Thursday, 31 January 2019

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.


  1. Just a heads-up - i'm currently measuring OU, and can't make it go away. That is, i cannot find an error.

    200% without gravity, 800% with, tho gravity's incidental - it's basically a KE amplifier. The system always has exactly the right amount of KE for its given momentum's distribution of inertia and speed, but the inertia component can be changed, on the fly, for free - without performing mechanical work. So if anyone knows any physicists / engineers.. Mechanical inertia i can deal with. Human inertia... not so much.

    See from page 31 of my BWF thread..

    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    2. At first sight, this looks interesting. A couple of points:—

      In your initial model, two ½kg masses are started each at 2m radius, at 1rad/sec. (The other two don't move at first). You say this requires 8J. I say only 2J.

      [Calc:— I = [sum of mr²] = (½ × 2²) + (½ × 2²) = 2 + 2 = 4 kg-m²
      RotE = ½Iw² = ½ × 4 × 1² = 2J.]

      Energy must be consumed by the orbital motors when they are activated later on in the cycle, but I didn't see any accounting for that. IF they are only needed to bring the mass-pairs' rotation to zero with respect to Earth, energy could actually be gained rather than expended from this requirement (e.g. the mass-pairs could stop their rotation by winding up a strong torsion spring against Earth). But it seems the orbital motors are connected between the outer rotors and the central rotor, and so ARE required to add energy(?)

    3. The initial version - 200% w/o gravity - begins with an MoI of 16, which then switches down to 8, check this diagram:

      So it's initially two ½ kg masses at 4 m radius..

      Thus at 1 rad/s we begin with ½Iw² = ½ * 16 * 1² = 8 J.

      We could also take the 'edge speed' of a 4 m radius rotor at 1 rad/s as '4 m / sec' in terms of x+y linear velocity, so again, ½mV² gives 4 J each, 8 in total.

      Also, do bear in mind that the energy's being calculated in duplicate - independently by me, using the standard equations, and also by WM, using it's own internal low-level calculus, via the 'kinetic()' output, from which i simply deduct radial ½mV², with zero deviation between the two derivations.

      Thus, if i HAD made such a mistake, we'd see that gap between what i'm calculating vs what WM is calculating..

      As a matter of fact, noticing such a gap in a previous series of tests was a key inspiration here - i'd been calculating MoI as mr² based on the actual orbital mass radii, but this metric was failing when the orbiting masses began axial rotation... at which point, WM was measuring twice as much energy as me! Thus it became evident that the MoI had devolved to the net orbiting mass focused at the orbiting axes - so long as they were rotating themselves, their actual mass radii became irrelevant to the orbital MoI!

      That result was from earlier in the same thread:

      ..i figured the solution back then, but the MoI calcs were already too long (WM limits equation lengths) and the fix involved adding a logical operation to switch between MoI terms when the orbiting axes were rotating vs non rotating, so i left it bugged, and accepted WM's figure over mine. Now i've switched to calculating the CONDITIONAL MoI and, as you can see, in perfect agreement with WM's internal calcs.

      As for the motors & actuators, they're not 'electrical' in any sense, merely the application of torque * angle, and linear force * displacement - so neither has any means of applying any more energy than their respective plotted workloads.

      So, yes - in any other circumstance, we'd see a distinct curve plot as torque changed over the given angle. The area under that curve would be the work done by the motor.

      However in this case, we get a flat line! Why? The torque being supplied by the motor is being instantly reciprocated with an identical inertial torque of equal sign and magnitude!!!

      Where's THAT come from? The effective MoI switch-down caused by applying that torque against the central rotor!

      So, the instant the orbiting motors activate, orbital MoI flips from '16' down to '8', and since rotKE = ½Iw², and momentum is conserved, per the MoI exploit we now have twice the mass at half the radius and twice the RPM, hence twice the rotKE.

      IOW we've caused CoAM to create KE in order to preserve the product of MoI & RPM!

      Note also that at no time does (nor could) the system have any more or less rotKE than its conserved momentum as a function of its MoI / RPM distribution.. it's always precisely the 'right' amount..

      You're right on the cusp of the penny-drop..

      I'm just your typical skint loner hermit with a shite-but-all-consuming job, no academic contacts whatsoever and the very cliche of impossible claims. Prince Albert, in a can, available in tartan OR striped paint! Trust me i have a bronze swimming certificate!

      Lil' help, anyone..?

    4. Because you find something, you are on the right track. Do not be discouraged, search further. Bessler said that a stubborn man with a lot of free time will find a solution.

    5. Yes, for the masses at 4m radius, we agree on their moments of inertia and energies.

      I made a silux model of your idea, using pre-wound torsion springs (each 100N-m at 0.15 radians, for a 2m radius case), instead of orbital motors. But the springs just gave up their energy, with no net gain. Total energy did double, but half of it came from the springs. I don't think that is anywhere near enough to rule out your idea, but I do think that if there is a flaw, it will have to do with how those orbital motors are being modelled.

    6. I tried 'em too, but came up against Hooke's law - the changing force as a function of angle.

      Obviously, once a spring's unwound, it begins winding back up in the other direction, so the counter-torque inverts, destroying the effect..

      I also tried a ratcheted spring that slips after unloading, again tho, it's hard to tune it to the desired effect.. should maybe have another go..

      AFAICS, a constant torque shouldn't be necessary - once the axial rotors have stopped, their momentum transferred over to the orbital axis, CoAM should be enough to keep 'em in that configuration, passively sustaining the halved-MoI / doubled rotKE state. The radial translation is only required to actually consolidate / harvest the gain, but it's manifesting the instant the torque's applied.

      Similarly, the original config in which i first noticed this 'converging MoI' effect doesn't use any application of conventional torque at all - the per-cycle gain in momentum is sourced exclusively from gravity via the 'up' vs 'down' speed difference caused by the MoI variations on the orbiting axes.

      Another facet of the exploit is seen here:

      ..demonstrating that the CF profiles are unique to their respective axes - or to put it another way, from the axial rotor's perspective, the inbound vs outbound orbital CF profiles sum to zero; precisely as shown in the basic "200%_No_Grav" sim. The two CF profiles are independent and fully decoupled..

      ..TBH, the initial idea was to actually spin up the axial rotors, the logic being that the associated CF workload was, as seen above, independent of the orbital CF workload and so the two speeds could be arbitrarily different, and so have an arbitrary cost / benefit ratio. The speed difference could be anything whatsoever - all that matters is that the orbiting rotors are either also rotating about their own axes, or else locked in the "one in, one out" config that causes the effective violation of mass constancy. So for instance it might cost 5 J of work against axial CF, to cause a 10 J rise in orbital rotKE, or whatever.. was only once i started putting it together i realised i could just spin down the orbiting rotors instead, eliminating axial CF entirely. Bonus.

      As to whether the motors have performed work - or, more to the point, how that torque could've registered as 'zero' in this particular instance - again, consider this:

      • The net momentum's conserved (the cycle is statorless, so effectively a closed system of interacting masses, subject to CoAM via N1 & N3; it begins and ends with the same 16 kg-m²-rad/s, held throughout.

      • We can plainly see that the MoI DOES halve when the motors kick in - WM's 'Kinetic()' function detects it, as do the calculations built up from the meters, and the two independent derivations of the rotKE are in perfect agreement, based on that instantaneous 'MoI flip'.

      Speed doubles automatically in response to that MoI drop - not something i've programmed it to do; simply the result of the sim applying CoAM. If MoI suddenly halves, speed must instantly double to conserve their product. Half the MoI at twice the velocity is twice the rotKE.

      A system can only have 'the right amount' of rotKE for its given MoI and speed. And so the source of the gain is CoAM - it's like an adiabatic compression; squeezing a conserved quantity of momentum into a tighter MoI raises its speed, and thus the 'temperature' of its rotKE.. weak analogy, but you get the drift - the very question of extra work / energy from the motors, beyond the T*a metered - is superfluous; what more or less energy should 16 kg-m² at 2 rad/s have than 16 J? It's the only 'right' amount possible, per ½Iw².

      Because momentum's conserved, but the MoI halved. So the speed doubled.. and half the MoI at twice the RPM = twice the mojo..

    7. reductio ad absurdum, if the motors HAD somehow slipped some torque past the output explicitly measuring it, and which works fine in all other situations, THEN we'd have to see EVEN MORE final KE than the ½Iw² value of the 16 kg-m²-rad/s of conserved angular momentum - ie. > 16 J final KE. But also, more momentum - or else, the orbital rotors would've had to have been spun back up in the other direction, and further accelerating the orbital axis, but as-is, there's simply nowhere to FIT any more KE into the system than its conserved momentum is worth - so any notion of "hidden motor energy" is, by definition, surplus to requirements.

      It's self-evidently OU. I see no fundamental reason it couldn't be implemented purely mechanically, but don't want to waste time doing spurious / frivolous things with it.. Besides, we don't know it ain't a doomsday device, yet ('big rip' style).

      So, might have another go with springs, but far better, surely, to grasp the meaning of the motor torque * angle plots in relation to the MoI & momentum conditions..!? The 'inertial torque' caused by torquing the orbiting rotors and so halving the MoI is equal in sign and magnitude to that of the torque so being applied! That's why it's registering as zero - it's cancelled by an equal opposing torque!! Whole thing dovetails from where i'm sittin'.. it all jives..

    8. ETA: mind the typos above - ie. meant "16 kg-m²-rad/s @ MoI = 8 / 2 rad/s = 16 J rotKE"

      Basic point; if the motors / actuators did work, where is it? The only place to look would be the CF profile corresponding to the MoI change... not the motor torque! Yet that, too, is a flat trace... because the 'orbital CF' workload is a zero-sum, as demonstrated in the simplified example above!

      It's a 'logic trap' for nature..!

    9. I built another better and correctly sized silux model, and this time tried constant-torque springs winding up against Earth to bring the outer rotors to zero rotation, while simultaneously delivering the energy they would have stored (e.g. in a previous cycle) by reacting against Earth to the central rotor. But again, no net energy gain.

      As you say, in your model, "Speed doubles automatically in response to that MoI drop..." You are doing "something" to achieve that drop and speed doubling, with your orbital motors. Assuming a real-world prototype is to be built, the problem as I see it is to find some real-world mechanism that will also really do that "something". Not easy!

    10. All of you try to resolve it in your mind; unfortunately, it can't be figured out by natural smartness!

      Buy a hack saw, a box of files; make some thing that will work.
      Sam Peppiatt

    11. @arktos1001 - applying torque against Earth is already confirmed as breaking the gain conditions:

      ..compared to the no-stator case: yes, the gain depends upon all torques and counter-torques being contained within the system.

      Thus the motor torque and counter-torque presumably cancel, leaving the 'reactionless' inertial torque from the resulting MoI drop.

      3 torques battling it out, 2 of equal sign, 1 opposed, seems to be what's happening..

      The halving of MoI when the motors activate seems a mathematical and experimental certainty. We don't know exactly how WM2D is calculating MoI or rotKE, but its calcs perfectly match those from the standard classical equations used in the meters.

      So all indications are that a physical build would respond in the same way. So long as the masses are distributed as depicted, torquing the outer rotors causes the same change in orbital MoI as physically retracting the masses does.. only, instantly!

      The resulting "zero time acceleration" remains as extraordinary as the KE gain..

      You'd think - just intuitively - such an outcome MUST be non-physical? Yet the alternative is a transient failure in CoM - net momentum would have to dip, then come back up somehow.. so if CoM operates at lightspeed, and the MoI changes instantly, then the instant change in velocity must be real, no?

      A physical test of this particular detail seems utterly compelling, doesn't it? If the phenomenon actually presents then WOW!

    12. It's that instant change, modelled in a Finite Elements program, that troubles me a bit. I don't use WM2D, so don't know how much trust it deserves. But I have had definite errors occur in models with instant "step-changes" using another Finite Elements program, i.e. Universal Mechanism, the program I use for 3D modelling (only because I can't find a decent 3D Finite Differences program).

      In the real world, mechanical processes always take some finite time to complete, and so I'd prefer to see that modelled more realistically.

      The basic point still holds of course — we are trying to find a situation where Nature is forced to abandon conservation of energy in order to preserve conservation of momentum. As my old university physics textbook (Halliday and Resnick) says: "The law of the conservation of linear momentum holds true even in atomic and nuclear physics, although Newtonian mechanics does not. Hence, this conservation law must be more fundamental than Newtonian principles..."

  2. John Collins,

    Yes, I agree, thanks to you. It was self evident! To one and all, (except for scientist). They are forced to condemn it. If they accepted the fact that
    Bessler's wheel worked, they would then have to admit, that they are too stupid to figure out, how it was done. And that will never happen!!!!

    They aren't really stupid, it's more like they can't figure it out in their mind, so there for it must be impossible. It's almost like they are too smart.

    Like Fletcher, he can't figure it out, so, there for it must be impossible----

    But, what do I know, I can't figure it out either.

    Sam Peppiatt

  3. Has anyone ever thought that it might be so incredibly stupid that most of us probably do not even think it's worth trying.

  4. ..the problem is that academia is hopelessly blindfolded by the certainty that it's impossible.

    They can but count the ways in which it is impossible. To be fair, there's a lot of them, and they all dovetail perfectly..

    ..the very notion that there could be any permutation of 'em that actually MAKES energy is an insult to the intelligence. We ARE the peanut gallery.

    The widespread belief that gravity could be an energy source perfectly illustrates this. Any physicist reading this blog is guaranteed to disengage upon seeing that. And rightly so; it is, intrinsically, impossible - input / output energy symmetry is written into the fact that GPE's dimensions are not time-variant. All three parameters - mass, gravity and distance - are constants in any closed-loop trajectory, and closed loop trajectories thru static fields yield zero net energy. That's just a fact. It IS axiomatic. Incontrovertible. Absolutely no hint of any wiggle room.

    Stating that it MUST, nonetheless, be so, as the only possible explanation for Bessler's success, can do us few favours.. it can ONLY be read as "cranky" by anyone who understands this. It's the tiredest cliche, defying all credibility, and rightly so.

    The very notion of "excess energy" is oxymoronic - there can be no such thing; a mass or system thereof can only ever have precisely the RIGHT amount of KE for its given distribution of inertia and velocity. So for example 1 kg moving at 1 m/s, by definition, has half a Joule, and it cannot have more or less than this. Thus the only form of "perpetual motion" that could even make sense is a discount on the energy cost of KE production. That is, in order to have a surfeit of mechanical energy, we need to have spent less than its resulting ½mV² value.

    This means only an effective N3 violation could produce mechanical OU. Cancel or invert the sign of counter-torque / counter-momentum, and you can make as much mechanical energy as you like, no problemo.

    Phrase it in those terms - that the exploit can only be an effective workaround to the 1st and 3rd laws of motion - and now you suddenly have a rational argument. Voicing it will bring credibility, instead of stripping it away with "gravity / wind" analogies. It will attract and hold the attentions of serious minds, instead of mentally repulsing 'em.

    Shift the focus onto effective N1 / N3 violations and suddenly you have a coherent thesis - something that can actually get the old gears whirring, rather than locking up. You now have the maths on your side. The very same laws of conservation that everyone else assumes preclude the possibility, are now your bitch. Change MoI, on the fly, without performing any work against CF force, and CoM is forced to double velocity to preserve their product. Momentum = mass * speed. KE = half mass * speed^2. So for example half the mass at twice the speed has twice the energy. 200% right off the bat, caused by conservation of momentum, in response to an effective workaround to mass constancy.

    It's why Bessler insisted "true perpetual motion" was dependent upon statorless operation. Why he described masses changing radius as the causative principle.

    I'm pretty sure i've cracked it peeps.. it ain't no 'gravity wheel' tho. i just wish i knew what to do now..

    1. Viberator,

      Bessler's wheel is proof that your theory, as perfect as it is, can't possibly be right. That's why scientist have done every thing possible to censure his wheel(s). John Collins has exposed their cover up. Thanks to him we know that your argument has to be wrong.

      I think, by saying it's impossible,is a way to let yourself,( and scientist), off the hook, so to speak. Sense you can't figure it out, it must be impossible.

      Sam Peppiatt

    2. It is a chain reaction! It does not have to be a wheel! Can be a wheel if you add a specific lever! It has been published a long time ago! It can be a pump! John the portrait of Bessler when was it published so I understand what the finger Reckoning is trying to say exactly.

    3. If I can answer that, you are moving all the time in the environment you have been taught at school.
      You have to reach far into the future and make friends with geometry.

  5. yeah, that is a big probability.

  6. I believe...... You can count me in John

  7. Would a simple pendulum qualify as a 'mechanism'?

    1. The movement will not open without the principle that Bessler discovered.
      If you've come to this conclusion, it fits. Then the search for movement is narrowed.

  8. Happy birthday John!


    1. Well thank you PLMKRN! Most kind of you and I’m impressed that you remember!


    2. Number 5 makes big impact "in it" :)

      I admire your discoveries on number 5 in Bessler publications.
      Strangely this nr 5 is also your birthday!?


    3. Yes and as some once pointed out to me, I was born in 1945, 1 + 9 = 10, plus 4 = 14, which is 1 + 4 = 5. So 5,5, or 55. On the 5th. Happy coincidence.

      BTW I don’t know if I asked you before but what do the letters you sign with mean?

    4. I do not believe in coincidences anymore, there are too many different and strange signs of all sorts, which currently show to one direction only.

      No, we have not ever talked about my initials. There is very long and strange story behind it, but ... in short explanation, it is my surename, without vowels. Oddly enough, it can also be found in the Grundlicher Bericht.


  9. John, happy birthday and wishing you many years to come.

  10. Happy birthday!John may your day be filled with happy Reflections of birthdays past and remember to celebrate this day! Have your cake and eat it too.

    1. Thank you all. 74 but I don’t feel it yet!


  11. I agree, happy birthday John Collins!! Sam peppiatt

  12. Happy birthday John. May this year contain huge success for you.



The Metaphors in Johann Bessler’s Apologia Poetica, Chapter XLVI

There is an intriguing passage in Apologia Poetica which has been the subject of much debate.  Most of the book is written rhyming couplets...