Explanations and Acknowledgement.

I’ve received a fair amount of criticism for what seems to be perceived as my unwillingness to let go of some of my personal convictions about Bessler’s wheel.  But my intention in beginning this blog was to inform and discuss certain facts which I believed were easy to establish about Bessler’s wheel.

Many people believe that Bessler intended to supply a range of clues which it is thought would eventually lead to the discovery of the secret of replicating his machine.  I am one of those people and I have presented that evidence both in my biography of Bessler, and in several web sites (I’ve had to let some go as it has become too expensive to maintain so many) and here in this blog.

I have promoted the books I published for two reasons, one to spread as much information about Bessler as possible, and secondly to try to recover some of the costs I’ve born since I first self-published my first book.  Including the translation costs for four books, and maintaining several web sites, a rough estimate of costs since I began is about £25,000 and I’ve probably recovered a lot less than half that.

I undertook this journey for the simple reason that I found evidence that Bessler told the truth, and if his machine was genuine, it was worth pursuing to try to present as much evidence as I possibly could manage to finally build a Proof of Principle device which could revolutionise the way we generate energy. 

When I began this journey, oil wells were believed to be running dry, earth was suffering from the effects of greenhouse emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, leading to global warming. I thought, here is a potential solution to those two problems; nothing has changed.  Yes we have electric cars and many other inventions, but these still don’t solve the main problem of using nuclear power to generate electricity, when the construction costs, long development time, catastrophic accidents, and the unresolved challenge of long-term of radioactive waste storage.

The alternative solutions on offer, such as solar panels, windmills, tidal energy are too expensive, unsightly and unpopular.  Bessler’s wheel offers, cheap, clean energy, anywhere on the planet in any climate conditions. 

So in conclusion, the many clues I’ve found and solved are definitely real. They can be verified as a fact.  Dismissing my clues and descriptions mean that you are cherry picking the clues and avoiding the chance of a solution.

I’m not seeking riches, but acknowledgement of my part in this story would be gratefully received

JC

Bessler’s Favourite Number

This is just an idea that has been hanging around in the back of my mind, for ever, it seems.  Everyone is well aware of Bessler’s apparent obsession with the number 5 (and mine!).  There are numerous pointers indicating to its importance in Bessler’s mind.  I won’t repeat the many indicators but….what if it has nothing to do with the number of mechanisms inside the wheel?

Recent comments on this blog brought to my mind this question and a possible connection with the frequency of the number five.  The Fibonacci numbers are well known and their relationship to the golden ratio.

We know that Bessler was familiar with the golden ratio and the Fibonacci numbers because he demonstrates it with MT137.  See my blogs dated 25th October last year and 7th September 2024.

And https://johncollinsnews.blogspot.com/2025/10/a-brief-reminder-about-besslers.html

https://johncollinsnews.blogspot.com/2024/09/johann-besslers-aka-orffyreus-maschinen.html

He knew the maths, 360/1.618 = 222.5 or  360-222.5=137.5 Curiously 1/137.5 = 00727272727 etc. and 5x72=360, the basic numbers of the pentagram again. 

He needed to fill the gap between MT136 and the first number in the Toys page, 138.  He did this with MT137, which seems to be an of odd inclusion considering the MT was a collection of machinery drawings.  MT137 has no  apparent mechanical properties usable in a Bessler wheel. It does, however show it’s connection with the golden ratio. 

He demonstrated his requirement to achieve certain totals by using a collection of related numbers to get the final total to some significant number.  He used this technique in all the drawings in GB and DT.  

So the Toys page had the four numbers pencilled on the bottom left corner of the page, 138,139,140 and 141.  

There are 141 bible references in Chapter 55 of his Apologia Poetica, and 55 four line stanzas. We know that this number 55 is constantly shown  as well as 5.  In the Fibonacci serine’s of numbers 5 and 55 are present,  why would he push the importance of a those two numbers?  Perhaps he was actually pushing the golden ratio.

141 has only two factors, 3 and 47.  MT47 has three number 47s.  Euclid’s instruction 47 shows how to construct a pentagram. He also describes construction of a  line representing the golden ration, although he doesn’t give it that name.

The Toys page numbers total 558. The 55 seems a popular number for Bessler, but what of the 8?  Well the three numbers in 558 total 18 and that is the basic number in the pentagram, all the angles are multiples of 18. 

The number connected with then Golden ratio is 1.618, but 0.618 is its conjugate and is close to SoS’s Bessler’s favourite number 0.777…

I wondered if the actual measurement ratio which was thought to be 0.777 might actually be 0.618?

I don’t know because I never knew how SoS found the 0.777.  However given Bessler apparent obsession with the number 5 and 55, and the pentagon, I don’t think it’s too much of a stretch to connect the golden ratio with SoS’s favourite Bessler number 0.777.

JC

Update

I’m still working on some changes to the current design, AKA ‘the work-around wheel’.  It is open to a number of variables and I hope it will prove to be a simpler version of my last one.  The problem with interpreting Bessler’s clues correctly is the strong possibility that there are several options to consider some of which seem more suitable to producing the desired actions commensurate with the Bessler-Collins Gravity Enabled Continuous Rotation Hypothesis, and some less so.

This is not the so-called “bright shiny object”  mentioned occasionally, it’s just part of a lifetime’s work in trying to replicate Bessler’s wheel. New versions are an ongoing process, each is a serious attempt to solve this puzzle and studying the actions of the mechanisms to see if there can be an alternative that could be an improvement is also a necessary feature of most research.  If I post something along the lines of, “I know how it worked!”  I’m sorry if I give the impression that I’ve proved something;   because I haven’t, I’ve just got over excited at my latest model. I’m very sorry to mislead anyone, but I’m an excitable guy.  

The problem is this tends to lead to people asking me to share it, but when I have shared something too speculative, it leads to general disappointment. 

Each version is tried out on a previous wheel structure which leads to numerous holes and alterations to the various parts of the mechanisms visible on the test model.  I’m sure this is a common feature of Bessler wheel research.  The final PoP wheel won’t be a thing of beauty, nor a “ bright shiny object”, but as proof of the legitimacy of Bessler’s wheel, it will outshine more than 300 years of oblivity.

JC