Friday, 14 July 2017

The Legend of Bessler's Wheel and my latest Update

I'm putting the brief account of Johann Bessler's Wheel back up for a short time because I am concentrating on writing (rewriting!) an account of the codes I've deciphered and explaining just how they apply to Bessler's wheel.  I'm sure that I have finally got to the solution but my saying so doesn't make it so, and I have two options, one is to make the wheel according to my perceived design, courtesy of Bessler - and the other is describe everything in detail including all coded material, how the wheel worked and including photos of my own wheel, step by step. from start to finish. I'm taking both options.

I plan to make a video of the wheel and show how I obtained the solution but that may take a little longer and I have procrastinated for too long!  Time is slipping by and I must begin work in earnest on building the wheel itself, and write my account of it too, so the video will have to wait.  

So I shall close the comments feature after a few days and get to work on the wheel - at last!  I'll update things here as and when there is something to show.

THE LEGEND OF BESSLER'S WHEEL

The legend of Bessler’s Wheel began on 6th June 1712, when Johann Bessler announced that he had invented a perpetual motion machine and he would be exhibiting it in the town square in Gera, Germany, on that day.  Everyone was free to come and see the machine running.  It took the form of a wheel mounted between two pillars and ran continuously until it was stopped or its parts wore out. The machine attracted huge crowds.  Although they were allowed to examine its external appearance thoroughly, they could not view the interior, because the inventor wished to sell the secret of its construction for the sum of 10,000 pounds – a sum equal to several millions today.

News of the invention reached the ears of high ranking men, scientists, politicians and members of the aristocracy.  They came and examined the machine, subjected it to numerous tests and concluded that it was genuine. Only one other man, Karl, the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel, was allowed to view the interior and he testified that the machine was genuine. He is a man well-known in history as someone of the greatest integrity, and  the negotiations between Bessler and Karl took place against a background in which Karl acted as honest broker between the warring nations of Europe; a situation which required his absolute rectitude both in appearance and in action.

There were several attempts to buy the wheel, but negotiations always failed when they reached an impasse – the buyer wished to examine the interior before parting with the money, and the inventor fearing that once the secret was known the buyer would simply leave without paying and make his own perpetual motion machine, would not permit it.  Sadly, after some thirty years or more, the machine was lost to us when the inventor fell to his death during construction of another of his inventions, a vertical axle windmill.

However, the discovery of a series of encoded clues has led many to the opinion that the inventor left instructions for reconstructing his wheel, long after his death.  The clues were discovered during the process of investigating the official reports of the time which seemed to rule out any chance of fraud, hence the  interest in discovering the truth about the legend of Bessler’s wheel.

My own curiosity was sparked by the realisation that an earlier highly critical account by Bessler's maid-servant, which explained how the wheel was fraudulently driven, was so obviously flawed and a lie, that I was immediately attracted to do further research. In time I learned that there was no fraud involved, so the wheel was genuine and the claims of the inventor had to be taken seriously.

The tests which the wheel was subjected to involved lifting heavy weights from the castle yard to the roof, driving an Archimedes water pump and an endurance test lasting 56 days under lock and key and armed guard.  Bessler also organised demonstrations involving running the wheel on one set of bearings opened for inspection – and then transferring the device to a second set of open bearings, both sets having been examined to everyone’s satisfaction, both before, after and during the examination.

So the only problem is that modern science denies that Bessler's wheel was possible, but my own research has shown that this conclusion is wrong.  There is no need for a change in the laws of physics, as some  have suggested, we simply haven't covered every possible scenario in the evaluating the number of possible configurations.

I have produced copies of all Bessler's publications, with English translations.  They can be obtained by clicking on the appropriate links on the right.

JC

51 comments:

  1. Right! Every possible scenario has not been covered that exploits the secret principle involving sound down to earth physics.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Just put this blog on hold as long as you need John! We're all looking for answers, so keep up the job of getting it done just right!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Best wishes for success in your quest to replicate a correct configuration! He must have had at least 2 configurations that worked because the one rotated by itself when unlocked and the other required a push. I honestly believe Bessler was a truthful man and that he provided just enough information for a diligent man to discover the solution.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Yes!

    Ditto that here, Trevor and John. (And, hello!)

    In the post previous to this one, the estimable and rightly revered Professor Simaniac stressed as to why energy production as sought-for by the usual height-for-width exchange means, simply is not possible of-doing. With this I agree.

    However, as well I am sure that Professor Simaniac would agree that, IF an actual working mechanical asymmetry were to be designed and produced, and introduced to the physical world open examinable and bare, then when operated, such a thing would be naturally EXPECTED to asymmetrically distribute equal inputs of energy as a function of a chosen direction of rotation. (Emmy Noether would arise dead from her containing casket, I am sure, to measure it!)

    I.e. one unit of energy input as, say rotating counter-clockwise, netting a 50% measured internal LOSS but, as clockwise displaced, resulting in a 50% internal GAIN over input. Add both the loss and the gain together and, thank goodness, conservation of energy is satisfied. (Ya don't MESS with Mother Nature!)

    So, as given this amusing little scenario, I ask here of the wiser: to WHERE would such lost energy go and, from whence place would it come?

    As I said and stress greatly as multiplied by greatly - it is THE PLAUSIBLE PARADOXICAL that I have before and yet again here propose (as supposed).

    Find THAT configuration (just as Bessler most certainly did), and we will have our dreamed-of, ever-perpetuating motion.

    Fail, and we shall surely net but a lifetime of loss and disappointment.

    (And, tragically, such failure too often comes with the sentence of a certain form of madness-peculiar, as The Days Of Ending And Reckoning do approach? For multifarious examples of this creepy dissociation from reality and the living, it and it's accompanying 'terminus panic', I suggest a quick visit to the BWF by the curious, where this can be observed handily in all of it's various sad, twisted forms. Really, the whole of it there has degenerated spectacularly into a putrescent oozing-green, sadistic elitism. WHAT that is in-the-least wholesome, I ask, could be expected to come of it?)

    Questions? Puffs? Pans?

    CHEERS!

    James

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi James and John, in response to your query, no energy is obtained from anywhere it is simply by using the secret principle, height is gained which equates to energy.

      Delete
    2. I chanced upon your comment James and have been prompted to respond, although currently much engaged in writing the tell-all account of my code-breaking successes over recent months and years. So many illustrations!

      I am looking forward to seeing professor Simanek's (naughty James for your typo!) response to an actual working gravity wheel.

      I cannot answer your questions at this time but can assure you that I have the answers and intend/hope to reveal all later this year, so much to do and so many calls on my time from my SILs (sons-in law), but not complaining!

      JC

      Delete
    3. It looks like James is is up to his usual bite first puffery.

      Delete
    4. Well, Ed, I put out the call and HERE you are with another of your tiresome, trade-make jabs.

      With your approaching mortal doom, you've lost that fine penetrative point of your former, truly destructive "glory days".

      Once you are all done with the cycle, it having come full-circle finally, WHAT then will be left you other than a black emptiness within? Huh?

      It was a terrible mistake (a 'blunder', actually) to have left your awesomely-revealing visage as part of The Eternal Record, within John's "Rogues Gallery" at the B.W.F.

      In doing so you revealed all that you were and ever could be for study, this as served warning to others that might profitably heed it.

      So-far, this holds as good-still, as you've not changed by the tiniest increment for the better or kinder. (And, not in-the-least am I conditioning this, as it is my post-judicial JUDGEMENT!)

      You had your chance to throw-off tempting impetuous wickedness, Ed, but that has now all run-out.

      Just go away and DIE!

      (Wishing not-well unto the realm of the self-proved demoniac is no sin, so I hold. Just in case you were wondering, Trevor?)

      Delete
    5. James is truly off his rocker. He comes here spewing his typical garbage and if he doesn’t know who he’s talking to he just takes a guess and throws somebody under the bus. I would rather see Ken here than this guy!

      Delete
    6. Ed, go away! (OK, you don't have to die. Better?)

      Delete
    7. John, please give our regards to Captain Dunsel.

      Delete
  5. Duly-noted and entered into the record, Trevor! Thanks!

    So, according to what you have just written, are we to understand that you are advocating pro- the creation of energy from essentially . . . nowhere?

    If so - GOOD! I like, Trevor! That's the spirit!

    (If found actually so, ones like our good professing Professor of recent consideration might head for the open windows, seriously considering their alternate, practical utility to impending, paradigm destroying horror!)

    So, there remains this interesting issue of "the secret principle," as you put it.

    Might this that you have in mind, Trevor, be some thing theoretically (or actually) intended to be operational within the domain of mechanical asymmetry? (I use "mechanical" so as to imply something not of the mere theoretical per se, i.e. of the tangible/working, rather.)

    Between Trevor's offering of instant, and my own naughty effusion from before, I visited the BWF and - yep! Same old thing, but now even worse!

    Too, I noted that some veteran participants there are lamenting that things are just not quite 'as they once were' and, that the quality and quantity of posts have become somehow lessened/degenerated, etc.

    REALLY?!?

    This should not be at all surprising as it has now become a virtual dictatorship of Greenies, it's own very special, slowly-grown version of a P-M madhouse as morphed into the nothing-doing bar. Over a period, this stratification by rating, will do it's predictable, cancerous damage.

    From what I was able to determine in the short while I was there, only one poster now has FOUR of these (post the weighting re-set which pushed most all down into the dark, and some out I guess), all the rest being now his obvious, groveling lessers, this according to the stratification regimen by color, that is the default control/punishment system there.

    (And, our own J.C. having but only three! It should be five as he is the modern FATHER of Bessler research and awareness, for goodness sake. This fact should stand as evidence pro- a highly defective, systemic ever-metastasizing malaise.)

    This now highly elevated individual (ostensibly residing in another country but, I do not believe it as his command of American English is just too good to not be that native) has made it clear in his subtly-jabbing, ice-pick like style, that he is aware of the disparity. It is all very strange, very degenerate and creepy/elitist to all but the few "benefiting" participants.

    While John is in deep introspection and doing Bessler code re-writes, let's discuss asymmetry and it's possible answer as for how Bessler might have achieved his spectacular results.

    J.

    PS For any interested, if not noticed before, unless FIRST bitten I do not bite. This same I wish I could claim for others that do precisely THE OPPOSITE over at the B.W.F. but, so-far thankfully not here. (Although, in the not-so-distant past there have been some breakouts come from there to here, these compliments of certain of old veterans of the perfected sadistic poke, two of such miscreants coming first to this mind.)

    Honestly, for how much longer is it's present most patient underwriter to support that Circus Of The Strange? Is it actually deep-cover supported perhaps, as in a psy-ops experio, that explains it's most curious, non-productive longevity? One really wonders.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are most kind James, and your words most appreciated.

      JC

      Delete
  6. I assure you James the principle is nothing exotic it is purely an ingenious mechanical strategy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. OK, Trevor.

      It would appear that I'll just have to be patient before I find out what it is you've got going. (I should get the doctorate in patience :-)

      J.

      Delete
  7. Yes! So much to do and so little time.

    ReplyDelete
  8. John
    Do you have actual working gravity wheel?

    ReplyDelete
  9. If I did, I'm sure I'd have told the world! It's funny how people ask if you've got a working gravity wheel, if I had I wouldn't be reticent about it. ;-)

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  10. This is why he asked:

    "I am looking forward to seeing professor Simanek's (naughty James for your typo!) response to an actual working gravity wheel."

    ;-D

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fair point! So the answer is no, not yet.

      JC

      Delete
  11. Funny how all the guys that are now saying they know the solution can't really say what the true force is that is responsible for shifting the weights (e.g., CF, impact/momentum, gyroscopic effect, etc.). I think this can only be attributed to a lack of understanding of physics principles. Please don't say gravity please. Yes gravity may force a weight to move which in turn lifts another weight, but it is not gravity that does the actual shifting. There has to be some unique movement of the first weight that produces a force that is responsible for the lifting of the second weight. So what is that force?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Saying it is CF or momentum exchange due to impact, or something else is not giving away the secret is it? You still need to know the movement, and that is the elusive element.

      Delete
    2. It would give away the method used if I said where the force is coming from, as Bessler said, the weights themselves are the perpetual motion, or words to that effect. After so many years working on this I would not say I knew the solution if I didn't.

      JC

      Delete
    3. These two recent Anons are not Ed, who's demeaning, needling style is known to all that have ever been pricked by it.

      I've no idea as to who (or what!) these newest might be, and on account do not address them directly however, the observations made by it serve to stimulate thought so,

      Let's go . . .

      To begin, it opines thus: "Funny how all the guys that are now saying they know the solution can't really say what the true force is that is responsible for shifting the weights (e.g., CF, impact/momentum, gyroscopic effect, etc.)."

      According to my recollection, many have endeavored-to and some convincingly but, sans any demonstration whatsoever.

      Then, it next offered: "I think this can only be attributed to a lack of understanding of physics principles."

      It thinks!

      Then we got: "Please don't say gravity please."

      I agree and won't. It is the result of the application of gravitational force that does the trick actually, please?

      Then, as adding to the admonition it asserted additionally thus: "Yes gravity may force a weight to move which in turn lifts another weight, but it is not gravity that does the actual shifting."

      This I find convincing.

      And then/finally for a Big Flash Finish we got these cherries placed atop:

      "There has to be some unique movement of the first weight that produces a force that is responsible for the lifting of the second weight. So what is that force?"

      and secondarily . . .

      "You still need to know the movement, and that is the elusive element."

      [Or, are these even the self-same anonymous? How could we ever know? I'd bet even money that it is, or, that it might not be. I am confused! See what bafflement the hidden, skulking presence of the anonymous can be?]

      Continuing . . .

      BINGO! There IS and you DO, and, it is a direct result of gravity's force as made by that movement, uniquely asymmetrical as a matter of selection of rotatory direction.

      This constitutes a dynamic paradox which exists actually/physically and, is one that can be measured as well as felt. All others are but approaches tried repeatedly through the ages, and found losers consistently.

      The height-for-width game just goes on varietously, with frantic hope for changed/improved results being ever-renewed. (And, as a mental condition, we KNOW what this implies do we not?)

      CHEERS to ya!

      Delete
    4. Nicely put James, although the height-for-width game is a red herring designed to mislead or point us away from the true target.

      JC

      Delete
    5. What’s wrong with the previous gentleman? Has he drunk himself out of his five senses? The matter is not one supernatural, but preternatural.

      Delete
    6. Gees! Thanks John.

      Yeah, I guess it is that, as you say.

      Regarding the Anonymous of just previous, it was struggling to find prรฆternatural somewhere, I think.

      Here is a nice discussion about it, for any that might be interested: https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/34643/preternatural-vs-supernatural

      I do not imbibe.

      I caffeinate.

      CHEERS!

      Delete
  12. Hi all!

    It's been a while since I've been on this forum. I completed my wheel but, to no avail yet, it hasn't turned like I hoped it would. But no big deal, after all, Edison wasn't successful the first time he tried to make a light bulb work continuously. So, I'm at it again with a new design. Who knows, maybe this one will work.

    perpetualman

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good luck Pman, 99 perspiration and 1 per cent inspiration should do it.:-)

      JC

      Delete
    2. Good luck Pman. A bit of obsession is definitely required to solve the riddle; but do not let it become an unhealthy one :) Nothing is important than your well-being.

      yellow

      Delete
    3. So true Yellow. I try to be balanced in all my activities. I'm not getting any younger so, I must pace myself and enjoy the life that was given to me. I don't know if this current idea that I'm working on is the solution that Bessler found but, like John said,"99 perspiration and 1 per cent inspiration should do it". This wheel that I'm building is made of plexiglass so that you can see the inner workings and how each part moves.

      Anyway, back to work! :)

      Delete
  13. Truly spoken! I better go buy some more underarm deodorant ๐Ÿ˜

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well, I'm making progress on my new wheel. I've got the 3 main disc cut out, bearings are mounted, and now , I just need to build the weighted levers and mount everything on a plat form and then.....maybe I'll have one of those Eureaka moments!

    ReplyDelete
  15. HEY!!!!!

    WHERES EVERYBODY AT???!!!

    ReplyDelete
  16. We are just sitting here watching, awaiting news of YOUR turning wheel!!!

    ReplyDelete
  17. Cool!!! I'm working on it as diligently as I can. I just have to figure out the right length of the levers that connect to the weights. One thing about this wheel is, it's only about 8 or 9 inches in diameter. So I figured, if I can make a small one work then I can make a big work. Anyway, I'll keep you guys posted!

    ReplyDelete
  18. Still working on the wheel. It's slow going at the momoent because I'm having to make small (JIG's) so that I'll be able to duplicate the small parts that make up the linkages. I've designed the wheel to offset all the weights at one time which, if all goes according to plan, will give the wheel the ability to have multiple/variable speeds as well as forward and reverse motion.

    I'll keep you posted! ๐Ÿ˜๐Ÿ‘!

    ReplyDelete
  19. It is good to see people working on a supposedly "futile" endeavor. That is how the impossible becomes possible, that is why humanity has reached the level of advancement it has now. Kudos to all those trying,
    Even if you fail more kudos to you for at least trying.

    I am curious though, theoritically if someone had a working perpetual motion machine. How much could it be worth ? Millions or Billions?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's been said that each person has their own price, but if I had the only working perpetual motion wheel in the world, it would be priceless.....to me only. Having the satisfaction of being the only person in 300+ years and proving to the world that such a futile idea is possible, would be enough payment for me. On the other hand, if someone did finally make a wheel that works, you would be so popular that, wealth would just fall into your hands everywhere you go....IMO๐Ÿค“

      Delete
  20. It would be worth millions and billions to those who can afford to patent it.
    I have over a hundred inventions, I cannot afford to patent any of them, so I will never see any money for any of my inventions, so it would not be worth anything to me.

    ReplyDelete
  21. My (JIG's) are finished. Now I can start cutting the smaller pieces and assembling or mounting them to the outer wheels. By the way, a lot of the wheels parts are glued together using "Loctite liquid superglue" and baking soda together. The bond between these two chemicals is nothing short of ROCK SOLID!!!

    I hope no one mindes me commenting so much about my progress. Actually, it helps me to be more confident in this project.

    I'll keep you posted with new updates....if that's ok with everyone else.

    ReplyDelete
  22. For a nice change, it would seem as though progress is being made, P-M.

    "In all things and all ways, PROGRESS should be our most important product."

    Don't know about any others but, I am watching with my own breath very nearly abated . . .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks James. I just finished cutting 8 of the 16 small pieces of brass tubing for the sides of the wheel. And might I just add....they turned out perfectly! Sometimes I amaze myself๐Ÿ˜ Well, back to progress!!!

      Delete
  23. Well, all the small brass pieces are cut, sanded, and glued in place. Next step is to drill the holes for the linkages and glue them to the small brass pieces, and then assimble the main three components together. I'll try to get everything completed this weekend. This is very exciting! I hope all goes well, and it will if I take the time to do it right. ๐Ÿค“

    ReplyDelete
  24. Well I have a slight setback. I miss calculated cutting the pins that slide into the brass tubing. So I accidentally cut them too short. Oh well, I'll just have to go down to the hobby store and buy two more tubes to make the right size pins that I need to finish up the levers that will be attached to the weight.

    But hey, I'm making progress!!! So far, everything is going well except for those little pins I cut. So...tomorrow is another day๐Ÿ˜๐Ÿ‘

    ReplyDelete
  25. Keep it up perpetual man. I like your optimism. Keep the hope perpetual

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you rolling 2!

      I don't know why, but I have a really good feeling about this gravity wheel. I'm almost 100% sure that my new design is not the same as Bessler's. But, if it works, does it really have to be just like Bessler's original design? I don't think so.

      Anyway back to the perpetual lab๐Ÿ˜๐Ÿ‘

      Delete
  26. What is happening John. Any progress on your wheel. Its been a while since you posted any update.
    Does anyone else think there is need for divine intervention in the invention of a working wheel?
    And if there is eventually a working wheel,isn't it possible that the design might be totally different from Bessler's ? You know everyone keeps thinking we have to crack besslers code or secret, why not try to just invent a wheel that works instead of trying to solve besslers mystery? Just a thought, people.

    ReplyDelete
  27. I think we're on the same line of thinking "rolling 5". I know my version is very different. I had a slight set back over the weekend, but I'm back on track now. I had to sell one of my homemade necklaces today so that I can buy the brass tube/s to finish up my wheel. I had hoped to have it working over the weekend but hit a snag๐Ÿค“

    Anyway, one side of the wheel is almost finished. I installed the weights, and so now, I need to make the small linkages and attach them to the brass tubes. But at least, I'm inching my way closer to completing this wheel.

    I know it's taking some time to complete it but, I have to balance my personal and family interests so that I'm not neglecting the more important one.

    Well, I'll keep everyone updated!๐Ÿ˜๐Ÿ‘

    ReplyDelete
  28. That right there is the trick perpetualman. To not let the quest for perpetual motion become an obsession. Family and other things first , then building a perpetual wheel should be somewhat of an hobby with a little bit of obsession.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Totally in agreement rolling 5๐Ÿ˜๐Ÿ‘

    ReplyDelete

Was Johann Bessler an Undiscovered Genius?

A recent casual comment about Johann Bessler got me thinking; was Bessler a genius?  My first thought was to dismiss the idea because there...