## Monday, 6 May 2019

### Considerations about Johann Bessler and His Wheel.

The basic requirements for building a successful gravity-enabled wheel can be quite simply described, although obviously not as easily achieved!

The scepticism that we face includes the well-established “fact” that according to the laws of physics we cannot design and build a perpetual motion machine. Well, this is true if you make it completely isolated from any form of energy; an isolated system.  This is not my definition, but it’s what we are taught and yet what kind of fool would even imagine that it might be possible?  No external energy source! But I have never believed in that, nor wanted to do so.  No, it has always been my belief that gravity holds the key; a force of nature which could enable a perpetual motion machine, or a gravity-enabled machine to run continuously.  Which of course means it can’t be a closed system.

Yes I know gravity is not a source of energy!  But to my mind it is!  Ok it’s not a energy source in the accepted sense, but it causes things to fall, and that means there is the potential to harness the energy of the fall.

You cannot get more energy out of a machine than you put into it, and when friction is added there is no spare energy to even complete a single rotation. I only want to use the same energy from the machine that I put into it, not more - but I also want it to do work as well as run itself....so I need to put  more energy into the machine just to complete at least one rotation. If several weights could be designed to fall resulting in one complete rotation, and then repeat the action, we wouldn't have a problem.

How to put extra energy into the machine so that there is enough for it to overbalance and complete a rotation? Find a way to enable gravity to start the rotation and also take more energy from gravity to continue the rotation, by designing a system that resets the weight after each fall, before it gets to the point where it needs to fall again. Continuous rotation will cause it to accelerate up to a certain speed.

But when it's stationary, is it in a state of permanent imbalance?   It depends; if the first bit of rotation requires a fall before it begins to rotate a little, then without the fall no rotation can take place.  But if the wheel had been stopped after the fall had ocurred then the wheel will turn a little.  In my opinion, the fall takes place at the same time that the preceeding weight resets.  So the effect is for the wheel to be permanently out of balance, which is why Bessler applied a brake to keep it stationary.

To add more energy than the wheel needs to complete one rotation, it is not sufficient to increase the number of mechanisms or over-balancing weights, because each one has to be reset in order to fall again at the right place.  There has to be a resetting mechanism.

One more thing here.  Bessler made certain claims that were fully backed up by demonstrations and eye witness's accounts, many of whom were out to prove him a liar.  So why, if we accept his claims and almost everything else, do some people maintain that the wheel could not have been permanently out of balance.  Some have suggested that the wheel was stopped in a certain position so that it would begin to spin as soon as the brake was released.  Bessler stated more than once that the wheel started to spin spontaneously as soon as the brake was released.  This fact was reiterated several times by witnesses. Why accept most of the evidence and reject some of the rest?  Why would Bessler lie about such a thing, so trivial when considered against a backdrop of everything else?

In a few weeks I will know if my wheel works or not, but I do know that I have deciphered  a large amount of clues which I hope will astound and amaze you!

JC

Please share the following link and donate if you wish to aid my granddaughter's treatment.

www.helpamy.co.uk/

1. Hi John,
it is honorable to divulge your knowledge for nothing. But why not write a book or sell it as a pdf for a few bucks to those who are interested in it? So you could collect a bit for Amy's help. Think about it.

ovaron

1. Thank you Ovaron. No need to worry, I have a plan which will indeed help Amy. There will be a book and a video, plus a couple of other things.

In fact it has been a matter of some concern to me that I now need to gather some finance for Amy’s future and possibly a lot of it, whereas before I believed we had enough for the two of us. But I will still reveal everything ASAP, and I do hope my wheel will work!

JC

2. Hi John,
Are you building with just one cross bar sets of mechanisms, or more?
I'm working with just one and want to get some minor result to then get me to build more mechanisms.
I can't be bothered doing multiple sets unless one works. Knowing how unlikely success is with these things.

1. I’ve never been sure what Bessler meant by one bar, although I have an idea which might be wrong! So I can’t answer properly DrWhat, but I can say that I’m building with five sets of mechanisms.

JC

2. "...with just one cross bar sets of mechanisms, or more?" Yet another poor translation. Those "cross bars" do not refer to anything inside of the drum!

3. ‘Yet another poor translation’? We have gone over and over that single word, which has seven columns of meanings in my enormous 100 year old German- English dictionary. It is not a poor translation. And it does refer to something inside the wheel.

JC

4. “If I arrange to have just one cross-bar *in* my machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself at all, but, on the contrary, when I arrange several bars, pulleys and weights, the machine can revolve much faster." Page 340 from Collins' AP translation.

The proper translation should be:

“If I arrange to use just one cross-bar *with* my machine (that is, use it externally to the axle and attached drum), it (that is, the axle and attached drum) revolves very slowly, just as if it (that is, again, the axle and attached drum) can hardly turn itself at all, but, on the contrary, when I arrange several bars, pulleys and weights (that is, again, use them externally to the axle and drum), the machine can revolve much faster."

The original mistranslation of this one description has led many a Bessler researcher astray and will continue to do so until the translation is finally corrected.

5. The way it surely works one set of mechanisms will manage to just pull it through a rotation. I agree with the internal cross translation that more will make it turn (more evenly and) faster

6. I accept that there are nuances in translating 18th C German into modern English, but I fail to see how changing “in” into “with” makes any difference. The description which includes several pulleys and weights obviously refers to internal mechanisms and has nothing to do with attaching bars externally.

JC

7. The word "kreuz" being translated as "cross bar" should more accurately be translated as "cross piece" and refers to a metal pin inserted into the frame of an external pulley system in order to serve as a fixed pivot for one or more of its multiple rope carrying pulley wheels and was used to increase the lifting force of the pulley system. Assuming these "cross pieces" were inside of the drum is a big mistake. There is no mention of the drums of Bessler's wheels containing pulleys anywhere else in his writings. If there was, I might agree the term applies to some internal part of the drum.

3. I can't understand how someone came up with the translation "cross bar" for "Kreuz" either. "Kreuz" simply means cross.
Jesus was nailed to the cross.
A scissors jack is built by crosses
For a musician, a "Kreuz" is a sharp (#)
A cross usually consists of two bars and has four ends (two and two). Well, Bessler has made a restriction. "Gleichsam ein Kreuz"(like a cross).
So it doesn't necessarily have to be a cross, but probably looks similar.

Hope this helps.

ovaron

1. I agree Ovaron, and as part of Bessler’s system of including clues in the text, it informs us of the presence of bars, pulleys and weights. “Pulleys” implies the need for cord, rope or chains etc. Weights we know were there. The word “kreuz” does indeed mean cross, but it has other connotations which you have referred to. I have my own theory about what he meant and I’ll explain it in my published interpretation of his clues.

JC

2. Pulley could mean something that pulls?

3. I think it means a wheel on an axle or shaft that is designed to support movement and change of direction of a taut cable or belt, or transfer of power between the shaft and cable or belt. (wikipedia)

JC

4. The word 'pulley' was translated from 'Rolle', which means 'block, pulley, roller or idler'.

JC

4. This comment has been removed by the author.

1. As I said, I think that JB means that when he pulls back the curtain he will reveal his secret.

JC

5. @John
In what context and where does Bessler use the term "Rolle"?
Bessler may also have meant the weights themselves by "Rolle". A "Rolle" can also simply be a cylindrical object that rolls over something.

ovaron

1. In Das Triumphans, he mentions that a rope passes over two pulleys and then through the window...... He uses the word Rolle in his description of the drawing he includes in the book. It is clear that he is referring to the pulleys.

JC

2. But that's the pulley outside the wheel. However, it is not certain that pulleys are used inside the wheel. What is certain is that he used chains or ropes inside his wheels.

ovaron

3. He uses the same word Rolle in both cases.

JC

6. From page 245 of Collins' AP translation:

"Write as many lies as you like in your angry attempts to destroy my Wheel of Wonder! In its interior it gains...for how else does it grow out of balance?"

No doubt about it being an overbalanced wheel!

7. Thank you for sharing us education, please kindly visit mine :D

AGEN POKER TERPERCAYA
SITUS POKER ONLINE RESMI

### Johann Bessler’s Legacies.

Bessler’s wheel is one obvious legacy and although there are some who believe that it’s potential power output is too limited to be of pract...