A blog about Johann Bessler and the Orffyreus Code and my efforts to decipher it. I'll comment on things connected with it and anything I think might be of interest to anyone else.
Please note that there is a copyright notice at the bottom of the page. I have no objection to my words and ideas being discussed elsewhere but I would be grateful if you would acknowledge my authorship.
If Bessler’s wheel should finally materialise and is shown to work due to the effect of gravity on some moveable weights, then we can make a provisional assumption that it might be possible to apply a similar configuration to other conservative forces.
Many here have expressed the opinion that once built Bessler’s wheel would be weak and of limited use. In my opinion they are wrong and there will be many uses, particularly in third world countries for basic energy generation, irrigation, refrigeration etc.
There is also the potential to creat a reverse system based on the concept behind Bessler's wheel in which a drive is fitted to the reverse design to produce inertial thrust in a particular direction. There is potential in such a scheme for boats and even space travel. etc. But there is one more area of science which I think may hold even more potential.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology lead the field in nano energy research. This complex subject is full of potential uses for nano engineering, but my knowledge is very limited. This quote from an acquaitence at my local university, “Nanotechnology involves the creation and/or manipulation of materials at the nanometre (nm) scale. One nanometre is 10-9 m or one millionth of a millimetre. Nanotechnology is essentially ‘engineering at a very small scale’, and this term can be applied to many areas of research and development – from medicine to manufacturing to computing, and even to textiles and cosmetics”. Fortunately, I was talking to someone who used to be a good friend of Mike Senior, a couple of days ago about my work with Johann Bessler. This guy is a Professor at Warwick university and it was his idea that if we could prove that Bessler’s wheel worked there were numerous potential applications within the field of nanotechnology.
You can get an idea of the ongoing research by looking at this page
The author lists a number of developments currently being researched and my contact at Warwick University suggested that nano-engineering could make use of the design concept used in Bessler’s wheel.
I cannot confirm or deny the potential but I thought it worth mentioning. There are people here with far more knowledge and greater intellectual abilities than I have, so I hope perhaps they might comment more knowledgeably than I could?
I moved house two years ago and took the opportunity to throw out most of my old bits and pieces of wheel experiments. I had hoarded them thinking that I might want to go back at some point to revisit an earlier idea. But then I realised that after almost 40 years of fabrication I had progressed to the point where I knew instinctively what would or wouldn’t be useful in a new design. So I bought in new material and once I had my workshop up and running, earlier this year, I set to with renewed enthusiasm to build my latesy version of Bessler's wheel..
And that is my point; I have tinkered with simulations from time to time but have never had the same feedback that I get from actually handling the piecwes, and have dismissed them as a waste of time. Making parts, manipulating them, finding that sometimes they don’t work as you expected, or discovering new movements in the process, or they inspire new thoughts and designs - you cannot beat actually building the wheels. It generates enthusiasm for new designs - well it does for me. BTW, I cannot imagine anyone who is not an incurable optimist ever solving this puzzle. You need a 100 per cent positive attitude to find the answer.
The design I’m building has been more or less complete in my mind for a couple of years and I am sure that it would be difficult to build a simulation so an actual build is the best thing and anyway you would need to build it eventually just to prove you were right. Maybe the simulation might indicate that it would not work because of some simple error in the input or the settings.
I’ve seen any number of comments about problems with a simulation and I simply don’t trust them. I’m sure that an expensive simulation software could predict the correct solution, but these off-the-shelf versions seem to me to be full of glitches and are not to be trusted.
Returning to my own build, I set out the design parameters and copied them onto the backboard (the wooden disc which will hold all the parts) and drilled the necessary holes in exactly the right places. I fitted the levers on their swivel posts. The levers were precisely the correct length.....but when I manually rotated them, two of them touched two adjoining levers, interfering with their actions. Admittedly space was tight and I could have planned for them to have more room, but it is surprising how hard you try for extreme accuracy you can still overlook some small discrepancy in the position of for instance a swivel post.
In fact the accuracy of the positioning of the posts is not vital to success. A millimetre in any direction would not affect the viability of the design. So I drilled two new holes and corrected the problem.
It has been often stated that there is only one design that will work, but is this true? I ask this for two reasons, firstly Bessler said he had several designs which would work, and secondly I am aware of at least one design which apparently works. I have seen the design on paper and I cannot say for sure if it will work, but it seems that a working model was made. What I can say is that this design is different to mine and I do know that my design is the same as the one Bessler intended to pass on to us. This suggests that there is more than one way to use gravity as an enabler of continuous rotation.
I can see from my own design that it looks possible to create the same effect usng differenr mechanism designs.
So my preference is definitely for fabrication but I know many people swear by simulations and animations.
In my last post I commented that gravity might not be an energy source, just as we have been taught and continue to be so - but many years ago I came to the conclusion that this must be wrong. My reasons for this are briefly discussed below.
If we believe (as I do) that Bessler told the truth then his implication that gravity provided the sole means of energy for his wheel means that gravity can be used as the ultimate source of energy for the wheel, even though we have been taught that this is impossible. Please read on for my explanation.
The many tests and demonstrations the wheel underwent, all indicate that what Bessler said was true, and since he did not dare to cheat because being found cheating could lead to execution by the axeman, we have to accept his assurances. In support of this we have the word of a knowledgeable man, Karl the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel, known for his absolute integrity, that the machine was genuine because he had studied the interior.
Dismissing these points means that it is unlikely that anyone will ever find the solution to Bessler's wheel, despite the fact that we know it worked.
Apologies for briefly going back to basics. In the case of a conservative force the total work done in moving a particle between two points is independent of the taken path. When an object moves from one location to another, the force changes the potential energy of the object by an amount that does not depend on the path taken.
In other words, in the case of gravity, if something is dropped it loses the potential energy it had at a higher point. But we can restore it by lifting the object dropped, back up to its higher point
In the case of a non-conservative force the energy that it removes from the system is no longer available to the system for kinetic energy.
So our problem lies in finding a way to lift the fallen weight back up without using any additional forces other than gravity.
This is said to be impossible because the energy expended in dropping the weight has to be found in order to lift it back up again, but the energy has already been spent so there is no way to use gravity to lift it back up again - even though gravity is a continuous force, and a non-conservaive force could not drive a wheel of continuous rotation. Therefore it has to be a conservative force driving Bessler's wheel.
I have suggested the following argument countless times and people still don't get it. The interface between gravity and Bessler's wheel is the weights. Gravity makes the weights fall, and the weights make the wheel turn.
Interfaces play a major part in all types of motion. Wind and sails, steam and piston, flowing water and waterwheels, etc. In each case an energy source provides the impetus and the interfaces react to provide motion. So it is with gravity, it provides the force and the weights react to it.
Returning to my point about Bessler's wheel and not looking for an additional source of energy, everyone has been looking for this mysterious energy source that has been suggested, for many years. They have been unsuccessful because no such other source exists and neither is it necessary. Steam, ambient temperature changes, bellows, live animals have all been suggested but nothing has been able demonstrate a similar power output which Bessler's wheel did relying purely on gravity
Therefore we must assume that there was no other force used, and that leads us to the only possioble conclusion, Bessler found a way to use gravity alone to drive his machine, and that leads us to the final conclusion and it is this;
There is a way to configure the weights so that they respond to the effect of gravity by creating an permanent excess weight on the downwards side of the axle. In confirmation of this, even when the wheel is stopped the overbalancing effect is still in operation and only the brake prevents the wheel from turning. This overbalancing is produced automatically as soon as either a weight falls, or a weight has already fallen. No other scenario can explain this feature of the wheel.
We can calculate the work done by gravity in making a weight fall by multiplying the mass of the weight times the distance it falls vertically, so at least we are allowed to assume gravity does do work! The assumption that we cannot use gravity as an energy source relies totally on empiricism, a definition of which is, 'by means of observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic,' In other words the conclusion that gravity cannot be an energy source relies not so much on theory and logic as by observation. In other words no one has even been able to configure the weights to make wheel rotate continuously therefore it must be impossible.
If you are still reluctant to accept the premise that gravity is a source of energy consider the following. British clockmaker William Clement produced the first longcase clocks around 1680. It could run for a week without having the weights raised to restart the clock. That's a week of gravity power. But now consider this.
The Clock of the Long Now, also called the 10,000-year clock, is a mechanical clock under construction, that is designed to keep time for 10,000 years. The project to build it is part of the Long Now Foundation.
The project was conceived by Danny Hillis in 1986. The first prototype of the clock began working on December 31, 1999, just in time to display the transition to the year 2000. At midnight on New Year's Eve, the date indicator changed from 01999 to 02000, and the chime struck twice. The two-meter prototype is on display at the Science Museum in London.
As of June 2018 , two more recent prototypes are on display at The Long Now Museum & Store at Fort Mason Center in San Francisco.
The manufacture and site construction of the first full-scale prototype clock is being funded by Jeff Bezos' Bezos Expeditions, founder of Amazon, with $42 million, and is on land which Bezos owns in Texas.
A clock designed to run for 10,000 years purely on the force of gravity. Do you still think gravity is not a source of energy?