After 50 Years, I Still Believe in Johann Bessler - Why?

The search for the secret of Johann Bessler’s wheel has continued for at least fifty years to my personal knowledge and the secret of  Perpetual Motion has been sought for hundreds maybe thousands of years.  So what is it that spurs people on to try to complete this quest despite the considerable amount of evidence that they/we are wasting our time?

I know from my own experience and from others I have spoken with, that despite the firm assurance that a machine that derived its energy from the continuous action of gravity on weights was impossible, we all of us “know” instinctively that the experts are wrong.   There seems to be a personal conviction inside the mind of everyone of us that there is a configuration  of weights which can move under the influence of gravity and overbalance the wheel.  I have no doubts at all that this is possible and that Johann Bessler found the way to do it.

The people who “know” with equal sincerity to ourselves that we are wrong, glibly spout the old arguments against our convictions, without giving the slightest attention to the very strong evidence, albeit circumstantial, that  Johann Bessler’s wheel worked.  A small but vital part of the theories taught as fact are no more reliable than our own beliefs in Bessler, but whereas the evidence that gravity-enabled wheels are only theorised to be impossible we have the much more convincing evidence that one at least actually worked.  If only one machine ever satisfied the requirements of a gravity-enabled  machine, then they are possible and the theories being taught in school are wrong and misleading.

"Hermann von Helmholtz (1821-94), the German physicist, was able to convince the scientists of the world, at the tender age of twenty-six, that the First Law was a valid assumption when, in  1847, he presented before the Physical Society of Berlin a paper entitled ‘On the Conservation of Energy’. He began his analysis by declaring that perpetual motion machines were axiomatically impossible.  Helmholtz did not have to prove his axiom since it was enough to confirm that no one had yet succeeded in building a successful perpetual motion." (Perpetual Motion; The History of an Obsession by Arthur Orde-Hume 1977) "An axiom or postulate is a statement that is taken to be true, to serve as a premise or starting point for further reasoning and arguments". Wikipedia.

Helmholtz published a statement that a machine such as Bessler's couldn't exist because no one had ever made one, and yet we are publishing a hypothesis that they can exist because Bessler made one. From wikipedia. "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, positive evidence is distinct from a lack of evidence or ignorance of that which should have been found already, had it existed".

Bessler sought to prove that his wheel worked as he claimed, using clever a arrangement of weights. The renowned scientist, Gottfried Leibniz, visited the inventor twice and was convinced that  the wheel  was genuine although he did not know if it was perpetual motion, because like most people, he did not believe that it was possible, nevertheless he was satisfied that Bessler’s wheel has something of value in it and said it would be a shame if such a valuable invention should be lost.

Leibniz offered some advice on how Bessler could try to provide the  best possible evidence that his wheel was genuine.  He suggested that the inventor permit a highly respected person be allowed to view the interior to provide unequivocal evidence of the machines validity; secondly he should try to persuade this person to hold an endurance of one month test under lock and key to again add to the proof required; and lastly to arrange an official examination by senior members of the establishment to again add further evidence of the machines validity.  He also proposed a number of demonstrations to run during the official tests. Lastly he recommended the translocation of the wheel during the official examinations so that those present could satisfy themselves that there were no secret connections to some hidden method of propulsion, whatever that might be. 

Leibniz was a frequent visitor to the court of Karl the Landgrave's cousin, Moritz-Wilhelm, Duke of Zeitz, and the offer of Karl's patronage was inspired by Moritz -Wilhelm's many conversations with Leibniz. Kassel is only 117 miles from Zeitz and one often taken in those days by horse and carriage.

All of these suggestions were carried out and it is difficult to imagine anything else he could have done to prove his claims.  It is also difficult to work out how he could have conned all those people without being found out. It has often been commented that even today it would be difficult if not impossible to reproduce all of Bessler's tests and examinations using only the materials available at that time.

The month's  endurance test stretched to two months at Bessler's insistance but it did depend upon the honesty of Karl the Landgrave, as did his verification of the internal workings of the wheel, but his reputation was beyond reproach and he had nothing to gain and much to lose by becoming involved in a scam.

So, returning to the question in the title of this blog; why am I satisfied beyond a shadow of doubt that Johann Bessler's claims were genuine? For all the reason described above, plus an instinctive subconscious knowledge that I know that it can be done.

JC

Johann Bessler’s Bi-directional Wheels.

Following a suggested topic for my blog I have decided to offer my current thinking on Besslers one-way and two-way wheels.

Briefly, when Bessler first exhibited his first two perpetual motion machines, or ‘wheels’ as most of us tend to call them, he was accused of tricking his audience with a device which required winding up.  Proving that this was not true presented  a problem.

One idea which he  took from Leibniz and arranged was the two month endurance test under lock and key and guard, but he needed something more immediate.  His idea was to try to make the wheel able to turn in either direction, and I think he decided to build a wheel with mirror image mechanisms which would be capable of turning the wheel in either direction.

In order to test the feasibility of this idea I constructed a model of a Savonius windmill which has a vertical axle.  This is analagous to Bessler's wheel although using a different force.  Thus the wind blows horizontally turning the windmill in one direction.  The Savonius rotor consists of two or three or more scoops. Looking down on the rotor from above, a two-scoop machine would look like an "S" shape in cross section. Because of the curvature, the scoops experience less drag when moving against the wind than when moving with the wind.  Anemometers, used for measuring wind speed,  are also similar in design, although some have three and four scoops.

Having built the test model I made it spin by placing a fan nearby.  Once I had tested my model, I placed another Savonius rotor on top of the first on the same vertical axle.  This one was a mirror image of the first and designed to turn in the opposite direction.

Once placed in the path of the wind from the fan, both windmills turned in opposite directions at the same time, on the same axle.  The next thing was to link the two windmills so that they could only rotate together, in the same direction.

When linked the two windmills remained stationary, just like Bessler's bi-directional wheel.   But as soon as the combined windmill was given a gentle push in either direction, the whole assembly began to rotate in which ever direction it was started, accelerating to about half the speed of each single windmill when not attached to its twin, again like Bessler's bi-directional wheel. This action mimics perfectly how Bessler’s bi-directional wheels performed.

In a Savonius windmill the concave surface has higher resistance to the wind than it’s opposite blade which presents a convex surface.  With two opposing surfaces facing the wind there is balance with neither giving way to the wind.  But when you give the assembly a push what happens?

Let us assume that you gave the upper rotor a gentle push, so that it moves with the wind while the other one, lower on the axle, resists. Giving it a push allows the side moving with the wind to take advantage of the wind while the opposing rotor is fighting against the wind.  The windmill takes the path of least resistance and so begins to turn faster while the other side resists but is only able apply a braking effect.

The backwards turning mirror image mechanism has resistance on both blades, whereas the opposite, forwards turning other mirror image mechanism, has none on one blade and limited resistance on the other blade. The side which moves with the wind has its convex side moving against the wind while it’s concave moves with the wind.  But the opposite side that moves against the wind is resistant as well - both concave and convex.  

So in my opinion Bessler tested that theory in the same way as I did, with a Savonius rotor. Of course Savonius hadn't invented his design then, but we know that Bessler was familiar with the concept because the windmill he fell to his death from was a vertical axle windmill.  There are some vertical axis windmill still functioning in Iran believed to be at least 1000 years of age (panemones), and for several centuries vertical axis windmills were also in use in China and Egypt..  It's possible that Bessler saw one in Italy during his travels, or even England, or Ireland.

JC

My Blog About Johann Bessler's Perpetual Motion Machine.

I've been writing this blog for nine years and it is becoming increasingly difficult to find something new to write about!  There is only one subject upon which I want to write and it is the one I choose not to do for now; my deciphering of Bessler's code.  I know from the emails I get that many people want me to explain where the clues are, what they mean and why, but I am determined to build a proof of principle machine before I publish my conclusions.  As I have said numerous times, if it fails I will then publish my conclusions because I think they are correct and it is possible that I might have made a simple error and the information will still lead to the correct solution.

I have good reasons for not publishing the information yet.  In the past I have speculated on what the clues might mean and have been criticised for not making it clear that my comments were just conjecture or theory and not fact.  So even though I may believe that I have found the solution, at this point I am not going to publish it, even if I clearly labelled it as speculation because I want it to be taken seriously - and that won’t happen without a working wheel. If, on the other hand, my construction does not work, then, rather than wait until proof arrives, I will publish under the title SPECULATION and explain in detail where the clues are, what they mean and why I think so.  This I will do because I don't want time to slip by again and nothing gets published, ever.

The problem with speculation is that without proof most people prefer their own ideas and tend to dismiss other people’s theories.  I have experienced this many times and have also dismissed the theories of others.  So unless I can present my conclusions as fact backed up by a working wheel - or show that some of the clues I have found can be demonstrated as valid, I will await the results of my Bessler wheel construction before publishing.

I am unwilling to close the blog down  until I am ready to publish everything, so if anyone has any ideas about a subject I could write in this blog, feel free to offer suggestions.  After 566 posts, some of which are returns to previous posts, my ideas are drying up.  Once my wheel has been built and tested there will be numerous posts but until then I will probably put the "Legend of Bessler's wheel",  back up but leave space for comments.

If you comment with a suggestion, please do not be offended if I either decline to write about the subject or don't respond with a comment, or there is a delay in responding. My time for all sorts of things are limited by my New Year's Resolution. I am now fully concentrating on building the wheel and after the last year in which I was unable to find the time to spend on it, I am commited to finishing it and airing my conclusions as soon as possible.

I shall be 74 next month and I have found that as I age, time seems to have speeded up and I am worried that I might not finish the build before I am unable to finish it.

I look forward to any suggestions but if there are none I shall be satisfied that I have not neglected anything of importance.

JC

If Johann Bessler had Sold his Perpetual Motion Machine.

I wonder what changes might have occured to the world in which we live if Bessler had sold his machine.  There were only two potential purchasers; the first being Karl the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel, and the other, Peter the Great, Czar of Russia.  There was a third, the Baron Anton von Mannsberg, Bessler’s landlord in later years, who ordered the inventor to build another copy of his machine, but once again circumstances beyond his control prevented the examination of the model and it was finally lost to us.

Karl was a clever man, intensely interested in the latest discoveries in science theory and fact.  He financed research into astronomy and numerous other areas of the burgeoning field of scientific investigation, as well as his steam experiments with Denis Papin. Despite his initial interest in Bessler's machine he was more interested in Newcomen’s steam engine and I think he knew Bessler’s wheel would not do to pump water up the 300 metres necessary to feed the cascade. The fact that Newcomen's machine would not have coped either,  was probably realised quite quickly as reservoirs for collecting water at the top of the hill were planned before his death and they are still functioning today.

But Peter, the Czar, was another who looked into the future and sought help in every field of science and technology.  He was on his way to examine Bessler’s wheel when he died. Professor Christian Wolff had been invited to St Petersburg to head up the university recently founded by Peter and one of Wolff’s requirements was that he be involved in developing Bessler’s wheel.  So both potential purchasers failed to complete.

Peter was the best chance of securing the machine for future generations and would have succeeded in developing a useful version with Wolff's help.  Despite the much more powerful machine designed and built by Thomas Newcomen, Bessler's wheel was so much cheaper and more easily constructed, and given the poor state of technology in Russia at that time, it is likely that Bessler's machine would have thrived. During the subsequent 300 years it is inconceivable that new uses and developments would not have ocurred.

Elsewhere, the year 1701 saw the opening of the Navigation School in tMoscow; in 1715 it was moved to St. Petersburg, where it became the foundation for the Navy Academy. Later it was followed with Engineering, Artillery and Medical schools.

The St. Petersburg Academy opened on the initiative of Peter I in 1725 and played a great role in formation and development of the Russian science.  Originally the Academy was mostly based on foreign scientists such as Professor Christian Wolff, who were willing to work in Russia.

It is clear that Bessler's machine would have become something of a workhorse in areas unsuited to the development of the much more complex Newcomen machine.  But what if any, form would it take today and for what purpose?

I would have thought that given the introduction of electricity to Russia in 1876, when the first power station was built, and in 1879 electric street lighting was installed in St. Petersburg, (only a year or two after the the USA, France and England), it would not have taken long for the same development process which was happening around the world, to have taken place in Russia too.

Who knows what additional uses might have been discovered which might have pushed some of the later inventions into a lower position iin the world of technology?

I don't wish to go over old ground too often but here are a few of my previous blog referring to alternative used for Bessler's wheel.

Friday, 27 July 2018                   

Wednesday, 30 March 2016

Friday, 6 March 2015

Thursday, 2 August 2012

Wednesday, 16 November 2011

Friday, 15 January 2010

JC

The "TOYS" Page Reviewed

When Johann Bessler was arrested he destroyed any drawings which explained how his wheel worked, but he still arranged to leave a number of drawings which he felt would lead someone with the right credentials to the solution....eventually.

The torrent of text speculating about something he wrote or drew and what it might mean, is fascinating but in my opinion, so far from the inventor's actual meaning and ultimate intention as to be beyond any likelyhood of revealing the solution.  There are clues written within the text but they are ambiguous and hard to make sense of but I’m certain that in the end they will be found to make sense within the laws of physics - they have to, because there cannot be any reason or sense in trying to circumvent them.

In Das Triumphirend, Bessler makes some interesting comments which may have been largely ignored.  I have added my own theory about the meaning of the 'Toys' page after the following.  He wrote.

"In a machine such as mine, ..... the motive force, the ability to move itself and drive other objects makes up the FORM of the device, without which its framework is just any old heap of material, which has completely lost its essence.  To cause the machine to stop requires the application of a greater external force, and can be accomplished without difficulty whenever one requires it, e.g. for the machine’s longer conservation.  Such a cessation can also occur through the (page 216) wearing-out or breaking of the machine’s parts.  The first is a “moral accident”, the second a “material accident.”  As an example of the ideas I am discussing, consider the case of two small metal spheres, one of iron and one of lead.  For both of them, their FORM consists in their regular sphericity.  But we find that, placed in a furnace, one loses its shape quicker than the other.  Therefore the greater or lesser “meltability” of such spheres is not the result of “sphericalness” – common to both – but of the physical characteristics of the two materials.  And it is this “material accident” which is the FORMAL CAUSE of the difference.        

"I must stress that if a Perpetual Motion machine of the type I have described really is in conformity with the demands of the most eminent mathematicians and (page 76) engineers, then it really deserves to have the Perpetual Motion appellation no matter how fragile the material from which it is constructed.  The case is no different from that of a leaden or even waxen sphere.  They are both as perfectly deserving of the description “sphere” as is an iron one, despite the fact that the latter will withstand fire and other attacks better than the two former.  For form gives the essence of the thing."

So what can we glean from these comments? It is interesting that he capitalises the word FORM and uses bold type to reinforce the idea.  He implies that FORM can be more important than the material it is constructed from.  My own efforts to make sense of the "Toys" page, sometimes referred to recently as MT138 although it is actually MT 138,139,140 and 141, have led me to believe that the figures shown on the page simply show the FORM.  He actually uses the word 'FORMA' in both the German and the Latin text which translates into FORM or SHAPE or APPEARANCE.

So, examining the "Toys" page, in my opinion, it is wrong to assume that item 'A' represents a Jacob's Ladder.  It is actually telling you that there are five mechanisms each having a form or shape, similar to that of items 'C' and 'D', but not working as they do. Each of the five items in 'A' are not part of what appears to be a Jacob's Ladder. Item 'B' has no connection with item 'A, even though it may appear to. It is telling you that each of the five items' in 'A' have a single twist to their design.  The same information is repeated in items 'C' and 'D'. 'C' shows you the form of the mechanism and 'D' repeats it with the same twist. 

Item 'E' includes an additional piece of information about the form. It's form or shape is present in the final mechanism shape, but as Bessler states in a handwritten note, " 5. Children's game in which there is something extraordinary for anyone who knows how to apply them in a different way."  The number 5 refers to the five labelled parts 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D' and 'E', and his comment relates to those same parts.  This supports my conclusion that the figures shown are not intended to be used as you see them, but they should "be applied in a different way". For more on this see my blog of  Wednesday, 22 March 2017.  (Johann Bessler's Graphic Clues)

 In his quote above Bessler says that the two spheres are made of two different materials but they are still spheres.  Their differences are not apparent at first sight, but they each have different characteristsics and behave differently under certain circumstances, so at first sight might be misconstrued.

So in my opinion he is saying that FORM or SHAPE is important but two similar shapes may have different characteristics or to put it another way, is, use the SHAPE you see on the paper but don't assume that you understand the way that shape will function and is the way the inventor intended.  This is hard to explain. Just because item 'A' on the 'TOYS' page looks like a Jacobs ladder, don't assume that is what it is.  Separate the component parts, try merging them to get the intended design but retain the obvious differences.

This digression in DT is there for a reason and I think it is a hint to look at the drawings but don't make any assumptions abut their actions.

JC