Saturday, 7 May 2016

A Repudiation of Certain Statements made in Comments on this Blog.

It has been suggested here on this blog that "Bessler's wheel requires no energy to prime the weights even though they produce an imbalance providing torque to turn the wheel."

I disagree that the weights are "primed" as you put it, without requiring energy, they have to be lifted in the first place.  This requires energy. On the other hand I agree that the wheels turn according to "known physics".  So your suggestion that your wheel "uses the law of perpetual motion, which requires that no energy is needed to prime the weights ...", does not concur with what you refer to as "known physics"' which does require the consumption of energy.

So, assuming that Bessler did not lie, it is obviously possible to design a way to lift the weights so that they can fall repeatedly and this action must comply with "known physics" , so there is no need to invent a "law of perpetual motion". But the energy to lift the weights after each fall has to be included in the design, it's no use inventing new ways of enabling the weights to overbalance,  hoping that they will rise through the rotation of the wheel.

There is at least one way and possibly more than one, and it can be demonstrated that by incorporating some additional features that each weight can be lifted at the optimum moment in rotation.  This can be achieved with a simple design feature which I'm unwilling to discuss here because I'm writing it up, which easily causes each weight to shoot upwards, just as Bessler described.  I don't expect anyone to believe me without any supporting testimony just as I wouldn't believe anyone else who made such claims.

I will also take issue with the statement that, "you will not find anything in the MT drawings or the codes", not true and my document includes numerous illustrations along with full explanations of some of the clues from MT and some codes which will prove the error in the above quotation.

Finally let me deal with the statement that, "all of Bessler's wheels could theoretically start on their own, it just depends on what state they were left in when they were stopped."  This is demonstrably wrong.  The first two wheels were held stationary when not being demonstrated otherwise they started spontaneously.  Why assume Bessler lied?  It is safe to assume that the many witnesses who were allowed to screw the bolt in and out to slow the wheel down would soon have found the spot in rotation which would allow the wheel stop and remain stationary.  It is also entirely logical that to rotate continuously the wheel must have been in a state of continuous imbalance.  Therefore how could it not start spontaneously?

The latter two wheels could spin in either direction therefore they must have been in a state of continuous balance, as opposed to imbalance, and therefore how could they possibly start spontaneously?  The action of giving them a gentle push in the desired direction led to acceleration in that chosen direction, once one weight was heard to fall.  Once the wheel was stopped it remained stationary, and because a weight had to fall before it began to accelerate, it would not be possible to stop it in a position from whence it could spontaneously begin to rotate.

I have tried to argue logically without using any information I am privy to, which is unknown to readers of this blog, to try to balance some of the statements issuing from the hand of a certain commentator.  Much of this person's output is erroneous, self-opinionated and an example ofself-aggrandisement and should be taken with a large dose of scepticism, as should his claims to imminent success.

JC

68 comments:

  1. Well done John!...only please remember every aspect of this repudiation and also the slanderous things you have said about me in the past on Besslerwheel.com
    I will be happy to disprove everything you have said.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Slander is oral defamation Trevor, you mean libellous and you have to prove something I said was a lie, but actually I was expressing an opinion not telling lies. The above is a balancing proposition to inform people that some of the things you say are an opinion not necessarily based in fact. You might mislead them if they believe you.

      JC

      Delete
    2. No John, if you said it or wrote it, there is still no difference to me.

      Delete
    3. I was correcting another of your errors. I'm sure you understand.

      JC

      Delete
  2. Trevor you are fooling yourself, and you look foolish doing it.

    Someday we will discover the secret to Bessler's wheel, and it won't violate any known laws. In fact, it will require them. I suspect no one has been successful because they are looking for ways to circumvent the laws rather than looking for ways to use them to their advantage.

    Let me further suggest that Bessler's Wheel was not PM at all. It clearly behaved in a way that Bessler could only interpret as PM, but what if it was really exchanging Momentum with the Earth, in a way that Bessler could not fully understand. The amount of energy produced by the wheel, while impressive, is insignificant and non measurable by Earthly standards.

    You have neither the background nor education to make a claim so bold as to say the laws of physics are incomplete or wrong. Your comments here and on bw.com are lacking in technical and mathematical terms.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I agree with your argument Anon, and I've seldom seen it put so succinctly and 'matter-of-fact'.

    I sometimes use a simulation program and meany times I think it is just too perfect. It faithfully predicts the outcomes of mechanical interactions and exchanges and it never shows a surplus of KE or momentum. IOW's it conforms to CoE, Conservation of Momentum and Conservation of Angular Momentum fundamental principles at all times.

    The program is incapable of accounting for such things as the earths rotation and its momentum/energy interaction with a device, such as the like of a Foucault pendulum for example.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I've been saying for quite a while that it's possible to extract energy from the rotating Earth. It's certainly possible to make computer models that take account of Earth's rotation.

    I have several successful energy-extracting models — my main problem currently is to compact one of them up enough to make it feasible to build physically.

    Re just the modelling of Earth's rotation: here is the code for a silux CONTROLSYSTEM macro (in its cm-gram-microsecond units) that forces an object (o1) to behave as a point on the Earth's surface at the equator would behave, as seen in a non-rotating frame attached to the center of the Earth —

    CALC FORMULA (V.X(o1) = 465.1010849e-4*cos(7.292115e-11*T))
    CALC FORMULA (V.Y(o1) = 465.1010849e-4*sin(7.292115e-11*T))
    CALC FORMULA (OMG(o1) = -7.292115e-11)

    (i.e. the Earth rotates at 0.00007292115 rad/sec, and its surface speed at the equator is 465.1010849 m/s).

    ReplyDelete
  5. Bessler wheel principle can be used to create wheels that would work in space, out of earth's reach...it would only require a magnetic pull below the wheel depicting gravity...this would be a boon to all space explorations which depends on solar energy for powering space equipments...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, for not mentioning my identity above...the word priming is not understood or used appropriately here...hence, all the confusion....it is the arrangement of the weights that counts...that artful arrangement....Suresh

      Delete
    2. Just to make matters simple, we should stick to the one-way wheel that was displayed by bessler initially....we should avoid sim programs in trying to build bessler wheel...because, the principle and design bessler used is rather too simple that requires only natural thinking...Trevor seems to be right about the codes...take my word, we are not able to produce a successful wheel because we are only complicating the issue, thereby....Suresh

      Delete
    3. I urge everyone to put aside the ego and work in agreement...this is a wonderful blog but loosing it's charm gradually...we seem to be missing many stalvarts that were present, many fantastic contributions and much fun...Trevor is both right and wrong...it is of course, quite clear that Trevor is not very much on the right track...also, instead of contributing anonymously to this blog one should make clear his identity...Suresh

      Delete
    4. I agree with you, Suresh. Respect for each contributor is required. This blog could be a helpful tool to open our mind(s) to different points of view. And it would be great if each one was getting out of anonymity.

      Delete
    5. That's very great of you, Mike...Suresh

      Delete
  6. Like the see-saw in a children park, one weight lifts another..this is the pairing...here we should devise ways to make this movement continuos by incorporating different basic physics principles...it's that simple...this can be achieved by intense mental work...it is a matter of the right designing of various components like the weights, levers, etc.,..gravity provides the initial impulse and also acts like fuel throughout...but the components have to work in agreement like in a combustion engine....Finally, let me say, everyone will laugh when they come to know how simple the arrangement and the design is...Suresh

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you have the answer Suresh what is stopping you showing the design details now? You keep saying things like we will laugh when we see how simple the arrangement is. You also say that we should work together. Towards what? If you have the proof that you say then all we can do is replicate your design or try and improve its power output.

      Why can't you tell us now what the correct design/artful device is so we can stop these trevor games and moves to the next task as a collaborative effort as you wish?

      Delete
    2. That's a greater step by you...I can now see that you seem to notice some credibility in my contributions...you are also talking some sense now... I really like your idea but I am not sure how to open the matter....I am too worried like bessler that I might be a loser...We should device some secure plan so that I don't end up not gaining anything...This the dilemma bessler faced...how do we work out the modalities for reveali ng the core secret...I am thankful to you at least you have come forward but I don't even know with whom I am dealing...Suresh

      Delete
    3. About eight weights are used....eight levers to hold these weights...springs just play a minor role in tugging the levers to seed up the swing...apart from this the wheel's internal space has to be appropriately designed keeping in mind that each lever doesn't collide during the swing...the secret lies in the proper design of the lever weight combo and their placement...one after another, they start playing the tricky game...Suresh

      Delete
  7. Don't overthink or over complicate the method of exchange. Every time a basketball player bounces a ball, the ball and the Earth exchange momentum.

    The change in the Earth's velocity may be undetectable after such a collision, but when you factor in the mass of the Earth, the change in momentum is measurable, and so a transfer of momentum can result in an energy gain in the colliding (or better yet interacting) object.

    The trick is managing the "interaction" to maximize the energy transfer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. By "managing the interaction" I mean you have to create a linkage/mechanism that controls the movement of a dropping weight in such a way as to maximize the energy transfer.

      I hope this makes more sense.

      Delete
  8. There is no ego issue here. You asked a question and I answered it.
    I can tell you now that I have solved the wheel and it does not contravene any laws o0f physics.
    It uses only gravity and is assisted with springs. It will start on its own especially if you provide it with a memory.
    Of course it has to load its weights but it is a closed system so no energy is required from outside the wheel. The wheel is primed without energy being required so the weights operate in terms of the law of perpetual motion, just as Bessler said.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm content to have published some corrections to Trevor's mis-statements, if others choose to ignore them that's ok.

      JC

      Delete
  9. Trevor...are you very sure?...do you really have the core secret?...have you used 8 weights because 8 sounds were heard...otherwise, your wheel may not practically work...You are always in a great hurry to announce and that is why people loose credibility...would you be kind enough to through some more light without of course giving away much?...Suresh

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. But on the subject of correcting statements, why on earth do people continue to assume there are eight weights - or are they all trying to replicate the two way wheels straight away?

      JC

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Bessler used weights...but he didn't reveal how many...it was left for us to find out....well two weights would balance out...three would be odd...here we need to remember the eight sounds heard...can four weights produce eight sounds...bessler, spent so many years in finally arriving at the right design...this indicates that there had to be only one uniqe design...also, no one came up with a successful design till now...wether it is the one way wheel or the bidirectional one...the basic design can't change...weights acted in pairs...eight weights in four pairs makes sense considering four quadrants in a circle...Suresh

      Delete
    4. There is possible to use 4, 6, 8 and 10 weights in one directional wheel. But 8 loud sounds do not mean that there was exact 8 weights inside. Also as John try here allways remark, 8 lound sounds was in two directional wheel, not in one directional. So why put those sounds to onedirectional wheel here.

      Eastlander

      Delete
    5. Well, bessler built two-directional wheel to prove that there was no fraud involved...but would he have changed the basic initial design?...in my opinion, whatever directioned wheel it be bessler must have maintained only one design except some minor changes...well, in any case, how many weights then could have made eight sounds in one wheel revolution?...how else do we confirm how many weights bessler wheel design consists?...it can't differ as you have stated above...we should stick to one magical figure of weights of the one magical wheel created by bessler?....Suresh

      Delete
  10. The core secret as you put it is the principle which Bessler termed the principle of perpetual motion. I think he termed it so because it uses energy from inside not outside. It is a closed system.
    It does not matter how many weights you use so long as you stick to the configuration that yields Perpetual motion.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Engineering the mechanism is a real exercise in mechanical strategy and that's what takes a bit of time to perfect.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, Trevor....by core secret I actually meant the core design...let us not use the term perpetual motion as it appears a bit unacceptable to some...bessler wheel is OK..now, you are saying it is a closed system and also that it uses energy from inside and not outside as felt by bessler...but what I want to clarify is that the main fuel is supplied by gravity then how can it be called a closed system...physically, it may be closed...but it basically, depends on gravity...And, we would like to hear about your achievement...pls throw a little more light....everything you say seems unbelievable...how did you come to the conclusion...does it make eight sounds...can we call it the real bessler wheel or is it some other version....Suresh

      Delete
  12. Firstly, I really feel we must call it perpetual motion because when we announce and demonstrate it I want it to fly in the face of the agnostic scientific community.
    Secondly,gravity is not energy in itself unless used it to manipulate mass to over-balance a wheel to yield torque, which is the spin off to create energy.
    Eight or even five weights is not the magical number for success though.
    My wheel at the moment is just three but I can double that up to be six or nine weights.
    You might ask, but that means we can get energy from nothing!...well that is for the scientist to come to terms with because even though mathematically it does not contradict conservation energy laws it does pose a question; why can we get energy for free!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Firstly, I really feel we must call it perpetual motion because when we announce and demonstrate it I want it to fly in the face of the agnostic scientific community." Trevor Dauncey

      YES! YES! YES!

      You are kindly disposed towards those snotty nose-in-the-air fiends, natural successors to the Stinging Hornet Triumvirate but, that is your way, Trevor, kindly.

      As I think you know, I would not be so nice and opt more for hanging them all by their necks until good and stone-cold DEAD, as they ended up poisoning the whole of the world for profit, by means of the Nuclear Genii now all opened up, and spewing it's poison 24/7, atomic toxicity that is to last essentially forever! So, in essence we are doomed utterly, to put it plainly.

      There is no going back, only escape from this Earth or our Existence Realm.

      Just think: For want of but a few thousand thalers as Bessler had asked, we now are to endure what I have described, for having FAILED THAT TEST, and it WAS a test!

      Cause and effect . . . cause and effect . . . cause and effect, and now here we all are.

      "My wheel at the moment is just three . . ." - Trevor Dauncey

      Aha! You ARE onto it!!!

      So . . . you must have attained those wondrous sixty degrees of perfect balance, and sixty degrees not, dear Trevor?

      NOT an easy trick, if so.

      There are multiple good reasons indicating that you are treading the Path-Dextral.

      Carry on Trevor, and best of luck to you for a final, quick turning success!

      James

      Delete
  13. That's great, Trevor....now it is clear...but we can't really it the bessler wheel, can we?..it seems to be some other version.....I was under the impression that you were basically here to vindicate Bessler...anyways, good luck...and tell me when is the prototype going to arrive...your bold announcement is still unbelievable, though...we should ensure that people are not disappointed...credibility should be maintained....this matter has dragged a lot and that is why many revolting anons exist...make it as soon as possible as we will be waiting...it would do this blog a lot good...Suresh

    ReplyDelete
  14. I agree that gravity is not the energy in itself and that it requires mass...but in a combustion engine the fuel is burnt first and it's gases are used to run the engine...the fuel is not directly running the engine but it's gases...similarly, can we conclude that gravity is not directly running the wheel but through the weights...in this context, can we consider gravity as fuel just to keep matters simple....bessler would have thought so possibly...Suresh

    ReplyDelete
  15. We, who actually believe, are extremely excited to see the working prototype. Thousands of hours and an untold amount of money has been expended in pursuit of this lofty dream and to finally have it working will be a delight to all of us..... and what a great time for the planet, to finally quit burning up our home EARTH and destroying this beautiful place. Bravo lets get going

    ReplyDelete
  16. It is the Bessler wheel in terms of the same principle being used and even Bessler made His wheel in different forms and configurations using the same secret principle. It does therefore vindicate Bessler.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If you do not see any similarity to some MT drawing, and you are certain that you have it. Then it can be something else then Bessler have found. But I think here now, there is no matter wich kind of inner structure you have, main thing is that it is working and replicatable by others also. Then more possibilities there is, to make O.B.W.-s and there will be better understanding "how to", in this field.

      Eastlander

      Delete
  17. "...mathematically it does not contradict conservation energy laws..."

    "...why can we get energy for free..."

    LOL

    ReplyDelete
  18. That is the mystery that awaits your solution.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "........... just a few more days now ......... "

      Delete
  19. If someone on this forum knows beyond the shadow of a doubt that they are 100% sure that they KNOW the secret of besslers wheel, then quit procrastinating and get on national TV and reveal the secret! You'll be recognized as the first person in 300+ years to prove that a true gravity wheel is possible. And, you'll have your fame, fortune, and riches that you've always wanted. It doesn't get any simpler than that. At least no one would be able to refute your discovery....EVER!

    Updated

    ReplyDelete
  20. Dear, just knowing the secret is not going to do anything much...for several years I have been guarding the secret myself....what happened...actually, you need a prototype model and when you have this model people will insist on seeing the internal workings and when this happens the cat will be out...bessler faced this problem....can you suggest appropriate steps...Suresh

    ReplyDelete
  21. Suresh, to be blunt, join the back of the cue. You have plenty of company, all with the same problem. Who would have thought that getting paid was a bigger problem than solving PM. Yawn. Perhaps you can share with Trevor?

    ReplyDelete
  22. I think that Trevor has invested in a big SPRING and is trying to wind everybody UP. LOL.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Trevor...you say that bessler made his wheels in different forms and configuration using the same principle...well, this needs some clarications....what is the bessler bessler principle, anyway...I actually feel that there is only one design and that is bessler design..(the eight sounds one)...see, if as you say that the wheel can be made in different configurations is correct then so many guys would have already made it several times by now...can you see the logic here...it has been the most evading one...this reason itself is good enough to conclude that there can be only one design which bessler finally hit....Suresh

    ReplyDelete
  24. The bessler AP poem...does it indicate several designs?....does Karl talk of several designs?...do we see several different besslerwheel pictures in the net?...do the clues left by bessler talk of different wheel Designs?...other than you, who else is advocating the several configurations concept?...Every article in the net about bessler says bessler built a wheel but not different types of wheel, isn't it?...many only think of finding out the wheel secret or is it wheel secrets?...does the size of the wheel bessler built reveal anything releated to different designs each time?...well, how many wheels did bessler really build in his life time?...Can anyone really shed some light on this matter pls?....Suresh

    ReplyDelete
  25. The principle remains regardless the same; whether the weight were latched up(memory)or whether they just resonated on springs. The former would have been a wheel that could start on its own.
    The latter would of course require and initial push to start.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anyways, Trevor...time will prove what the actual fact is...the mystery cannot remain a mystery for very long...one thing I strongly believe is everyone on this blog and other blogs too has something good to contribute...anons included....Suresh

    ReplyDelete
  27. Will it be possible to recreate the same wheel that bessler made...the wheel from whose inside could be heard some scratching noises as if metal pipes rubbed each other...the wheel from which banging sounds on the descending side could be heard...the wheel whose internal view appeared as grand as a peacock's tail...Suresh

    ReplyDelete
  28. Yes my wheel does all that; the scratching sound at the bottom is just the catchment pawl disengaging with the lever loading pulley.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "........... just a few more days now ......... "

      Delete
  29. John, I have one starter question about your design. If You think that this is too much to reveal this time here, then I understand this and I appreciate You dessision.
    But my interest itself is about ....:
    Little background: My design have in real world model about 15 pieces, per one mechanism. Have not count here springs, all needed connecting bolts, nuts, washers and weights, just needed main lever system parts from one mechanism.
    In You future real word setup, do You plan to use less parts, in one mechanism or maybe more?
    (If this is not secret, how many lever parts You plan to use in one mechanism?)

    Thank You in advance for any revealed information.

    Eastlander

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nine pieces per mechanism Eastlander, not including nuts, bolts, washers and weights etc.

      JC

      Delete
    2. I see that You have simplifyed Your setup a lot. If I tryed to siplify my setup in sim., then there is strangely not so good speed in wheel anymore. Also weights movement was not so good for best imbalance. 15 was giving best result in sim. But nine sounds also promising, at the moment...

      Eastlander

      Delete
  30. Suresh, you are obsessed with the idea of building the "Bessler" Wheel, not that there is anything wrong with that, but you are going about it all wrong. The only way to know for sure what makes up a "Bessler" Wheel is to decode his writings. Having a written or graphical plan of the wheel, derived from his written works, is the only way, period, end of discussion.

    You should spend your time learning the coding strategies of the men of that time period.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Anyone seen Ken?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Pray, do tell us WHY anyone still-sane would want to???

      Was his endless, clueless banter of some entertainment value to you, perhaps? (Whichever Anonymous you might be.)

      Delete
  32. No, but I have a feeling he could have turned into an anon...Suresh

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. If it be so as you suggest, Suresh, his "style" will soon be there for the foul sniffing-out. He cannot help himself, so into himself he is. Lookout for a reappearance of Technoguy.

      (The Personage Peculiar has not much longer upon this earth, this being a prediction Criswell style.)

      What happened to your avatar, Suresh? You looked fine! Now, we've only the memory of it to warm us. Don't hide. That is for rats and cockroaches to do.

      - James

      Delete
  33. Ken has adopted the role of a lurker and I have to admit it is at my request. I believe he will comment as he sees fit but has kindly agreed to avoid updating us daily on the sims he continues to use in his design tests. He knows I have nothing against him personally, it was just the sheer volume of his posts that caused dismay. I'm sure he would appreciate any good wishes anyone cares to send him.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I sent him an e-mail one week ago. He said he's busy with a big book on bessler's wheels htat will finally solve them and should be out late this year or early next. It has thirty drawings in it and he says the solutin is definitly in the portrats of bessler. I wish it was out now. Good luck, ken!

      Delete
    2. ". . . and I have to admit it is at my request." - John Collins

      Glory Be!!! And WHAT a relief it has thus produced.

      While present, his multitudinously aggravating domineering shadow, was a thing-insufferable to many.

      "The Man Who Knew Everything!" (NO "Alexander" was he!!!)

      Heavens!

      Why are such disorders of personality created by Nature, so as to do such damage, this in terms of time-waste and shameless, cheeky self aggrandizement as done by loud implication?

      Let us all thank John for causing that ever-festering madness TO CEASE FINALLY, blessedly.

      ". . . Good luck, ken!" - so wishes Anonymous on 10 May 2016 at 18:16

      Yes! Yes! Yes! Good luck to him far away from here.

      James

      Delete
  34. A few comments:
    Im sure we can't be certain of the wheels weight count from reports, sounds, etc. And tho I believe bessler an honest man I would not put it past him if he made any statement he may have 'lied' about that by artifice (ie 16 not 8, "aaaah I say 8 as they act as one in pairs")especially if weight count is a 'help'.
    The one way wheels natural imbalance is effected/born when initially put together (and the required initial 'first push' energy require to lift a weight is given by the arm of the builder [dont forget to subtract those initial human calories from the output ;)].
    I believe the best (only?) way to discover the Bessler wheel as was, is to do what John has done, that is use the info he and others left, understand the codes etc. (that quite obviously exist and are more than 'single layered'). Then demonstrate the solution is logical, unarguable in step conclusions, too complex/devised to be chance or misunderstanding, and truly get what Bessler intended to leave for us, then with the solution build a wheel.
    I do not think any laws need breaking for a working wheel, there is easily enough not understood areas/reactions etc. that may suffice, much more likely than any new dicovery in the basics.
    John, Sir, you are a patient Gentleman and put up with some annoyance etc. with tempered and generous responses (often when I would be less inclined I think), you are an example most of the time wether you like it or not.
    Regards
    Jon

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you Jon for your support. I agree with all that you have said about Bessler. You have described Bessler's use of poetic language and prose exactly as I think of it, but I think it was not so much lies as using something akin to a magician's sleight-of-hand, misdirection and covering factual information in a coat of ambiguity.

      JC

      Delete
    2. Problem was, that his coat of ambiguity had tuned into a misplaced cloak of hiding. Glad you (and Oystein?) stumbled upon it. We hope.

      :-)

      Delete
    3. I've definitely got some of it Mark, and so has Oystein got some!

      JC

      Delete
    4. Since I was mentioned, I say hello.

      I have stopped posting as it took to much attention away from completing my work. I discovered something so vast that it took all my attention the whole last year to finish the first part of my work. A documentary book in historical hidden codes. I have also had some test-readers, and collected and adjusted to their feedback.

      At this time, the next plan is to be making an announcement and perform a public "stunt", to get attention towards my first finished documentary book. In this documentary, Bessler gets known as the source or the one that "discloses" the Rosicrucian secrets, and their codes. I still seek a proper publisher, documentary maker, or a co-writer or group to refine my work, and hope the stunt will prove me as a genuine discoverer and top cryptographer working in a completely "new" way.

      About the stunt:
      I have prepared a WEB-site and Youtube announcement videos etc. I will at announced time (time not set yet), try to crack two old codes in public view, where one of them is among the worlds greatest unsolved mysteries! And the other is a hidden code in one of the worlds most famous German paintings. Bessler leads us there. And the solutions is ingenious and indisputable. These solutions only represents the "tip of the iceberg" of what was disclosed by studying Besslers works as a possible historical code... And again, thanks to John for bringing up Besslers work and the existence of a code. You are of course mentioned all the way.

      I will until the date is set, answer to questions mainly by private e-mail. (for those who may have it)

      Delete

Johann Bessler’s Legacies.

Bessler’s wheel is one obvious legacy and although there are some who believe that it’s potential power output is too limited to be of pract...