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.
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
