so many pearls of some price to be stamped-upon by cloven hooves, unawares/indifferent."

      I must stand by this assessment as based upon long observation over a fair amount of lifetime.

      Really, can we not agree that such matters remain but academic ones until at least the arrival of The Thing itself? And, that we probably should not fuss to much about them greatly until?

      Sorry about my over-rhetorical tone and shouting last but, I am an emotional sort as well as cerebral-tending, and can and do get carried away. Petite moi does have his flaws, contrary to massive public opinion otherwise.

      James

      Delete
  12. Hi John,
    I would love to see you produce a working wheel, you sort through the clues and pick out which seams feasible to how you believe it works.
    Your blog is all about different ideas.
    You wrote -
    John Collins3 April 2016 at 13:38
    The wheel at the House of Richter was the 4.6 foot Gera wheel. No-one has described a three foot wheel Ken. Actually Bessler described the Gera wheel as a 5 foot wheel in Das Tri. We do know that the speed of the Merseberg wheel achieved full speed quickly, then-
    John Collins11 April 2016 at 07:15
    Thanks for your kind wished Uneqk. Ken and others you should know that in fact Bessler's first wheel was actually three and a half feet in height. "Drittelhalb" was the word used, but remember that this is 18th C German and modern German would read " dreieinhalb".

    Orffyreus biggest wheel was apparently 12 foot and the smallest three and a half feet, if that is correct. Orffyreus built bigger wheels so they run better. So why are you playing around with a wheel size that's even smaller than he's?
    I would of thought that Orffyreus tried a 2 foot wheel and a 3 foot wheel without success.
    Also for anything to move something else must move it,
    I know I'm thick skinned but does your 5 mechanism - 10 weight wheel start Spontaneously?
    John I seriously wish you well, but I really can not possibly see how it can start without a push.
    (I promise I won't ask again)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I really don't mind you asking me anything Uneqk, I can always refuse if I wish, but that's unlikely. You've picked up on my brief comments rather well - I didn't realise I'd given that much away!

      Personally I can't understand why you are so certain that the wheel could not start spontaneously, to turn continuously must surely mean that the wheel is always out of balance, in which case how could it not start spontaneously? Why else would it need to have a brake applied when not being used?

      JC

      Delete
    2. Hi john,
      I apologize for not getting back to you sooner, but (1) I'll been unable to get on the internet and (2) I must of wrote at least 20 reasons why Bessler's wheel may of needed a push, but then deleted them.
      First of all I'm not chasing Orffyreus Bessler's wheel, but over the last couple of years of following this site I have become interested in Orffyreus himself.
      I really hope you complete your wheel and prove me wrong, and I mean that in the nicest way possible.
      But for anything, and that means everything, can only move if something else moves it.
      Regarding Orffyreus wheel it's possible that it starts off balanced, so depending on which way you want it to rotate, depends on how you set the wheel up.
      When you rotate the wheel by hand your are actually pulling everything into a overbalance position, so then you have to apply the brake, locking the wheel in that position. On releasing the brake you give the wheel a slight push, and away it goes. If you just unlock the brake, then the wheel, will simply unwind.
      You can tell me that I'm wrong, which doesn't matter to you or me. But if your looking for Orffyreus Bessler's wheel and a working wheel turns up and it doesn't start spontaneously, then its not Bessler's wheel.
      People put words in peoples mouths, and remember your talking about 300 years ago. I'm not into bessler's clues, I just pick-up what's said on your blog, but them clues can be read many ways. Go back and read the clues in an open mind.
      I have a few people that I talk to about Orffyreus and your blog, and they say, regarding the turning of the wheel "does it matter" well no it doesn't to most people, but if your wrong then Orffyreus Bessler's wheel will be lost forever.

      Delete
    3. I am wondering if you are aware of the two types of wheel, Uneqk? Bessler's first two wheels started to spin spontaneously and could only turn in one direction. His later wheels were designed to turn in either direction and needed a gentle push in either direction after which point they began to accelerate.

      I usually only refer to the one-way wheels because to my mind the two-way ones are a more complicated version of the first wheels. So there would be no requirement to decide which way to start the first wheels with a push because they could only turn in one direction and for me the differences between both types is born out by examining the logic of their recorded differences.

      And it is therefore in tiredly logical that the one-wheels could start spontaneously, whereas the two-way wheels needed a slight push.

      JC

      Delete
    4. Perhaps I'm wrong then, it was just a thought, only the physics I did at school tells me something had to push it before it can power itself.

      Delete
    5. Overbalance provides tghe push.

      JC

      Delete
  13. A little news appears that a certain mystic in a remote village has developed some miraculous powers and cures people of all diseases...thousands of people rush to the scene in amazement...day after day, the numbers increase and the village becomes most visited....this happened sometime back in India...such is the media power these days....
    if a word just gets around that a wheel mysteriously turns by itself people would simply throng to know the secret.....and this would eventually bring the inventor into limelight....Suresh

    ReplyDelete
  14. Guys, if someone was finally able to create a working model of Besslers wheel, and posted a video online, clearly showing how it works, how would it stand out from the crowd of the hundreds of fraudulent examples already out there – I think any video would be absorbed into this group until a recognised 'expert/s' validated a claim of a working machine.

    A.N.Other

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A video of a "working model... clearly showing how it works" would soon be replicated, and because viral videos go to the top of the list, it would not be long before the Media would get wind of it. That's when it would "spread like wildfire".

      Delete
  15. Happy earth day to every one.
    What a good day to reaveal my findings ...

    I am ready to post my video, with all my findings and with all details "how ...", as soon John reveals his last finding firstly.

    Eastlander

    ReplyDelete
  16. It can start without a push because its 'cocked' or loaded or sprung as it were. Its described when he removed the weights, the noise of Bessler tensioning/releaving spring pressure ( and hence in his poem about 'sears' catches, twanging bow, all spring/sprung references. I think maybe the first of two concentric or linked radial mechs the first is cocked when the wheel is set up, putting a small amount of offset in the 2nd mech, and this small effect builds with rotation, maybe ...
    regards
    Jon

    ReplyDelete
  17. Springs are not needed when each position of the wheel is unbalanced, as demonstrated by John.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Mike you are right...springs are not reqd to keep the wheel imbalanced constantly...bessler has used springs for a different purpose...Suresh

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
  19. Bessler was I believe asked more than once about springs, but other than acknowledging YES they are used (but not simply as a clockwork mech power source) but choose to say little else ever about them (more coy I believe than other 'elements' he more freely discussed). Its my opinion only, that a flat strip/leaf spring or simple cross-over scissor type was more likely, any form of wound or coil spring was less reliable in that era).
    I concur no energy is 'produced' from springs, and they don't generally even achieve parity as they shed energy in the slight warming of the material when worked, and may suffer friction from any attachment). I think the spring brings other useful aspects to the party, like delay/advance timings, chotic motion(with pendulum/weights), possible resonance/pulsing?, and I know not what.
    regards
    Jon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As well as storing energy to be released at some later time, a spring could also be used to partly counteract the gravitational force acting on a mass (i.e. its weight). A constant-force spring might be best for that. These are not very different from the coiled-strip springs used to drive clockwork, with which Bessler would have been familiar.

      http://www.vulcanspring.com/conforce-constant-force-springs

      Delete
    2. In wheel, springs acts also like "shock absorbers" work in car. Also trough springs tensions, part of pendulums force will be given to wheel. At the moment, I do not see, that wheel will work without springs... Maybe two directional will do ..!?

      Eastlander

      Delete
  20. There was only one principle

    ReplyDelete
  21. Off topic question but where is the location of the solar system in the galaxy ?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If we give you the information, where we are at the moment, then what benefit you got from it?

      Another Anon

      Delete
  22. So...
    Does anyone have any pictures of what they think will cause their gravity wheel to rotate? Is there a website that people can go to to look at other peoples designs?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Gravity alone can't run the wheel...about half a dozen other factors go into play...all in an artful setup...that is the reason it doesn't strikes just anybody's mind...
      So let's just not worry yet about other peoples' designs...

      Delete
    2. Sorry, I forgot to sign above..Suresh

      Delete
  23. One day it has to rotate...it was rotating during bessler times...it is only a matter of getting the right design which is still evading all...the reasons are many...some think it can be achieved through Sims...some are blindly experimenting with various configurations without having worked out the basic driving unit design...which can be realized only through very intense mind racking...original genuine inventions have to be realized only im the original ancient ways it used to be done...an electric motor cannot be used for running on petrol similarly you require the appropriately designed wheel to run on gravity...taking advantage of the lever principle, centrifugal, centripetal, inertia, springs and another two most important elements which are generally not being even considered by most...Suresh

    ReplyDelete
  24. Hi John
    Perhaps I'm wrong then, it was just a thought, only the physics I did at school tells me something had to push it before it can power itself.

    ReplyDelete

Johann Bessler’s Wheel and the Orffyreus Code

On 6th June, 1712, in Germany, Johann Bessler (also known by his pseudonym, Orffyreus) announced that after many years of failure, he had s...