Thursday, 23 September 2021

Some Small Clues in Connection with Johann Bessler’s Wheel.

People have asked for clues, so I’ll try to offer some more.  Here’s another clue which may be helpful.  

In Apologia Poetica XLVI, page 296, Bessler comments thus, “ A crab crawls from side to side. It is sound, for it is designed thus.”

This implies a horizontal movement which is a design feature of a mechanical arrangement. One thinks of the storks bill.  

In MT 47 he wrote, “ No. 41: This is yet another stork's-bill model. It is not necessary first to explain the letters. There is only this to mention: the present horizontal application of the stork's bills is always better than the machine with the vertical application, which constantly has more friction. I can assure the reader that there is something special behind the stork's bills. Whoever knows how to construct them will note that the figures sketched here are not exactly the correct artistic application."

This suggests a horizontal action is needed, which is not an amazing thought but a useful one if you know it is a vital ingredient.

—————————————————————————————————————-

A wheel appears on the scene - is it really a wheel, for it does not have the normal type of rim.

Corrected translation of the above, “You see a wheel, but is it a wheel, for it has no tyre(tire)?  

Cart and carriage wheels had rims of iron.  Etymology late 15th century (denoting the curved pieces of iron plate with which carriage wheels were formerly shod): perhaps a variant of archaic tire, shortening of attire (because the tyre was the ‘clothing’ of the wheel). Oxford languages.

This isn’t a clue, Bessler is just explaining that everyone refers to his device as as a wheel, but it isn’t like a cart wheel because it doesn’t have a tyre or rim. I think he is saying that it isn’t strictly speaking, a wheel and I have often thought this too.

——————————————————————————————————————

The word ‘Kreuz’ appears in Apologia Poetica, XXXIIIb, Bessler talks thus, “ If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in the 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 the machine can revolve much faster”.

Google translates it thus,

In a work with just a cross, as it were, then you will see it very slowly hardly turn around by itself; On the other hand, when I cooked up many crosses, trains and weight ’,then the work can run much faster; ‘

It was translated as “cross-bar” but that would be a different word in German.  During my research I found that the word kreuz can mean, cross, intersection or, crossing and can also be used to mark a document with a cross or X.  When attached to another word it can mean many different things. Bessler may also have meant either just one cross, or a cross, meaning one cross with four arms, which was insufficient for the wheel’s rotation.

But interestingly, the phrase used here and which is often used by Bessler, “as it were” means “sometimes said after a figurative (= not meaning exactly what it appears to mean) or unusual expression: For example: If he still refuses we could always apply a little pressure, as it were. Figurative use of language. Cambridge English Dictionary.

So Creuz just describes something which might be thought of as a cross but isn’t actually that.

—————————————————————————————————————

There is an abundance of clues for those who want to look, and I am confident that I have found and correctly deciphered most of them, but I must, for my own satisfaction, try to build the wheel before I share it.  This will have to wait ‘til I’ve moved into my new (old) house, which is likely to be in November.

Remember there are loads of other clues on my web site at The Orffyreus Code, plus many discussed over several years right here on this blog.

JC

94 comments:

  1. “A crab crawls from side to side. It is sound, for it is designed thus.”

    It's interesting that Bessler used the image of a crab in his poem. A crab has eight legs that it uses to move from side to side. Maybe that was his way of symbolically describing how his wheels used eight lever mechanisms to move either clockwise or counterclockwise as they rotated? Here's a photo of a typical crab:

    https://nayturr.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/bairdi-crab-july022020-min.jpg

    There are also two arms with claws that are used to pull food into the crab's mouth. They are ugly little things which I would not eat if someone paid me to!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Oooh, yuck! Interesting comment. For me the clue lies in the fact that stresses the side to side action.

      JC

      Delete
    2. @anon 17:06. Apparently the crabs over in Warwickshire only have FIVE legs each! Lol!

      Delete
    3. Haha, you’re still ignoring the point which is that a mechanical sideways movement is needed.

      JC

      Delete
  2. What Y who when I don't know he's on 3rd no that's incorrect he's in left field

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There’s only one person who pushes KB’s rejected design…him!

      JC

      Delete
    2. That's not quite true, John. There was some fortune telling guy here earlier this year who was an expert on numerology analysis and he claimed he found multiple clues in MT that backed up Ken B's claim about the levers being Y shaped. Also, as far as his design being rejected, you'd never know it from his YT video of the design. It's gotten over 10,000 views so far and about 2/3rd's of those who viewed it and voted on it seem to accept it as Bessler's design. If they are representative of the rest who viewed it but did not vote, that's over 6,600 people!

      Delete
    3. OK, lots of views, but the design still bears no relation to Bessler’s wheel, it’s far too complicated and not the simple design described by Karl the Landgrave, and the only person ever allowed to see the internal workings. In addition the design has been rejected by the most knowledgeable people in this field of research, and it has also been pointed out that the video/simulation is faulty.

      JC

      Delete
    4. And the most important vote is here: https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=8663

      Delete
    5. Thanks anon 08.06

      That’s another nail in the coffin

      JC

      Delete
    6. Another Abbott and Costello skit well played. If you only knew how poignant that skit is to what you seek Children play among the pillars
      with loud heavy clubs. Let's talk sports and geometrically how they were created things that make you go Hmmmmmmmmm! Is it only me or do you see a geometric correlation between a baseball field and the Pentacles of Venus! And the names of nine angels 9 also 9 player positions in baseball things that make you go Hmmmmmmmmm!

      Delete
    7. JC wrote "In addition the design (the "Bessler - Behrendt Wheel") has been rejected by the most knowledgeable people in this field of research..."

      Those "most knowledgeable people in this field" are all the ones who never figured out how Bessler's wheels worked or managed to produce even a single working simulation of one! Lol! Many consider KB to truly be THE most knowledgeable person in this field at the moment in which case his opinion would outrank all of theirs.

      I wish he would post here so we could get some input from him. Fawk he could be privately communicating with pm chasers all over the world right now who are interested in the design and preparing to build it. If so, I wish them well although anybody that claims success will probably be promptly denounced as a hoaxing liar by those "most knowledgeable people in this field" that JC referred to!

      Delete
    8. So. Ken’s back. Welcome Ken if you sign in as yourself. Otherwise please leave us alone, thank you.

      JC

      Delete
    9. I forgot to mention that Ken also, “never managed to produce even a single working simulation of one!” either, except through duplicity.

      JC

      Delete
    10. And why haven't you simmed it and built it for him by now?

      Delete
  3. The Behrendt curse; you can't escape it-----------------------Sam

    ReplyDelete
  4. The cross clue implies that multiple crosses require pulleys to make them work together. This is a huge clue to be honest. It seems pulleys are essential elements of his design.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I want to also add one more thing. If you look at how he forms his sentence in that clue; personally I think one cross is composed of bars, pulleys and weights.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's really amazing how everyone ASSUMES that those "cross-bars", pulleys, and weights were INSIDE of the drums of Bessler's wheels. What if they were all EXTERNAL to it? As is often said, "A false assumption leads to a false conclusion."

      Delete
    2. Bessler Curious, you seem to be a disciple of Ken’s so we shouldn’t expect you to say anything, and I do mean anything, negative about him and his work. You ask why did he write the book? For the same reason as his other about UFOs, aliens etc etc, answer - to sell books! That’s his whole purpose. I can’t be bothered to refute all your allegations, we’ve been here too many times before. The book is a complete waste of time, money and paper. The arguments are impossible to validate because the clues are invisible to eye and the brain. Any more promotions of the book will be deleted from this blog.

      JC

      Delete
    3. Sorry that Ken’s diatribe interrupted your interesting comments, yellow!

      JC

      Delete
    4. @yellow. The only one here who interrupted your interesting comments was JC.

      He also wrote "You (referring to BC) ask why did he write the book? For the same reason as his other about UFOs, aliens etc etc, answer - to sell books! That’s his whole purpose."

      Right! Unlike JC, he really had no sincere interest in actually solving Bessler's wheel. It was all done to make himself rich. While, this blog, of course, is solely devoted to solving the mystery and has nothing to do with marketing and selling any books! Lol!

      Delete
    5. yellow25 September 2021 at 01:24 wrote :

      The cross clue implies that multiple crosses require pulleys to make them work together. This is a huge clue to be honest. It seems pulleys are essential elements of his design.

      yellow25 September 2021 at 01:28 wrote :

      I want to also add one more thing. If you look at how he forms his sentence in that clue; personally I think one cross is composed of bars, pulleys and weights.

      I think you a right about the importance of 'pulleys' Yellow.

      We can also consider JC's comments about the horizontal shift a crabs sideways movement suggests (in published AP), and the MT41 comment about the horizontal application of SB's being superior to vertical (unpublished), as reinforcement of the idea of a specific mechanical movement, imo.

      Fwiw .. here is my translation of the creuz passage. Remembering that in AP B. wrote in rhyme, which doesn't translate. For this I compared Mike Senior's translation, and google translate, and Deep-L translator. Then I leaned more towards the more literal translations and put them into simple English.

      Here is the original German :

      AP pg 212

      In ein Werk gleichsam nur ein Creuz,
      So wird man es ganz langsam sehen
      Kaum von sich selber herum drehen;
      Hingegen, wenn ich zugericht’t
      Viel Creuze, Züge und Gewicht’,
      So kan das Werk viel schneller lauffen;
      ..........
      Wirfft Wagners Rechnung übern Hauffen;
      Ja, die mir zu erkandte Schand’
      Wird weg von Mir auf Ihn gewandt. x.

      You'll note that I included the rebuke to Wagner because it has an 'x' at the end (as do many others lines in AP). It might be a visual link to what we are discussing.

      Combined translations :

      In the machine there is just a cross, as it were,
      So you see it turn very slowly,
      It can hardly turn itself,
      On the other hand, if I add to it,
      More crosses, pulleys, and weights,
      The machine can run much faster,
      ...........
      Wagner's account is thrown on the heap;
      Yes, the shame that is known to me
      Is turned away from me to him. x.

      Here is my simplified (with visuals added) and perhaps slightly more seamless interpretation, imo :

      there is a cross (+ or x) structure
      it revolves very slowly
      barely turning itself over
      but if I add to it
      more crosses, pulleys, and weights
      it can run much faster

      I feel B. is describing at least part of his internal wheel mechanics in some conceptual detail. Altho I also think the Prime Mover is missing from the picture, imo. Nevertheless cross(es), pulleys, and weights feature heavily and are building blocks for his solution imo.

      -f

      Delete
    6. I think anon 25 September 04:25 above may have made an important point that seems to have escaped everyone.

      Those "crossbars", pulleys, and weights Bessler mentioned may not have had anything to do with items actually used inside of a wheel's drum. The crossbars could actually refer to metal pins used inside of a compound pulley frame to hold additional pulleys. That frame would be hung from the ceiling near a wheel and a rope from the wheel's axle winding around several of the pulleys would have its other end attached to a weight resting on the floor. The more pulleys used in the frame, which required adding more crossbars to it to hold the extra pulleys, the more the mechanical advantage would be. Because of that increased mechanical advantage, the wheel would then use less of its torque to lift that weight. The wheel would then have some unused torque left over that would cause it turn faster and reach a higher speed before its speed leveled off. The more pulleys and their crossbars added to the compound pulley frame, the faster the wheel would be able to turn as it lifted the weight. Anyone familiar with compound pulley systems will understand what I'm describing here.

      Anyway, I think its a mistake to interpret those crossbars as having shapes similar to the crosses used as grave markers or to the + sign used in arithmetic. I don't see any real evidence for making such an assumption.

      jason

      Delete
    7. You are free to interpret any way you choose. The German starts off with "IN a/the werk/machine" i.e inside. Also just as obviously, is the last part pitched directly at Wagner. This is a dig at Wagner's power calculations. Prior context, Bessler says that he could make the power big or small, the machines large or small, and he could add many machines to the same axle, to get any amount of useful power within reason. Following your logic he could have just said that he could gear the machine through any number of block and tackle systems to get any power he wanted, at the expense of speed. Everybody would know what a block and tackle, or capstan was. That is not what he said.

      Delete
    8. We have to keep in mind that Bessler was writing poetry in AP and not the prose of GB or DT. It can be very difficult to get precise technical descriptions out of poetry especially when its author is twisting words and verses around trying to make them rhyme. When he wrote "in the machine", he could have intended the word "machine" to refer to a drum, its axle, as well as the vertical supports for the axle and drum. If so, then those crosses, pulleys, and weights could have all been "in" his "machine" yet still outside of a wheel's drum. If they were outside of the drum, then Jason's interpretation makes sense. What else outside of the drum would use multiple pulleys? Seems like it could only be some sort of compound pulley system.

      Bessler was paranoid about even admitting he used springs inside of his wheels' drums because he knew his enemies would pounce on that and say his wheels were just spring powered fakes. But are we supposed to believe he wasn't just as paranoid about telling everyone he was using crosses and pulleys inside of his wheel's drums? I think if there were crosses or pulleys used inside of his wheels' drums, they would be the last things he would be mentioning in his writings. Just my opinion, of course.

      Delete
    9. Then factor this in .. Bessler was christened Elias Bessler. After discovering his wheel secret he changed his name by deed pole to Johann Ernst Elias Bessler ( J E E B ). He also used a pseudonym Offyre, which many believe is a tilt of the hat to a ROT13 cipher.

      However, as has been discussed many times previously, by various researchers, JEEB can also be subject to a substitution code. Johann was added to hi name; J is the 10th latter of the alphabet - 10 in Roman numerals is X.

      Bessler added the middle name Ernst; E is the 5th letter of the alphabet - E in Roman numerals is V.

      Making the connection we have J E E B > X V V ? (O)

      B via ROT13 is O - O the 15th (XV) letter of the alphabet.

      The importance of the name change very early in the piece has been suggested to be a rudimentary type of acknowledgement or provenance technique put in place by Bessler in the absence of legal patent or copyright protection.

      If so, I would expect the symbolism to relate to physical principles INSIDE his wheels. The X (creuz) and V V being of particular importance, imo.

      -f

      Delete
    10. It seems like you are making a LOT of assumptions about why Bessler added those two particular names to his born name of "Elias Bessler" and conclude it was done to describe the internal mechanisms of his wheels. However, there could be many other non mechanical reasons for the additional names. "Johann" is the German version of "John" and, in the Bible, it is suggested that the apostle John was beloved by Jesus. Maybe by adding that name Bessler wanted Jesus to also love him or it was Bessler's way of saying that his morality would be approved of by Jesus and even worthy of his love? "Ernst" is the German version of "Ernest" and derived from the word "earnest" meaning resolute or serious. Adding that name could have been Bessler's way of saying he was a serious and credible person who would not lie about having a genuine pm wheel.

      Delete
  6. Bessler's wheel, sure brings out the pr*cks, I'm sorry critics--------------------Sam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There’s not many Sam, but they are narcissists. (Narcissistic personality disorder — one of several types of personality disorders — is a mental condition in which people have an inflated sense of their own importance, a deep need for excessive attention and admiration, troubled relationships, and a lack of empathy for others.)

      JC

      Delete
    2. Probably describe close to 100% of all pm wheel chasers could be diagnosed with that narcissistic mental condition! Lol!

      Delete
    3. Let me try that one again. That post above should have read: "Close to 100% of all pm wheel chasers could be described with that mental condition! Lol!" (I think I started my drinking a little too early tonight.)

      Delete
  7. Hi John,
    I hope you are well, and making progress toward your new home.
    Thank you for your posts.
    I am the Anonymous that is always suggesting a Q&A session (maybe on Reddit "AMA").
    I am going to be greedy and squeeze you for some answers.....
    1) Can you give me the context of the remark Bessler made about "mere preponderance"? I interpreted it to mean that the continual imbalance his design created was one where there was only a slight variation (from center) of the weights working against each other.
    2) Along with my previous question... if we assume that he did achieve this imbalance with use of (among other things) the eight 4 pound weights...have you or anyone else ever looked at the amount of "preponderance" needed to do the work observed by witnesses (ex lift a 70 pound box of stones)? In other words..if a design puts the 4 pound weights just a few inches further away from the axle (thank it's paired weight on the opposite side)...would eight of these weights be able to lift the stones?
    As always..thanks in advance.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi anon 05.22
      In “Apologia Poetica” appendix, Bessler says “ Whoever seeks another method is deceiving himself, for my device does not need winding; it runs according to "preponderance", and turns everything else along with it; so long as its material shall endure, it will revolve of its own accord. On one side it is heavy and full; on the other empty and light, just as it should be.”

      Your question assumes eight weights of which I have no certainty at all, but even if true we cannot make any assumptions about how far from the axle any of the weights were moved, so unfortunately I can’t answer your question. That sounds as if I don’t care, but I do. It’s just that there are so many unknowns it is impossible to predict such things. All I can say is that the evidence suggests that the preponderance was able to lift the stones as demonstrated. Perhaps someone with a better approach might be able to help you. Thanks for the questions and sorry for my unhelpful answer.

      JC

      Delete
    2. Bessler Curious, you seem to know KB's most intimate thoughts, the way he thinks, his entire research and reasoning. Are you two living, working together? Well never mind, I do have one question to ask. Did the Gera wheel, Kassel wheel, Berlin wheel, did they work based on the same principle? Now I'm curious

      BNR

      Delete
    3. That'd be the Prime Mover Principle ;)

      Delete
    4. I have often wondered about the "one side is heavy and full...[the other] ...empty and light"..
      Do you (or anyone here) know enough about the original German words used to rule out the possibility that by "side" he meant the outer "edge"? It seem like the English word "side" could be used for both.

      Delete
    5. I just realized that John deleted that post I made yesterday to answer the questions asked me by BNR. So I have decided that I will no longer be posting on this blog. I now recommend that others who are also fed up with him deleting the opinions about Bessler's wheels that don't agree with his own consider doing likewise.

      Bessler Curious

      Delete
    6. It looks like John's been busy again deleting comments here...at least three by my count made by "Bessler Curious" and others . That's too bad because I think I learned more about Bessler's wheels from those comments he just deleted than I did over at that other waste of time Bessler forum in the last year! Unfortunately, they were gone before I got around to copying and saving them. Thanks for that, John!

      Delete
    7. Good decision JC. It's your blog. They can start their own but the echoes would be deafening.

      Delete
    8. @BC: Don't feel too bad because you're not alone. John deleted about 40 comments by others back in his May 13th blog because they were finding evidence for a new clue in the Bessler drawings (IIRC it was called "Bessler's Lucky Ratio"), courtesy of a discovery made earlier by that sooth saying numerology guy, that John was completely unaware of and which didn't happen to agree with his "clues". Apparently his ego couldn't handle that. No telling how many of those past posters got annoyed by his censorship and also decided to stop commenting here.

      @anon 00:26: No problem, just get yourself a copy of that KB book on Bessler's wheels and you'll find most of what BC wrote in his deleted comments. He didn't really add anything new in them. I do agree that they were very interesting, though.

      Delete
    9. No, only the one person with many numbers and names.

      Stan

      Delete
    10. John used to pride himself on not deleting comments here, but it seems like he's turning more and more to deleting the opinions of others that don't agree with his own. This could be an expression of his inner frustration at making no real progress in solving Bessler's wheels as he gets older.

      Delete
  8. Nobody cares what Ken B. Claims. He is full of it!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. He’s hanging around here like bad smell, just go away and let us get on with the real job of finding out how Bessler’s s wheel really worked.

      JC

      Delete
  9. If a single cross is sufficient then just put multiple crosses with some offset and voila you have a faster rotating wheel. no pulleys required. So it is obvious to me that some pulleys must also be present in his so called cross structure.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’m certain that pulleys were used but I have a different take on how.

      JC

      Delete
    2. B. specifically mentions pulleys, and weights, in conjunction with crosses.

      Strictly speaking pulleys redirect application of force i.e. cause one force here, effect another force there.

      The example is a single pulley and rope system suspended from the ceiling to lift a load by pulling down on the rope. Compound pulleys are like block and tackles, which not only redirect direction of force but like any other lever can also modify the effort to load relationship ( MA x SR ). B. talks about crosses, pulleys, and weights. Plural, of all componentry mentioned. However that could be for example (per) one cross-like structure, with 2 or more for pulleys for force redirection purposes, and more than one weight per mechanical structure. It could also mean ganged pulleys like a block and tackle but I believe it would be a mistake to assume this without further evidence to support that assumption. Altho it is natural to jump that way, when looking for any sort of potential advantage.

      Today we might not use pulleys, but pneumatics, or hydraulics, to redirect a force elsewhere, but generated somewhere else. This would depend on what his PM Principle was, imo.

      -f

      Delete
    3. Anon 26 September 2021 at 23:32

      "Today we might not use pulleys, but pneumatics, or hydraulics, to redirect a force elsewhere, but generated somewhere else. This would depend on what his PM Principle was, imo"

      Are you aware, you are introducing outside energy supply to Bessler’s wheel? His wheel was supposed to be perpetual motion, meaning no outside energy supply.

      BNR

      Delete
    4. Have a look at Pascal's Law and the Hydraulic Press below. Input and Output. They are just Leverage and the Lever by another name.

      If the Input/Effort is from weight force of an object losing GPE, then this force can be redirected to an Output/Load force elsewhere ! This can be accomplished with mechanical levers such as pulley's etc, or pneumatic or hydraulic means. Especially if a machine is not show-stopper sensitive to small mass changes from fluid or small piston displacement for example.

      http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pasc.html

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal%27s_law

      -f

      Delete
  10. A question for german speaking readers, when the word "Gerät" was first introduced or used in german language.

    BNR

    ReplyDelete
  11. Origin:

    althochdeutsch girāti → goh "Advice, resolution, secret, advice," proves since the 8th century, Middle High German geræte → gmh "Equipment, advice, consideration, precaution," since the 15th century device, since the 18th century also "individual object of an equipment" [1]

    It is a translation via Promt from the website Wiktionary in german language.

    Marco Z.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I for one would like Ken to create his own blog. I would have no problem frequenting the site and making comments about his wheel (his interpretation of the Bessler Wheel). I think we can all agree that Ken is passionate about his work and sincere in his beliefs. I would not post about JC's wheel on Ken's site, that would not be appropriate or helpful.

    Ken please consider making your own blog. If you think you are the foremost expert on Bessler, then use it to your benefit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ken you under value your work by not creating your own blog. Your design is interesting and deserves study. Your design is nothing like JC's, so why continue to try to fit in his world. You have enough information that your blog would stand alone and you can create links to your YT videos and books. That is your future, go for it.

      Delete
    2. Ken B. mentioned in one of the comments on his YT videos that he is no longer an active Bessler researcher so he's probably not interested in running a blog. It's a shame that he and John don't agree on the details of how Bessler's wheels worked because they are actually both striving for the same goal which I guess is being able to make working replicas of Bessler's wheels that will perform the same as the ones we read about in Bessler's books. Doing that would really shake up the world of science. The two are almost like two religious cult leaders who both believe in God, but disagree on how to properly worship Him...or Her...or It! Lol!

      Delete
    3. I think Ken’s designs must fail even if that isn’t obvious to some people. For example he constantly refers to the ‘three foot Gera wheel’ and gives his interpretation and conclusions. Unfortunately it was established some 19 years ago that the Gera wheel was actually four and a half feet in diameter. That isn’t the only mistake.

      JC

      Delete
    4. @John Collins.

      Ken says that there were actually TWO Gera wheels! The one that was publicly demonstrated in June of 1712 in Gera was the SECOND wheel he built and he agrees that it was 4.5 feet in diameter. But, when he talks about the 3 foot diameter wheel (that's the one whose simulation is shown in his YT video), he says it was the FIRST or prototype Gera wheel Bessler built after he had his invigorating dream and which Ken is convinced was actually finished before the end of 1711. He says that small prototype wheel was the one that ALL of Bessler's later and larger wheels were derived from.

      Bessler always kept that 3 foot diameter, first Gera wheel handy to give quick demonstrations to visitors at his homes when he didn't want to be bothered setting up a larger wheel that he had for a demonstration. It was small and light enough to pick up and place on a regular table. Ken says that this small wheel was destroyed by Bessler shortly after his arrest which really made him paranoid about having it legally seized and its secret mechanisms revealed in the future should someone else file a bogus complaint against him. Destroying it eliminated that possibility.

      Unfortunately, I think you, like others, have accepted a LOT of misinformation about Bessler's wheels as reality, but Ken helps us to identify that misinformation and avoid chasing after designs based on it that have nothing to do with what Bessler actually built and that have no chance of ever working.

      I am definitely another believer in that wheel design Ken found because it fits practically every clue I've ever found about Bessler's wheels. I can't believe that is just a big coincidence. So far I haven't seen anything better or more convincing come from anyone else. I will continue to believe in the design Ken found until that happens if it ever does.

      Delete
    5. You’re making up facts as you go along Ken. There is no documentary evidence of a 3 foot wheel at Gera ….or produce the document or tell us where you saw it. You can’t because it never existed.

      JC

      Delete
    6. I'm also with Ken B on his one John. I found this quote in my AP files:

      "The machine stood 3 feet high and was mounted in such a fashion that anyone could walk all around it....But, of course, there were some nit-pickers who had to come along (they're always the first to criticize something good). They said that though my machine was a work of true artistry, it was almost certainly a mere curio which could probably not be constructed on a larger scale."

      I saw another translation of this years ago that said that little wheel stood 3 and a half feet high. That design Ken B gives for the first Gera prototype wheel gives it a 3 foot diameter drum that is mounted on a small portable wooden stand so that the bottom of its drum clears the floor or a table's top by exactly 6 inches or half a foot. That would put the top of the 3 foot diameter drum exactly 3 and a half feet off of the floor or table's top.

      Anyway this quote is certainly not describing the wheel he publicly showed off in Gera in June of 1712 which would have had a diameter of 4.5 feet and been 50% larger than the prototype wheel's drum.

      Delete
    7. BW.com > TimeLine > 1712

      > Bessler displayed his first "self-moving" wheel in Gera, province of Reuss. The machine was in the form of a spinning drum, 3½ ells (about 6½ feet) in diameter and about 4 inches wide. It turned on a horizontal axle and accelerated to a fixed maximum speed of 60 revolutions per minute. With a rope tied around the axle, the wheel lifted a weight of several pounds. In October the wheel passed its first official inspection. Bessler offered to reveal the secret for 100,000 German thalers (about $2.5 million today).

      In the AP passage mentioned above (German, chapter XXIV) Bessler describes his first successful wheel, and uses the word 'schuch' for length i.e. 3 1/2 schuch. He shows this to people then with public displays in Gera. The old German or Prussian word for foot is Fuß.

      In the very next chapter, XXV, he describes his next public wheel in Draschwitz as being 5 Ellen (Ell = cubit).

      Delete
    8. XXIV

      So it was that at the house of the Richters (On the hill called
      Nickelsberg) in the year 1712 I achieved the discovery of the
      wondrous device that has amazed the world so much. My industry
      was spared the curses which accompanied the earlier efforts. The
      machine stood 3 feet (schuch) high, and was mounted in such a fashion that anyone could walk all around it. On unfastening a bolt, the wheel
      immediately began to revolve. Whoever wished to push it or touch it
      at any point was free to do so. People could see there was no
      trickery involved, so I didn't suffer in any way! I resolved that I would IMMEDIATELY divulge my joyful secret to the great people who had
      showed me so much kindness, and had given me so much honour and patronage. Since the noble count had invited me so often to his
      table, it was to the dear countess herself that I IMMEDIATELY ran. I
      had often talked with her till late in the night, finding her to be a
      person of great wisdom, understanding, artistic accomplishment,
      virtue and discretion. I revealed to her the tremendous wonder that
      had just been vouchsafed to me. At this news the noble lady was
      filled with joy and happiness; lifted her hands high into the air, and
      began to sing with me the praises of the Lord. Afterwards, believe
      me, we talked and talked for hours.

      Delete
    9. @anon 02:31
      That quote from BW.com does NOT describe Bessler's FIRST 3 foot diameter drum Gera prototype wheel which could barely turn itself and certainly wouldn't be lifting weights weighing several pounds. They are actually describing the SECOND Gera wheel which in October of 1712 did pass its first official tests. That wheel would have been the SECOND Gera wheel that both Ken B and John agree was 4.5 feet in diameter. It was not 6.5 feet in diameter. They have a model of that SECOND wheel on permanent display over in a museum in Gera, Germany and its drum is only 4.5 feet in diameter.

      @anon02:41
      Here Bessler himself is describing his 3 foot diameter prototype wheel, his FIRST Gera wheel, and it agrees with Ken B's version. Bessler then describes how he ran over to the countess to inform her of his achievement. Possibly, he actually took that little prototype wheel with him to show her and she was "filled with joy and happiness" when she saw it self start. However, I doubt if he actually uncovered the drum of the wheel so she could look inside. But, then again, maybe he did after she swore never to reveal what she had seen inside of it. People back then knew how to keep secrets after giving their sacred word never to reveal them.

      Delete
    10. No he clearly says the Gera wheel was his first successful wheel, and it went on display in Gera. And he immediately went to the countess about it. These are his words. An earlier 3 foot prototype is a figment of his imagination, with no evidential proof it existed. Ken B is wrong.

      Delete
    11. Did you even bother to read that AP quote given in anon 02:41's comment above?

      "So it was that at the house of the Richters...in the year 1712 I achieved the discovery of the wondrous device that has amazed the world so much....The machine stood 3 feet (schuch) high, and was mounted in such a fashion that anyone could walk all around it."

      This was NOT the 4.5 foot diameter wheel he exhibited in Gera in June of 1712. Ken B is definitely right about this matter.

      Delete
    12. He is definitely WRONG. He made it up. Bessler's first wheel was his attempt to put theory into practice. He did not credit it as his first fully working wheel. Then he rented a house and built his Gera wheel which he does credit as his first successful wheel. There is no wheel in-between.

      Delete
    13. @anon20:05
      What is it exactly that you think Ken B made up?

      Delete
    14. GB Page 55 > and so finally God blessed him after his ten year long arduous researches. For, in 1712, during his stay at Gera in the Voigtland, he hit upon the genuine Prepondium, and so it was that on 6th June of that year he set in motion the first model of his Perpetual or self-moving Mobile, three and a half Leipzig Ell in diameter and four inches in thickness, for the very first time. But later it was demonstrated on many occasions in the presence of the Count himself and many others persons of high rank, including renowned mathematicians, engineers and scholars versed in all of Nature’s curiosities.

      Unlike the Gera machine, which could only manage to lift a load of a few pounds,

      Delete
    15. @ 02:16

      This quote from GB is written in the third person and by someone else using information Bessler supplied to him which introduces the possibility of error. Again, Bessler probably wanted that second Gera wheel he constructed there and demonstrated on June 6th, 1712 to be considered as his first wheel even though it really was not. The quote is in error when it gives a diameter for that wheel of 3.5 Leipzig Ells which would be 6.5 feet and way too big. That model they have in the Gera museum of the wheel he demonstrated there in June of 1712 is only 4.5 feet in diameter.

      Delete
  13. Why keep saying Behrendt's wheel will work, when it doesn't-------------------------Sam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's only been a single hasty build so far by a guy named "Dave W" over in New Zealand. He found that it did work at least partially. There will probably be more attempts in the future and if those wheels are more accurately made and adjusted I think we'll finally see one running continuously. Meanwhile we need to see the design simmed by someone other than Ken B. I'm not saying that his sims are wrong but it would be nice to see others confirm them with their own sims. They will also probably come along in time.

      Delete
  14. Because the easiest person to fool is yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  15. As I said in my book, the measuring systems in use in Germany varied from state to state and from town to town, hence you had the Leipzig ell (22.3 inches). Here is a brief quote from Wikipedia about the problem.

    “ Before the introduction of the metric system in German, (1872) almost every town had its own definitions of the units shown below. Often towns posted local definitions on a wall of the city hall. For example, the front wall of the old city hall of Rudolstadt (still standing) has two marks which show the “Rudolstädter Elle”, the proper length of the Elle in that city. Supposedly by 1810 there were 112 different standards for the Elle around Germany.

    “...the measure of cloth, for example, was elle which in each region stood for a different length. An elle of textile material brought in Frankfurt would get you 54.7 cm of cloth, in Mainz 55.1 cm, in Nuremberg 65.6 cm, in Freiburg 53.5 cm...”

    Added to that there was the potential for mistranslation - so where it says, for instance ‘Leipzig ell’ we have an idea of the size, anywhere else it’s anyone’s guess.

    I prefer to continue with the one Gera wheel and dismiss Ken’s imaginary ones.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Bessler states quite clearly that he first found success at the House of Richters in Gera with a wheel which stood 3 feet or 3.5 feet high. It was not the larger one he publicly demonstrated on June 6th, 1712 in that town. There had to be two wheels constructed in Gera. You seem to think just labeling something "imaginary" will magically make it go away. Sorry, but reality does not work that way. Facts can be such stubborn things.

      Delete
  16. AP XXII I had a rare dream, which gave me strength, happiness, air and
    space. For weeks I forgot the outside world and concentrated on
    my innermost self. Soon I was free of cares and greatly comforted
    by a new enlightenment. God had sent Joy after sorrow. After
    barreness, the finest silk was being spun. For I put together the very
    first device which could spontaneously revolve a little. I saw that I
    had finally made the right choice, and why the earlier ones had been
    wrong. My heart leapt for joy at the sight of this genuine Mobile.

    This is before Gera. No size is mentioned. He knew he was on the right track this time with it showing some promising potential.

    AP XXIV So it was that at the house of the Richters (On the hill called
    Nickelsberg) in the year 1712 I achieved the discovery of the
    wondrous device that has amazed the world so much. My industry
    was spared the curses which accompanied the earlier efforts.

    He credits the full achievement of realizing that potential into the first successful and reliable machine to the Gera wheel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes Bessler states things very clearly, as you suggest, but you can find various descriptions of his Gera wheel in both AP and DT, varying from 3, 3.5 and 5 foot, but they each refer to the same wheel. The first wheel which he said turned a little, does not sound like his first working wheel. He also said it was 2.5 ell which 4.6 feet. This why confusion abounds about how many wheels were exhibited at Gera.

      JC

      Delete
    2. Most of the builders I've seen online seem to prefer making prototype wheels around 3 feet in diameter. As others have said, it is a convenient size to put on top of a shop table so one can work on it while standing on the floor or sitting on a stool. The parts that go into it are small enough to be easily made and handled, but large enough so that their tolerances aren't too critical. I think Bessler would also have preferred such a diameter for any prototype wheel he worked on for many months.

      The conflict I see here is that Ken B claims Bessler finished his first 3 foot diameter wheel in late 1711, but Bessler always said his first wheel was finished in Gera in 1712 and that was the one he displayed there in June of that year. The only way I see to resolve this conflict is to assume that he didn't consider the 3 foot diameter wheel to count since it was just a crude prototype that could barely run. If so, he wanted that second Gera wheel to be considered his first wheel since it was more powerful and could do some impressive work like lifting weights weighing several pounds. He may also have had some weird numerological or religious reason for preferring the year 1712 be attached to what he wanted people to consider his first wheel. Maybe because the 12 part reminded him of the 12 Apostles that followed Jesus? We will probably never know for sure.

      Delete
    3. Considering that Bessler demonstrated his Gera wheel on 6th June 1712, surely he finished his first working model no more than a few weeks before. Did he have smaller working model before the Gera demo? Maybe, maybe not. No one knows.

      JC

      Delete
    4. Ken claims that the many new clues he found in the second DT portrait give the EXACT part sizes as well as pin and pivot locations for the little levers used in a 3 foot diameter wheel and Bessler wanted us to take those values and just multiply them X4 to get the values used in his 12 foot diameter two way wheels.

      The clue Ken points out in the second DT portrait that convinced me he was right was the way Bessler crosses the lower arm of that oversized angle measuring gadget on the table with the long arm of the L square. Look carefully and you will notice something that becomes obvious AFTER Ken points it out. The lower arm of the angle measuring thing and the whole L square form the NUMBER 4 but it is turned over 90 degrees cw from its usual position to disguise it. Next look at where the two arms cross. There they form an X sign which indicates MULTIPLICATION in arithmetic.

      That clue tells us to MULTIPLY somethings by FOUR! Those somethings are the part dimensions and pivot locations used in a 3 foot diameter wheel! Once you realize what Bessler wants us to do to get those values in Bessler's 12 diameter wheels we can also easily find out the values in all of the other wheels he built with drum diameters between 3 feet and 12 feet!

      Do I think Bessler had a 3 foot diameter prototype wheel? Heck yes! That clue guarantees it, imo.

      Delete
    5. Wonderful! Why don’t you build it and prove it, otherwise it’s mere speculation at best, Ken.

      JC

      Delete
    6. Finally I decided to try and see if I could identify the author of these many posts, glorifying Ken. I ploughed through reams of Ken’s self-indulgent narcissistic self-congratulatory prose, and now I have no doubt about the author - it is indeed Ken, but he'll never come clean and admit it.

      One thing he does do A LOT, is use capital letters Throughout his post’s ! He over writes everything, going into great detail, risking the reader’s extreme exasperation, boredom and risk of suicide. But he is the supreme narcissist. Below are a couple of examples from hundreds I could have used.

      “ I am aware that my extraordinary productivity can be intimidating to other members.”!

      And this one,

      “ Good afternoon, fanatically loyal troops... Yes, you can all breathe easier. My anger over the sense of betrayal I felt Saturday morning has subsided and I am willing, for the sake of my readers and my own "quest", to give this board one more try”

      Thank goodness he finally took the many hints poor Scott provided and resigned. I can assure you here, that this is Ken, despite his many denials. Now please leave this blog alone, Ken.

      JC

      Delete
    7. @Anon 05:34
      OMG! That is a really mind blowing clue in that 2nd portrait! I never realized before it was there and I agree with you that it seems to prove the existence of a Gera town prototype wheel that was only 3 feet across. We need to see more clues like this here. Someone said John doesn't believe in the portrait clues so he never even looks for them. Maybe it's time he started? If he did that years ago it might be his name attached to that Y lever wheel design now instead of Ken B and we'd see him now bragging about having found the solution to Bessler's wheels!

      Delete
    8. I noticed above that John was keen to find past Ken B comments in an effort to make him look bad and, I assume, undermine his credibility as a serious Bessler researcher. So I decided to look up some of John's past comments on this blog.

      I found these which he probably hoped no one would ever find. Read them now before he tries to find and delete them all in a desperate effort to rewrite his own history, They were made during 2019 and apparently before he got hold of a copy of Ken B's Bessler wheel book:

      "I welcome the fact that there is a book out there attempting to bring fresh information about the inventor."

      "He has done an amazing job of extracting information from both portraits."

      "I’m pleased that Ken published his book and I encourage people to read it, I intend to buy a copy."

      "It provides a good subject for discussion and it introduces some new ideas about Bessler’s wheel which have been lacking lately."

      So why did he suddenly start dumping on Ken B and that wheel design that he found described with many never before found clues in the two portraits? The reason is that as soon as John finally got Ken's book he quickly realized that the wheel design it presented had nothing do with the design that John was convinced was the solution. What a shock that must have been for him. However, that immediately convinced him that Ken's clues had to be wrong as well as the wheel based on it. John then became even more firmly convinced that only his clues were valid and the design he was working on was the actual solution.

      Unfortunately that nonrunning wheel John finally revealed in September last year after teasing everyone here about it for years only demonstrated how really delusional he had been all along. That was a really bad experience for him and I'm sure most here were saddened by his failure. But like a phonograph needle endlessly stuck in a groove of a damaged record, John will most likely just continue trying to make some sort of pulley / lever wheel work rather than admit that approach cannot work. There isn't a single pulley shown anywhere in the two portraits. Why? Most likely because Bessler never used them inside of his wheel drums.

      He will also continue with his usual method of "research" as he does that which consists of endless procrastination, endless excuse making, and endless hint dropping about all of the secret "major" clues he has found that unfortunately he won't be revealing until after he has finally built a running wheel. Most likely he does not reveal them now because he knows they would immediately be used for target practice by all of his "friends" in the pm community. Meanwhile Ken B has a design that people can begin building and simming now. More importantly he as given us a design that nicely accounts for all of the well known clues about Bessler's wheels that were found even before the extra clues Ken B found in the portraits came along.

      Delete
    9. Duh ..... what a crock of SHITE, and a total MORON !

      Ken B doesn't have the faintest idea about what this clue means, and how it is applied.

      Der wird ein grosser Künstler heissen/
      Wer ein schwer Ding leicht hoch kan schmeissen/
      Und wenn ein Pfund ein Viertel fällt/
      Es vier Pfund hoch vier Viertel schnellt. &c.

      He will be called a great craftsman,
      who can easily/lightly throw a heavy thing high,
      and if one pound falls a quarter,
      it shoots four pounds four quarters high. &c.

      Delete
    10. @anon 01:41

      That's what you think. But, Ken already solved the meaning of those mysterious verses to celebrate New Year's day this year! You can view how he interprets that AP clue here:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iB7R2ttYWCw

      That verse was probably Bessler's way of poetically describing the principle of using stretched springs inside of his wheels' drums to very delicately counter balance their weight levers against each other. It is only a mechanical principle Bessler is describing and not the actual mechanisms he used in his wheels. For those you have to see Ken's 3 foot diameter Gera wheel simulation in another video he uploaded years earlier.

      You might also want to check out that announcement he made in the pinned comment under his video. There he gives a link to yet another one of his videos which he uploaded to celebrate what he calls "Bessler Day" or June 6th of this year. In that video he reveals what "the most important clue" Bessler ever hid in his two portraits was! That clue anon 05:34 mentioned above about the crossing of the lower arm of the angle measuring tool and the long arm of L square tool in the second portrait is actually minor compared to that most important clue Bessler hid in his first portrait! It looks like another never before found clue that absolutely proves Bessler used those Y shaped levers in his wheels!

      Delete
    11. Shameless deluded parasite! Fuck off and start your own blog.

      Delete
    12. I think when that Sayer of Sooth numerology guy sees Ken's video revealing the wig clue in the 1st portrait that gives the Y shapes of the wheel levers, he is going to flip his wig and do a happy dance! Lol!

      Delete
    13. JC wrote "Thank goodness he finally took the many hints poor Scott provided and resigned."

      I wonder if poor Scott got the hint when KB unexpectedly resigned and then went on to solve the wheel without any help from him or the handful of clueless regulars he left behind on the BW forum? Lol!

      Delete
  17. OMG Alright! The 1712 6+1/2 foot Gera wheel was Bessler's first fully functioning prototype, his first "runner". The earlier wheel Bessler refers to was a smaller experimental platform. It showed encouraging results for the directions he was going, nothing more, and was not a "runner". 6+1/2 feet diameter and 4 inches thick was around the minimum volume required to have and demonstrate enough excess force to turn itself and lift a few pounds of temporary work. And hide what needed to be hidden inside the wheel.

    ReplyDelete
  18. When Ken first told me he had finished his book, I agreed to review it, and I did so without including any of my reservations. I knew that Ken was prone logorrhoea or verbosity in speech or writing which is deemed as the use of an excess of words, but I was prepared for that and interested to see his clues and final solution. But it turned out to be a hopeless mishmash of interpretations based on the tiniest and completely unlikely clues. Bessler’s clues were far more obvious but harder to interpret

    So now I’m considering resuming the deletion of any more of Ken’s comments for two reasons. Having read his book I formed the opinion that the clues were imaginary and therefore proved nothing. Also the final design of the wheel he suggested was the one Bessler invented bears no relation to the one Karl the Landgrave described as very simple. He was the only person ever allowed to see the interior. Ken’s concept is so complex no one could ever build it.

    Secondly, given my opinion of his work I see no reason to allow him to promote the book here. He has his own website, let that be enough.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. John wrote "Bessler’s clues were far more obvious but harder to interpret"

      That doesn't make much sense. If they are "far more obvious", then shouldn't they be easier to interpret?

      I consider Ken B to be the Sherlock Holmes of Bessler wheel clues. He concentrates on all of those "tiniest and completely unlikely clues" that you so quickly dismiss and others are completely unaware of. IIRC someone referred to them as "micro clues" in a past blog.

      Bessler knew those clues would be the hardest to discover and interpret. He purposely made them that way so that only he could point them out later during his life if he had to or so that after his death without selling his invention someone else with extraordinary determination would come along and finally find them and correctly interpret them. It's starting to look like Ken B could be that someone else.

      Delete
  19. KB was, & is, a one trick show pony. His solution to Bessler's wheel which he insists IS Bessler's solution, is conceptually the same as he has been tediously promoting for twenty years. He has fooled no one but himself & anyone naive enough to believe his bogus untested simulation. KB fatigue to his antics set in long ago. It may be time JC to bring back logins at your blog. To introduce some accountability, honesty, & reduce self serving sock-puppets & his toady's that derail the blog. Complete anonymity has its attraction, & costs. It might reduce the amount of weeding your have to do.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "KB was, & is, a one trick show pony. His solution to Bessler's wheel which he insists IS Bessler's solution, is conceptually the same as he has been tediously promoting for twenty years."

      One could probably say the same thing about Bessler. Interestingly, Ken claims that Bessler's wheels were not actually perpetual motion wheels in the true sense of the words (meaning that they could actually run forever if no parts wore out). He thinks even his smallest wheels could run continuously for millions of years, but would eventually run out of energy and stop. That statement will immediately disarm the skeptics who want to deny the reality of Bessler's wheels based on the 1st law of thermodynamics which is one of their favorite tactics.

      He also claims he only found "the" solution back in April of 2018. He mentions in his book that during the prior decade it took him about 2,000 simulated computer models to finally find a solution that worked and which agreed with the many new clues he had found in Bessler's drawings and portraits. That's an incredible amount of effort to make so it's obvious he had to be fanatical about it. I only know of one other guy who tried that approach. He made about 500 computer simulations before he finally gave up and dropped out of the chase permanently (IIRC, he was a friend of John's years ago). Anyway, I don't just dismiss what Ken says lightly.

      I think as the frustration levels due to making no progress over on BWF continue to climb year after year, many there who are dismissing Ken's design now will be forced to take another and far more intense look at it if they hope to make any real progress with Bessler's wheels in their remaining years. Ken's apparently in no rush. He's probably satisfied to have finally found a satisfying solution so he can now just sit back and wait for others to verify that it is "the" solution for him.

      I'm hoping his (or anybody's) solution finally is "it" because this Bessler mystery has gone on for centuries now and there is the serious possibility that without any progress in the years to come it will all just be forgotten as the world moves on with far more powerful energy sources. Right now as we sit here debating Bessler's wheels there are a lot of serious, highly trained physicists out there working day and night to find a way to make working fusion reactors. Once that happens who knows if there will be any interest left in Bessler and his wheels?

      Delete

Bessler’s Wheel in the Future.

When someone finds the solution to Bessler’s wheel I don’t know how, or even if, it will affect the world we live in, but I do know that con...