Friday, 5 February 2021

76 Today!

 Yes I’m 76 today.  How long have I been chasing Bessler’s solution? It’s been about 60 years and I’ve hardly stopped thinking about Bessler’s wheel in all that time.  I was about 15 when I first encountered the legend of Bessler’s wheel - in a book called ‘Oddities’ written by the famous Rupert T. Gould - and I was immediately certain that the maid lied.  Of course I also realised that that opinion was not sufficient to prove the inventor’s claims to have invented a perpetual motion machine were genuine.  I told my physics teacher about Bessler and asked him if it was possible - big mistake!  I couldn’t even hear his response because of the gales of laughter which erupted after my question.  Everyone knew such claims were fake.  I learned then, not to discuss my ideas with anyone else.

Afterwards, one boy who I had always thought of as clever but boring said to me, ‘don’t take what you’re taught as gospel, check it out for yourself, so you know if it’s true.  Don’t believe everything you’re told until you have satisfied yourself what is the truth.’  Sound advice and I’ve applied it through out my life.

I did consider trying to get more information about Bessler but at that age and without the internet, I had no idea how to go about it.  So I postponed any decision to investigate further to a later date, a year or a decade!

Over the next few years, from time to time, I drew sketches and plans of perpetual motion machines, and resolved to build a few when the opportunity occurred. But you know how it is when you’re young and busy, I had no time or inclination to build.  But when I was 29, I was browsing in a second-hand book shop and I came across the book, ‘Oddities’ by Rupert Thomas Gould again - and I bought it, and I still have it. That book reignited my search for the truth about Johann Bessler.  You know the rest.

So here I am, some 60 years later, am I further on towards the solution?  Yes.  You might think, ‘I knew he’d say that anyway, if only to justify a lifetime’s effort’. But I am.  Even though my design failed the sim test. I remain confident that I know enough of the design to succeed in building a working model. I do realise I’m an incurable optimist, you have to be in this field of endeavour, and it certainly helps if you have the determination to succeed, and I have.  I just hope I’m right.



  1. Happy birthday John!!!

  2. Happy and Most Lucky Birthday to JC!

    God has given us only six birthdays under the 100th whose digits sum to 13 which as I've mentioned several times before is the number associated with God. They are the 49th, 58th, 67th, 76th, 85th, and 94th. Each one is 9 more years than the previous. Of these only the middle one, the 76th, puts the 7 at the front. 7 is the luckiest number in numerology. Next there is the 6. It indicates a time period, in this case, of 6 months.

    The arrival of your 76th birthday means to me that you will have unusually good luck in the coming 6 months. If you are truly destined to find the secret of Bessler's wheels, then it's most likely to happen between today and August 5 which is 6 months from now. If you add the ordinal number of that month, 8th, to that of the day, 5th, you get 8 + 5 = 13. The alphanumeric sum of your initials, JC, is 10 + 3 = 13.

    This is a VERY lucky time for you! May you enjoy and greatly benefit from this special time in your life!

    Sayer of Sooths

    1. Wow! Thank you for that reading SoS. May you be correct! My initials also the letter M, 13th letter, anything of interest there?


    2. That extra letter "M", which I forgot about, whose value is 13 means you should have double the luck! If you play the lotteries, the coming 6 months might be a good time to place some extra bets!

      Sayer of Sooths

  3. Happy birthday John!

    May you have many more :-)


  4. A most happy 76th birthday to you, John Collins, and many more, of course. As a birthday gift, I offer this.

    It's a little known discussion among some serious scientists about the history of perpetual motion. They do mention Bessler 15 minutes into the discussion and one of the "scientists" describes how the Weissenstein castle duration test could have been faked. The method he suggests is not only impossible but is actually laughable. The scientist was obviously ignorant of all of the details of the Bessler history as are about 99.99% of today's scientists.

    Bessler Curious

    1. There seems to be not only a great misconception or misunderstanding but also a noticeable communication gap amongst the scientists while dealing with Bessler wheel with reference to Perpetual motion...

      Since the laws prohibit the possibility of PMs absolutely it is hastily concluded that BW also cannot be possible since it appears to output energy without input...

      Here there seems to be a missing link... For this great confusion we are also to be partly blamed... We have miserably failed to convince the scientists in this regard... The problem is we still don't have a solid explanation of the energy source of BW... We don't even have a theoretical explanation of how a BW operation occurrs... We keep insisting that BW is solely powered by Gravity... We could be wrong... Gravity provides that heaviness... But is gravity also responsible for the continuous motion of BW?... Is there any other source involved?... If yes, then what is it?... Until there is clarity at this point the scepticism is bound to exist...

      So we are also greatly responsible for this misunderstanding... We need to sort this out soon if we want to convince others... Between us there is so much conflict in this regard which is very much evident... Can we also blame Bessler for this?... I don't think so... He has given so many hints... There was no much development of physics laws at that time still Bessler could explain so much... We are yet to decipher many of his statements...
      Lot of patience and keen observation is not being excercised by us... To certain extent we can also say that we actually lack maturity... This is because of the ongoing rat race...we need to realise this... Maybe, our current way of approach is not very correct...

      Some of our belief system needs to be re-examined... We keep looking at the drawings left by Bessler hoping to make out something from them... Then we declare strongly that it could lead us to success... Is it the right way?... Should we not first ascertain what actually powers BW?... Should we not arrive at an imaginary working wheel and try to see what needs to be fixed or understand how it works instead of trying to build or simming the same?...

      If BW mechanism is so simple then why is it so difficult to comprehend?... Is it because we are always on the wrong path?... Are we destined to die, one after another, before being successful in building the BW?...

      Well, some serious brainstorming is required to clear the misconceptions and confusion...

    2. Thanks for that link, BC. I listened to the whole discussion and I agree with you that the explanation of how the Kassal wheel's two month test was faked is ridiculous. Basically, he wants us to believe that there was a giant tank filled with rain water on the roof of the castle that somehow fed water down to briefly power the wheel during demonstrations! If that was the case, it would have been very obvious during the many examinations of the wheel. The guy who suggested this needs to read JC's books and educate himself about Bessler and his wheels.

      There is no mystery to some of us where Bessler's wheels got their energy. It came right out of themselves. A wheel's lead weights contained enormous energy as predicted by the E=mc^2 equation. The motions of Bessler's wheel mechanisms were somehow able to take that energy out of them and use it to accelerate a wheel or power machines attached to its axle. I think this is exactly where the energy for any OOB wheel will have to come from. The problem is making sure your OOB wheel actually stays OOB while it turns. Not as easy as it sounds which I found out the hard way after many attempts over the years!

    3. The short answer SK is that the wheel has an imbalance of forces acting on it !

      This means there is a NET SURPLUS of force in the direction of rotation around the central axle. This imbalance of forces is manifest from the organisation of the mechanical properties of the internal structures and apparatus within the wheel, and the movement of the internal weights as they cycle.

      Since it is a closed loop mechanical system where weights position and GPE is constantly replenished, then the net surplus force leading to acceleration and rotation and a gain in wheel momentum ultimately comes from ensuring the KE of movement is not wasted as in so many attempts we see.

      .. Please read this Donald Simanek passage from the front page of the "Museum of Unworkable Devices" website .. It is from his description of generic Overbalanced Wheels attempts, based on the Bhaskara Wheel and similar designs. (capitalisation is mine for emphasis). He sums up the problem very well, imo !

      .. "This "overbalanced wheel" idea reappeared in an astounding variety of forms over the centuries. We show a better diagram from a later time. A system of pegs or stops was required to hold the hammers at a large distance from the axle after they flipped over the top and allow them to hang freely as they came around the other side. Perhaps the rationale was that the balls had more moment (of inertia) on one side due to the larger lever arms (even though the principles of TORQUE HADN'T yet been formalized at this time).

      Even though there are fewer balls on one side of the axle at any given position, these have larger lever arms and therefore greater torque. As a hammer swings and falls near the top of the wheel, ...

      ... the wheel SLOWS during the hammer fall, then GAINS some speed when the hammer hits its peg. There's NO NET GAIN IN SPEED, and there's irreversible energy loss when hammers HIT pegs."

      ** So we have NO net gain in wheel speed from first falling and then impacting weights (i.e. ZERO SUM Transaction). And in fact a net loss of system energy when deformation and heat and sound losses of impacting weights are considered !


    4. "... the wheel SLOWS during the hammer fall, then GAINS some speed when the hammer hits its peg. There's NO NET GAIN IN SPEED, and there's irreversible energy loss when hammers HIT pegs."

      This is basically what Bessler wrote in the note to MT52 or:

      "I will only say the following: no wheel is moved through strong blows, for paddles would sooner dash it into 1000 pieces, and it would be utterly destroyed with bullets, as is sufficiently known."

    5. Quite so ! It is the failing of Impact Wheels that supposedly rely on that method of locomotion. Bessler tells us straight in MT52, as you say. Impact noise is a by-product of operations, and not a motivator for PM.

      Further : it is often said that a Static Analysis is not fit for purpose. It gives only Moments and half the story. A Dynamic Analysis is required which accounts for Moments, Torques, and Energy of Movement, and frames all of the picture.

      FYI : as can be read by Simanek's generic description when a weighted lever falls it reduces the turning moments on that side of the wheel, increasing what we call back-torque effect, and the wheels slows losing SPEED (loss of momentum). When it eventually collides with its stop (or rope restraint becomes taut etc, if restrained that way) at the end of its travel, it gives up some of its momentum back to the wheel (forward-torque effect), thus the wheel gains SPEED (gaining momentum). But never is the FORWARD SPEED/MOMENTUM GAIN > initial SPEED/MOMENTUM LOSS, altho the restitution can be almost complete !

      Meanwhile the energy of collisions, and frictions et all, is lost from the rotating system leading to a general decay of rotation as energy dissipates from that system. Very evident after a slight to persistent push start !

      Dynamic Analysis ably represents just such a situation, of an ordinary Bhaskara Wheel attempt for example. It is not even necessary to build it or formally analyse it to know this is how it will behave and it will not and can not be a 'runner' ; in that form.

      Imo Dynamic Analysis gets you much further, with better understanding, than simple snap-shot Static Analysis ... Then I suggest you need to move beyond intuition that the ball was 10c and the bat $1.00 (totaling $1.10), even if your intuition takes you there, and everyone else says it is ;7)


  5. Happy birthday, John !
    Those who want to read the book of Rupert T Gould that inspired you, can read it here:
    Best thoughts!

    1. Thank you Michel, and thanks for the link.


  6. Best wishes on your birthday!


  7. Oops...sorry I'm late to your party. I brought a cake, but had trouble putting 76 candles on it. But I did finally manage to and got them all lit up for you. Uh oh...the fire is getting out of control! Quick someone get a fire extinguisher!

    Happy Birthday, JC!

    Anonymous and PROUD of it!

    1. Thank you APoi, and thanks for the amazing cake!


  8. Thanks Fletcher... You explained it nicely...
    We also need to find out how many forces are actually at play once the wheel gains momentum... I think over-balancing is important at the initial stage and later angular velocity, inertia, acceleration due to gravity, CP and CF, etc., come into play... Though I am not very sure about it... to understand all this You got to be a physics expert which I am not...

    There could be many forces involved when something is in motion...

    I am sure Bessler employed a genuine physics practical trick to trick gravity and the world at large... I mean a very unique mechanical combination or arrangement noticed by Karl...

    We usually refer to the weights as the falling weights and not as the swinging weights... And, also about the stopping pegs or wedges... Or stoppers...or hammers hitting the pegs...

    Does this really matter... Can a weight be stopped by a peg when the wheel is spinning fast?....

  9. Happy birthday John . I hope THIS year will be YOUR year !
    Continue to fascinate us ;-)

    Robert . . .

  10. Happy Birthday John! Still looking forward to a formal Q&A event. Maybe a Reddit "ask me anything" thread? I hope you are well.


The Solution Lies within the Existing Documents.

We should return to the task in hand and leave aside the dubious benefits of Remote Viewing, we need to trust only what we know.  We can onl...