Don't tempt fate with a precipitate announcement ... John

This is merely an observation and not aimed at anyone in particular but I note a common theme in postings both here and in the besslerwheel forum and in other alternative energy forums. Before I go any further let me admit that I recognise exactly the same symptoms to a marked degree in my own actions and therefore I speak with some considerable experience.

Researching Bessler and seeking a solution to perfecting a working gravity wheel is what drives most of us and it is commonly observed that many who are involved in this persuit may on occasion have a sudden spontaneous flash of inspiration and illumination in which the solution to the problem is revealed. Further consideration over a period of time - it might be hours, days or months, it makes no difference - and the details acquired in this sudden attainment of intuitive knowledge are confirmed to the apparent satisfaction of the lucky recipient.

Following on from this exciting news and transported by thoughts of fame and fortune, the beneficiary of this amazing insight will be mentally preparing the details of how he will reveal his knowledge to the world with one or two caveats. He will want to ensure that he receives a just reward for his projected success but he will be concerned that the mysterious MIB do not take remedial action to stop any public announcment - and of course he will consider the advisability of patenting his new invention.

These thoughts are common to most of us and understandable, and I suspect that everyone of us has had a moment when the solution seemed clear but upon further consideration it was decided that the design did not answer the problem. There are times too, when even detailed analysis of the apparent solution seems to indicate that we are on the right path and it is only when we come to actually build a model that the truth becomes cruelly apparent.

This tendency to be utterly convinced that you have hit upon the right design does not always fade with experience - I know this better than most! If you wish to share the design and are not concerned about who gets recognition for it, then go ahead and tell the world, but if you wish to have some kind of recognition - and that is perfectly understandable and acceptable - be warned, "multa cadunt inter calicem supremaque labra", or there's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip. It's best, in my opinion, not to say that you have the solution and you have only to complete construction of the device before revealing it to the world, because experience shows that what was revealed intuitively to you in the wee small hours,sometimes has a habit of tripping you up, by not actually working.

Let me stress that this is not so much a message to others as to myself! To all who would seek the glory of success, contain your excitement; say nothing in public; make a working model first.

JC

Aren't we ignoring what is under our nose - Bessler's words?

Discussing my ideas about gravity-driven wheels (gravitywheels) has sparked some interesting ideas and theories by email which might advance my own research - or perhaps someone else's, but I think I'm on my own as far as believing that Bessler's wheel was driven purely by gravity.

I understand the reasons for the complete and utter rejection of this idea, but I don't think anyone understands why I am so committed to this line of reasoning. If it was based entirely on faith, which has been suggested more than once, I could understand why my viewpoint is ignored, but it's not. In addition I find it quite puzzling that almost everyone interested in this extraordinary project is single-mindedly looking for the solution almost anywhere except one which uses gravity alone.

When you read Bessler's words it seems obvious, to me at least, that he means that his wheel was driven entirely and exlusively by gravity, but because this appears to be in breach of the law of conservation of energy, such an idea is rejected without further consideration. To discard this proposal is to reject Bessler's words as if they were either false or designed to mislead, and while I accept that he didn't want anyone to discover his secret, he took the greatest delight, in my opinion, in teasing his readers with small pieces of information designed to titllate and intrigue. I simply don't accept that he wrote all that he did with the intention of completely deceiving us, his readers. He knew or at least hoped that at some point in the not too distant future his secret would be sold and everyone would eventually know how it worked. At that point he would not be best pleased in having to defend himself against accusations of lying or misleading. He was looking forward to pointing to all the clues in triumphant glee.

However that leaves us with a problem; how do we resolve the issue that gravity is a conservative force? I've posted some of my thoughts about that but I haven't revealed the design nor the key factor which I believe I have. I'm working on that but in the mean time I plan to video some demonstrations  of how the conservative nature of gravity does not necessarily hamper us in our search for a solution.  I'll post them and put a link here in due course.  This may take some time to accomplish.

Watch this space.

 

JC

Response to my forum posting about conservative forces.

The publication of my ideas about conservative forces on the Besslerwheel forum was met with a mixture of benign criticism and some somwhat less than favourable comments, as expected. You can't expect to suggest that 300 years of scientific advances might have overlooked some small detail without incurring criticism and argument, and I am not dispappointed by the reaction - it has got people talking about Bessler's wheel again.

What has surprised me is that among a small number of emails I received which offered their support for my conjecture there was one which apologised for not saying so publicly. The reason apparently was that doing so might diminish their standing in some way. I find this remarkable and it seems to mimic the situation between the majority of members and the rest of the world and indeed the whole history of the search for perpetual motion.

Many people who study Bessler's writings look for subtle deceptions and double meanings in everything he wrote and while I am guilty of seeing encoded messages in various places that are not as clear to others as they are to me, I think that he wrote the truth without dissembling and only restricted the information enough not to give the secret away. So when he wrote such phrases as, 'the machine was set in motion by weights'; 'Weights gained force from their own swinging'; 'the weights applied force at right angles to the axis' and Karl's view that' he did not disguise the fact that the mechanism is moved by weights', I think he spoke the truth and I have no doubt whatsoever that the machine depended on the presence of gravity and indeed was run by gravity alone. I see no need to invoke hidden meanings in phrases which describe in normal everyday language, the way the machine worked.  There is a phrase, 'the law of parsimony, or succinctness', which describes the principle of choosing a theory that requires fewer new assumptions, and in this case the simplest interpretation is the most likely one to be right, I think. 

I understand why some highly intelligent and experienced members of the forum insist on sticking to the belief that gravity cannot run the wheel because it is a conservative force, but I regret that they dismiss my thoughts with friendly humour but no serious consideration. And yet I read Bessler's words and can only conclude that gravity was the mainstay of his machine and just because gravity is a conservative force may does not completely and utterly rule out a way around it.  If my suggestion does not meet satisfactorily the criteria sought by those who would deny it, then I can't help but compare them to the rest of the scientific community who also refuse to contemplate such a possibility.

So once again I point the reader to my web site at http://www.besslerswheel.com/html/conservative_force.html, where he will read about the 'mysterious other force' which helps the weight complete its rotation without using any additional energy which wasn't generated by its fall.

JC

Circumstances in which a gravitywheel can be turned continuously by gravity alone.

I have felt for some time that maybe I should put something about my own thoughts about the fact that gravity is a conservative force and therefore apparently unable to drive a gravitywheel continuously.

So I posted a short piece on my web site at http://www.gravitywheel.com/ and perhaps more unwisely, a short copy on the Bessler forum.  I know in advance that some people will take their customary potshots at me for taking this viewpoint but I cannot help my opinion.  I remain uttlerly convinced that there is a way to drive a gravitywheel by means of weights reacting to gravity and no amount of  constant repetition or parroting of the disinformation stuffed down our throat  at school can shake my conviction.

I read and read and read what I had written over and over again and I cannot see how anyone can argue with it, but argie they will and in the end I shall go my own way and maybe I'll prove myself right.  I hope so.

PS

In the light of a new day my words seem a trifle strong.  I wasn't dismissing everything we have been taught, rather I wished to express my doubts about the fact as taught, that because gravity is a conservative force it cannot be used to drive a gravitywheel continuously.  My feeling is that such a statement will one day be shown to be too inclusive, and that a particular mechanical design will allow such a mchine to work.
JC

Bessler's Wheel - The Solution to the Energy Crisis - Spread the news!

When I first published my biography about Johann Bessler, also known as Orffyreus, I discovered that there was a small but keen group of people eager for information about the inventor, which resulted in a steady stream of orders from all over the world from people who appeared on the surface at least, to believe in the possibility of a perpetual motion machine.

Now I was never happy with that designation and I have tried over the years to differentiate the term 'perpetual motion' from what I believe was what Besslers wheel was. I have argued that since his wheel seemed to have acquired its energy from the force of gravity, and a 'perpetual motion' motion machine was believed to have no access to external energy, it could not be called a 'perpetual motion' machine and that a better description would be a 'gravity wheel' or 'gravitywheel'. I think most of the people who bought my book are well aware of the distinction and fully understand the impossibility of 'perpetual motion' machines when defined as a machine which runs for ever with no addional input of energy.

It doesn't really matter as long as there are a sufficient number of people, who are prepared to be open-minded about Bessler's claims, to carry on and maintain research into his machine with the aim of discovering the secret of its construction, and to my mind the information available in Bessler's books holds the best hope of success. But what is puzzling me is the sudden drop in orders for my books, allied to the apparent decrease in the number of new members of the Besslerwheel forum - and the fall in the number of posts. I'm not concerned at the fall in income from the sale of books, that only ever helped to recoup some of the cost of translations I had had done over the years, plus of course ongoing costs in running the web sites and doing further research. Even if I got no further income from book sales I would continue with my research. But this seems to indicate a fall in interest.

But why is it that the public interest in Bessler's wheel seems to be disappearing? What has changed? If anything I would have thought that there would be renewed interest as well as more newcomers to the subject. There is so much discussion about the need for a new way of generating electricity; so many adverts around the world by governments desperate to solve the problem of escalating oil prices, and reductions in carbon emissions and the lack of any real alternative to be worthy of consideration ... that I cannot understand the sudden flack of interest.

To me the only answer is to try to spread the word about Bessler's wheel as a potential energy generating device, more widely. But I have tried to spread the word for the last few years with little success. I think something more dramatic is neeeded which will grab everyone's attention. Of course the one thing that would do that would be the announcement of a new device based on Bessler's wheel and that is our ultimate aim, but in case that does not happen in the very near future something else is needed, in order to bring more new amateur researchers into this field of research.

The solution may appear next week or not for ten years or longer, so the sooner the public gets involved the better - and the sooner the wheel will appear.

So all suggestions welcomed for discussion here, but try to keep it legal guys! LOL

JC

Words of Encouragement

It seems to me that we who try to solve the mystery of Bessler's wheel, seem to have lost our way a bit, lately. Maybe we should return to what originally attracted our attention and caused us to consider the possibility that a method could be found of driving a revolving wheel by the use of gravity.

Remember that on 6th July 1712, Johann Bessler, also known as Orffyreus, claimed that he had invented a wheel which would turn continuously powered only by gravity. As proof, he exhibited a working model - something none of us has achieved to date.

I have provided as much information as I have been able to find in 30 year's research - the most complete biography of Bessler to date, books by Bessler with English translations, letters by him and about him and to him, drawings by him, descriptions of his encoded clues compete with my interpretations of what he meant. I have done this to draw attention to Bessler's claims and I have updated version of the original book almost ready for publication but I don't want to release it because I feel that the solution is about to appear and I would like to include any new information relating to the new discovery - however......

...it seems as if every year at this time we think, optimistically, that the answer will magically appear next year - but I have seen this written here every year for the last several years - I've posted such optimistic forecasts myself - but so far nothing. I think that there is a desire to believe that, with the 300th anniversary of the first announcement of his discovery looming, the time is ripe for the return of Bessler's wheel, and so it is, but it won't neccessarily happen just because the time is right.

Our thoughts need to return to basics, in my opinion. The more complex the design the more there is to go wrong. Bessler was hugely concerned that people would think his machine too simple to be worth what he was asking for it and argued strongly that despite its simplicity of design it was worth every penny.

So stick to basics, keep it simple and build a working model! Let's make the 300th anniversary a real celebration with a working model! Easy-peasy!

HAPPY CHRISTMAS ALL!

JC

Don't patent Bessler's wheel!

Over the years I have questioned the prudence of patenting an invention such as Bessler's wheel. After much deliberation I eventually came to the conclusion that if I was fortunate enough to succeed in building my own version of the wheel, I wouldn't patent it.

I know the subject has been discussed numerous times on the besslerwheel forum and I'm aware of the current opinions being aired, but I was delighted to receive an email from a regular correspondent who directed my attention to a book called, "DON’T File a Patent!" by John D. Smith (Smith Press, 200 pages, $24.95) . I'm not saying I agree with the bombastic tone of the chapter headings and I haven't even read the book, but the concept struck a chord with me and I was pleased to note that I am not alone in questioning the validity of the argument that the right course is, necessarily, to patent.

Some people have ascribed my decision not to patent, to ethical or moral values, but that is not the whole picture. I do in fact believe that this particular invention, if it were successful, should be freely available and without let or hindrance (by which I mean,without anyone or any organisation, having the right to prevent anyone else from building, using, selling or in any other way benefiting from it, however they wish.)

No, there are other reasons why I am sceptical of patenting. One is that in the first place it is costly - enormously so.  Yes of course I know that the costs of such an invention could be recouped a million times over, but this is a cost that grows with time, as you try to cover international patents and their annual fees.  The sheer amount of paperwork would be more than enough to defeat my enthusiasm.  But it is not the cost alone which causes me concern.

There is the policing of the patent. No patent office bothers to protect your patent, they only issue them. You have to consider whether it is worth taking every infringement to court; such an invention will attract every fly-by-night operator in the world, every far Eastern fabricating engineer trying to make a living; every one, in fact, who is looking for ways and means of feeding his family. Would you wish to act against everyone of them? A patent won't protect you against these. You might decide to just take legal action against the big boys but they will have done their homework and even if you win, you will have spent time and money you'd rather not and maybe you won't win.

But there is one more issue concerning infringement which I believe has not been considered or if it has, it has been ignored, and that is the psychological and physical impact experienced in defending your patent; no one seems to consider patent infrinegements other than as a legal challenge but I know, for myself at least, that it would be very distressing and also alarming and irritating to fight a continual battle against those who would try to circumvent your patent.

But these issues are nothing compared to the distinct possibility that your concerned government might see fit to step in and forbid your patent, and tie you up in legal bonds which would prevent you even talking about your device. Then where would the value of your patent lie? The important thing to consider is this; you apply for a patent to protect your invention, and presumably you do this for one or two reasons. Firstly you want to earn some money to secure you and your family's future; nothing wrong in that. Secondly you wish to preserve some control over how it is used. Again a reasonable intent. But if you lose the patent through governent inteference, where's the security in that? Who would control it then? It seems to me that if there is even the slightest possibility of that happening, then you must forget patenting your invention.

So it's no to patenting Bessler's wheel - what then? You publish the details of how it works through newspapers, TV and of course the intenet. There will be enough interest generated to make many of the world's media companies rush to your door and make attractive financial offers to you for your story. This prospect might not seem desirable but do you think that, even in the case where you did apply for and did receive a patent, and the governments around the world welcomed it with open arms, that the media won't make the same concerted rush for your door? Of course they will.

So if you are lucky enough to have to make a choice, my advice would be to give it away and let market forces do their thing. 

JC

Is this really the only alternative to fossil fuels?

How frustrating it is to come across web sites like the one below!

"Generate your own energy!

Renewable energy technologies like wind turbines, solar panels and biomass heaters offer an alternative to fossil fuels and can help reduce your homes CO2 emissions.

There are financial benefits too. Investing in a renewable energy technology now basically means pre-buying energy at today’s prices for a future where energy may cost a lot more. If fuel prices rise, your pay back would happen even sooner."

The above exhortation comes from http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/, but there are dozens - probably hundreds or even thousands of similar schemes around the world. They urge us to buy into these wonderful-sounding solutions as if they are the answer to the energy crisis - but they aren't - they barely scratch the surface of the problem - but the most frustrating thing about them is that even though there is a real solution - Bessler's gravitywheel - they dismiss it, ignore it or they don't know about it (or they don't want to know about it!).

The world of science has long scoffed at the possibility of running a wheel driven continuously by the force of gravity, and it will take a sea-change in thinking to make someone somewhere sit up and take notice - or a working model!

It's been done before so we know beyond reasonable doubt that gravitywheels are possible. Johann Bessler achieved it and first demonstrated it on 6th July, 1712. In less than two years time it will be the 300th anniversary of that day. I am determined to celebrate the occasion with a complete working reconstruction of the gravitywheel that Johann Bessler invented, if not by me then by someone - anyone!  And.....

...despite temperatures of -8 degrees Celsius (about 17 degrees Fahrenheit) during most of the last two weeks, I have managed to do some work on my current construction of a Bessler wheel model, and regardless of previous experience, I dare say, confidence is high!
JC

Addition to www.theorffyreuscode.com

Following some serendipitous studies I found what I believe is an interesting piece of information regarding MT 137 - but only for those who relish the code-breaking requirements of Bessler's  tortuous coded constructions.  It doesn't shed any more light upon the meaning of MT 137, but for me it confirms what I have always thought - that the drawing is only intended to be another secret pointer to the number 5.

I have added yet another page to the http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/ web site and an extra button MT 137 C!  I have slightly altered MT 137 A, and MT 137 B although I doubt anyone will notice the difference.  I'm not posting anything on BW forum because I don't think anyone is particularly interested.  That's not sour grapes, its just the way it is.  I don't think that repetitive revelations that yet another piece of code appears to suggest the number 5 will light anyone's fire, not even mine, but I do have an interest in all things Bessler and I am constantly intrigued to find new layers of meaning within his writing/drawing.

The only thing I would say is that after all these discoveries relating to the number 5, I must admit that I am perplexed at the ubiquity of it and concerned that something so apparently important to Bessler should be ignored simply because there is so much of it.

JC

Apologia Poetica, Chapter 55. Beginning to decipher the code?

As promised, I have published my ongoing research into deciphering the code in chapter 55 and nyou can read it at http://www.orffyreus.net/. I haven't actually deciphered anything yet although I feel I have made some small progress in untangling the clues. I confess I've reached a dead end at the moment and although I do have some other ideas to explore there is nothing sufficiently convincing for me to think it worth sharing.

Even if the web site inspires someone to have a go at following my lead and succeeds where I have failed, then it has to be worth it.

Good luck!

JC

Update on wheel progress and decoding chapter 55

Just to update folks who are interested. After my last effort to persuade people that I knew the principle behind Bessler's wheel and the fiasco that resulted, I swore to myself that I would keep my mouth shut in future. The trouble with making such claims is that, understandably, people demand proof - and without a working model no such proof is available. Unfortunately I succumbed to the requests to share my ideas and in effect shot myself in the foot. However,  (didn't you just know that there would be a 'however'!) my recent experiments have revived my optimism that I shall succeed eventually and I simply have to share it (my optimism not the design!)  But don't worry , I shall keep my ideas to myself until such a time as I can reveal a working model. I won't even hint at my design so then I won't be tempted to share it until I can prove it.

So why am I bothering to say this? Well I have just been counting up how many emails I have received since my premature crowing, several months ago now, (just the ones which simply asking me how things are going) and I counted 67! This particular blog was prompted by getting five in one day earlier this week, so this is just to update those kind people who I consider my friends and who seem supportive of my attempts to publish what I know (or what I think know!).

As those who read this blog may remember, I am preparing to post some stuff about my attempts to decipher chapter 55 which I believe holds an encoded message. I was going to hold off until I had included everything about my work on this material, however recent posts on the besslerwheel forum about chapter 55 have encouragedd me to publish what I have done so far, in the next few hours. I'm sure I shall receive the usual dose of criticism mitigated by supportive emails, but if my efforts help someone else towards deciphering the code then it will have been worth it.

I hope that the web site at http://www.orffyreus.net/ is not too long and the evidence not too badly argued. I have found it quite difficult to explain without getting into too much detail and yet not omitting important points.

JC

Bessler's "Connectedness Principle".

A couple of weeks ago I received an email asking me what I understood by Besslers "connectedness principle". I answered to the best of my ability at the time, but I have had further thoughts about it which I thought I'd put down here.

In his Maschinen Tractate number 9, Bessler says:-

"Because experience shows us that the ball-driven wheels like those seen in the present figure and diagrams were of no avail, people speculated on another principle, namely on weights. To be sure in all the weight drawings that I have found, these weights appear simple and are not connected together with belts and chains, even in Leupold, but nothing can be accomplished with any device unless unless it responds due to my connectedness principle..."

In my original version I changed the phrase "connectedness principle", to something I thought was more accurate, but since then I have been persuaded that the above phrase is probably closer to the original intention.

So what did he mean? The word "connectedness" doesn't even appear in some dictionaries and is probably more akin to the literal translation of Bessler's language than an apposite English word.  It is a noun and is defined as "a relation between things or events http://www.thefreedictionary.com/connectedness - or a "state of being attached, ability to be connected". http://dictionary.babylon.com/connectedness/.

I don't feel that these get to the actual meaning intended by Bessler. For clarification I looked up some synonyms for 'connected' and found :- "linked, joined, united, coupled, associated, combined,engaged", and there are several more.

"Connectedness" conjures up the idea of things being joined together or united, but in my opinion it also suggests the amount or intensity of a connection which may vary in some way. The coupling of two objects may well be described as connected but their connectedness might be less than or equal to a theoretical maximum. How can we determine what was meant?

One could argue that two things are either connected or not, but it depends; it might be a loose connection in the same way that a nut might be loose on a bolt and therefore it can allow some movement in the connection - or the nut is tight and there is no movement; or it might describe a man on a length of elastic doing a bungee jump - he can stretch the connection and be pulled back to a degree; or a dog which is connected by its lead to its owner - he can pull the dog or prevent it running away but he cannot push with the lead because it's a made of a chain or a length of leather and therefore one might describe it as connected but the connectedness is not as complete as it could be with say a metal rod which is inflexible.

It may be a two-way connection but one way is rigid and the other is flexible. The connection may be, to a certain degree, more or less flexible than it could potentially be.

Bessler must have intended something other than a rigid connection otherwise there was no point in establishing the idea of a "connectedness principle". He implied that his wheel required his connectedness principle in order to function, therefore we might assume that the connection in question was not rigid and unyielding but that the two connected objects were capable of some movement which was independant from each other at some point. For instance if a weight fell and in doing so moved another weight, that would require some connection even if it was only a brief collision with the other, either by direct impact or by means of a rope or chain. Subsquently the fallen weight would have to return to its former position in order to fall again but would perhaps be able to do so without pulling the other weight with it.

Such a "connectedness principle" might also permit delay in certain movements of weights which would be advantageous in some designs.

I don't know what the answer is, but I thought I'd pass on my musings as food for thought. In the mean time I have a theory and I am testing it. I don't know if it will help but given the variety of possible connections outlined above it will probably take me some time to work my way through them. The only thing I do know is that in my design a connectedness principle as described above is a vital ingrediant.

JC

Curious Coincidence or Spurious Inference?

Following my blog entitled "Decoding Chapter 55 of Bessler's Apologia Poetica",in which I mentioned the large number of clues from Bessler which signified the number 55, it was mentioned that an interview I gave to "Infinite Energy" magazine way back 1998 was printed on page 55! At that time I knew nothing of the apparent importance to Bessler of that number. This was an interesting coincidence and added to the fact that the other person involved happened to look at that page on the same day that I posted my blog almost convinced me of some implied causality! I was discussing the matter with my wife and she pointed out that my birthday is on February 5th - another 5 and a 2. I then observed that 5 x 2 = 10 and added to my year of birth, 1945, added up to 55. It shows how easy it is to be lulled into seeing meaning in something which is perhaps mildly serendipitous - a nice coincidence, but nothing more.

The brain tends to identify patterns and sometimes it gets fooled. I remember after 911, the spate of seemingly meaningful number coincidences that related to that event that appeared on the internet. This feature of the way the brain works is useful but can lead one up a blind alley. Clouds sometimes form shapes which some people see as recognisable faces but there is probably more meaning in the patterns seen in the rorschach inkblot test. Nevertheless one cannot always ignore them and Orffyreana are a ripe area for the appearance of such curious coincidences - or are they spurious inferences?

One well-known coincidence is the fact that Bessler included 141 bible references in "Apologia Poetica", in the section headed "Orffyrean Declaration of Faith". Apart from the fact that there are so many, on their own there is nothing to wonder at, however in his "Maschinen Tractate" (MT) he destroyed or hid some of its drawings at the time of his arrest and replaced others to make 141. The last one which I call "The Toys" drawing has five numbers appended to the bottom of it to bring the total to the desired 141. Why did he want to have 141? Are we to draw a connection between the two books? I don't know. Coincidence or design? And Why does MT47 have a ghostly mirror image of the number 47 attached to it, and does it matter that 47 goes into 141 just three times. Coincidence? Probably, but should we ignore it?

I have a reputation for seeing meaning in everything Bessler wrote or drew, and I know that some think my imagination is leading me astray, but in fact I do study each 'clue' with a highly critical eye. Sometimes if I am unsure about its validity, I publish details about it and hope to draw comment which might enable me to confirm it as a real clue or discard it completely. With regard to Chapter 55, I have found much of the route to deciphering the coded parts but there is some ambiguity about where to go next and that is why I intend to publish what I know.

JC

The Decoding of Chapter 55 of Johann Bessler's 'Apologia Poetica'.

Reconstructing Bessler's wheel is an important objective for me, but the mystery of Bessler's code fascinates me almost as much.

It has seemed obvious to me ever since I discovered the hidden pentagrams in the Merseberg wheel drawings and subsequently several others in other drawings by Bessler, and of course the proliferation of encoded 5s and 55s elsewhere in his publications, that there must be more to it than just my own theory that they indicated five mechanisms as a basic requirement for a successful gravitywheel - or seven or nine.

It is already obvious to many people that Bessler hid some encoded information in Apologia Poetica and I think that the key to deciphering it involves the number 5.  I'm not saying that I'm wrong about the five mechanisms, it's just that I think that once Bessler had discovered that his gravitywheel needed at least five mechanisms to work (and more as long as they were odd numbers) he decided to use the number five as part of his encoding method, as well. This is typical of Bessler, he seems to have delighted in designing each code to have two or more ways of deciphering it.

The repetition of the number five, almost exclusively within the Apologia Poetica, suggests that it is within this book that we should look for a secret message and Bessler hints at that exact thought. He says,in chapter 46, "Those who are keen to ask questions should ask them of this little book. My work will not be revealed prematurely." Chapter 55 is the final chapter of part one, (part two was added later to respond to unfair accusations by his enemies) so, given my firm conviction that there is an encoded message hidden in the book, and taking into account that Bessler is practically shouting out the number 55, chapter 55 seems like an excellent place to look.

It would be extremely useful to find someone with professional experience in codebreaking who would be willing to apply their professional skills in deciphering the code. I have made contact in the past with acclaimed experts in the field, men such David Khan, widely regarded as the world’s leading expert on the history of codes and cryptology, who although unable or unwilling to help did introduce me to an ex MI5 codebreaker, who was unfortunately too ill to help and who has subsequently passed away. I have also in the past been in contact with Cheltenham GCHQ in the hope that someone there might be of assistance. The woman I spoke to suggested that I post the problem to her and she would publish it internally. Unfortunately this particular piece of encoded material does not lend itself to brief publication on a noticeboard.

I have returned to the mystery of Chapter 55 many times and have accumulated a considerable amount of information about it and I plan to publish the details soon, which will, I hope, help those whose experience in the art of codebreaking is so much more profound and whose knowledge of the subject is infinitely broader than my own.

There are several mysteries attached to Chaper 55; the 141 bible references for a start; the fact that some of them don't actually exist; the fact that the rhyming couplets used throughout the 7000 (approximately) lines of the book are changed for just 220 lines in Chapter 55 (55 verses!); the apparently random switching from fraktur font to Latin font; the fact that five (yes its that ubiquitous number again!) references are duplicated; the weird spaces and omitted lines for no apparent reason. I haven't even mentioned the 684 'xs' that litter the end of many lines in the whole book. I could go on, but I won't. Let me just say that I have some of the answers and I shall post them in due course on one of my web sites in the near future and will notify all who might be interested as to where and when it will become available as soon as I can.

I would add it to www.theorffyresucode.com but that is so full of brief pieces about some of the codes that there is no room for any more, and I plan a more detailed article about Chapter 55 so I've decided that for the time being I shall probably add it to either http://www.orffyreus.org/ or http://www.orffyreus.net/.

JC

Das Triumphirende FOR SALE. But only until Midnight GMT 31st OCTOBER 2010

It seemed like a good idea to leave the period that the book was availabe for sale, with an unlimited cutoff date to allow as many people as possible to consider the idea of purchasing the book. So far I have received three firm offers and there are a couple more considering their options. Understandably there has been some concern over how long they would have to wait for their offers to be accepted or rejected, so I have decided to put a time limit on the sale. Anyone interested should make their offer known to me by the end of October, midnight GMT on 31st October 2010.

However, should a firm acceptable offer be made prior to this date, rather in the way that ebay sellers accept "buy now" offers I would be prepared accept it but would only be fair to notify those others who have expressed an interest in purchasing the book,in case they wished to put in an improved offer.

I hope that this seems fair and reasonable.

JC

Das Triumphirende PERPETUUM MOBILE ORFFYREANUM 1719 FOR SALE.

In November 2001 I drove to Germany to see Kassel and the other places nearbye which featured so much in Bessler's life. In Furstenberg I saw Bessler's wndmill. In Karlshafen I visited Bessler's house and also the antiquarian bookshop which is close to where Bessler lived after leaving Kassel. There I found a copy of the famous Das Triumphirende Perpetuum Mobile Orffyreanum and I was unable to resist the temptation to buy it.

Back in my hotel room I examined the book carefully and found that it had two portraits inside the front cover; one of  Bessler himself and the other of an anonymous person. I say anonymous because Bessler had carefully cut out the face on the second portrait and aligned his portrait so carefully that his own face filled the cut out perfectly. The reason for doing this is difficult to determine but I presumed that it had to do with the different items included in each portrait.  Subsequently I learned that there are probably no more than three other copies in existence with this unusual feature.

There are one or two which may include the one portrait but the double one is rare, and this must add value to the book. Inside the front cover, just after the double portraits, my copy has a label attached which reads "Ex Libris Emmy Destinn".  She was a renowned Czech operatic soprano (26 February 1878 – 28 January 1930). Destinn was born Emílie Pavlína Venceslava Kittlová. She was very versatile and besides being a singer was a poet, novelist and playwright, though nothing she has done in other professions has rivalled her reputation as a singer. She performed in Paris, London and New York many times. She is buried in Prague. Why she owned a copy of Bessler's book I have no idea but her ownership of the book can only add to the provenance and thus its value. I hesitate to add that my own part in its history can scarcely lower its intrinsic value.

The time has come for me to let it go - albeit with extreme reluctance. The book has been treated with care and has been handled by very few people other than myself, it is however a delicate object and should be kept in optimum conditions, something I am unable to guarantee. With this in mind I am offering it for sale to the highest bidder, and there is no particular time limit on the availability of this sale.

Bearing in mind the approaching 300th anniversary of the 6th June 1712 when Bessler first exhibited his wheel, and the current sale of the windmill he was building and from which he fell to his death, there is likely to be some public interest in the inventor at that time and it is not beyond the realms of possibility that someone may finally succeed in reconstructing Bessler's wheel. Given the convergence of these factors at this moment, the timing could not be better for a dramatic increase in the value of this book and is one of the reasons why I am still loath to put it up for sale.

I am tempted to set a price but I won't, preferring to receive offers and give all due consideration to each. I will say just this; very recently I was in negotiations on behalf of another person who wished to purchase the only other copy currently available. This copy lacked the portraits but a price of £3000 was agreed before the seller withdrew from the sale, preferring to hold onto his copy for a few more years, mainly because he didn't wish to part with it and I guess also in the hope of making a substantial profit on his investment.

I have placed further information at http://www.orffyreus.net/ , so if anyone is interested in obtaining this book or just to ask questions about it please let me know by email or through the BW forum

JC

Wheel update and an awsome trebuchet.

Well I'm still moving stuff out and getting rid of accumulated trash from thirty years! Still unable to work on my new wheel, but as soon as I can I'll be back!  Since I have little to report about my wheel work, I thought I'd go off at a bit of a tangent here.

I'm almost ashamed to admit that I've lived here, near Warwick, for over 30 years and yet until this week I had never visited one of the finest castles in England - Warwick castle - and it's just two and half miles from my house. Begun almost a thousand years ago, it's an amazing place and well worth the visit. But for me the best thing is, they have this huge medieval trebuchet that has to be seen to be believed.

It's not the biggest one around, but its still impressive.  It weighs in at 22 tons, measures 20 feet in height if you include the throwing arm and can hurl a missile 75 feet high and a thousand feet distant. It takes a small team of 4 or 5 guys walking in a giant hamster wheel at least 15 minutes just to wind up the massive block of sandstone which supplies the power. To be close by when it fires is awsome! This particular one - and they have others - was designed and built by Dr Peter Vemming from The Mediaeval Centre in Nykobing, Denmark, using notes and drawings from the 13th century, so it seems to be pretty authentic. I think that if they could design and build such a truly inspiring machine more than seven hundred years ago, they certainly had the know-how and the ability to built a puny gravitywheel without any problem. But of course they didn't know how! And neither do we ....yet!

There are other equally robust machines at the castle, and you can tell just by looking at them that they can unleash some fearsome energy and are just waiting for the chance!  This one I haven't seen fired yet but it just looks cool.  I'm sure that the builders of these amazing machines would have been able to build a giant gravitywheel had they known how and I can imagine something with say a twenty foot diameter being turned by heavy stone balls, able to pump thousands of gallons of water, or even raise the twenty ton rock in the trebuchet.

Anyway I shall give some updates here as soon as I have begun work on my wheel - and as always, confidence remains high.  I am still utterly convinced that 'kiiking' holds the solution, although I'm aware that most people think I'm way off target.  In the end only the proof of principle demonstrated in a working model will convince the world.

Mean while I shall keep the image of the trebuchet in mind to both inspire me and remind me what people could accomplish seven hundred years ago, here on this tired old island.

JC

Update on the wheel and some corrections to the translations.

I have had to stop working on my Bessler wheel for the last couple of weeks because my workshop has become so cluttered with old wheels and used parts, and pieces of wood and metal and nuts and bolts and washers......etc. I decided to have a clear out of all the bits and pieces I didn't want to keep - other than for nostalgic reasons - because we are having to move some items out of their usual place to leave room for some repairs to other parts of the house. So I had to make room, for a fridge/freezer, tumbledrier and a range of cupboards. This meant taking out one of my two work benches and some serious rearranging of the place. It's almost done and then I can get back to work on the wheel.

The nostalgic items include some apparatus made to demonstrate my ideas in a lecture I gave a few years ago. They included a twelve foot wheel which I had designed to be easily disassembled but with which I hoped to demonstrate just how big Bessler's twelve foot wheel was when you stood next to it. It was just a skeletal assembly which you could rotate with a simple push but it was never intended to be a self-moving one. Another item was a simple vertical windmill shaft on which I had placed two Savonius windmills. A strong fan was placed so that the wind would turn the Savonius windmills. This was to demonstrate the idea that when disconneced from each other they rotated in opposite directions but when linked they did not move unless given a small push. This push allowed them to turn together in the same direction at half the disconnected speed in either direction as required by the pusher. There were also a number of old wheel backs that were so full of holes that they were of no use to me any more.  I held on to these items for too long but anyway they've have gone now so I have plenty of room!

I had decided to begin correcting some of the translation errors in my publications, which had been identified by Stewart on the besslerwheel forum over the last few years. It was suggested that because I had not kept the books updated by correcting the text whenever an improvement in the translation was published on the forum that I was causing a certain amount of confusion, and I have received some criticism for my lack of interest in updating the books. I finally agreed that perhaps I should begin the task of making these corrections. However I realised very quickly that it was not as simple as it sounded and when I learned that Stewart planned to publish his own translations in the future there seemed little point in making alterations that would be superceded later by improved translations and I could see that I might be infringing his own copyright by using his words. I was unsure how much of his corrections I could use - did I use only short one or two word corrections for instance and ignore longer passages? Anyway I have decided not to issue revised books but may include an errata sheet. I published the books as translated by my own translater who I commissioned to do the job and I was more than satisfied with his work at the time.  And how would he feel on seeing my 'corrections' to his work?  In my opinion the differences in translation are minimal to understanding Bessler.

In addition to this I am busy with my revised biography of Bessler. Acknowledging the various works quoted is a time consuming task on its own and I am still awaiting information on some original documents which have been undergoing treatment for mould. It has been a long time in the writing but it is nearing completion and might even be available for the 300th anniversary if I don't get distracted from it too often.

JC

Bessler's Windmill for sale - One Euro!

A correspondent has kindly pointed out that the famous windmill that Bessler was building when he fell to his death is up for sale, for the princely sum of .... one euro!  That's about $1.28!

Of course when you look more closely there are conditions attached to the sale which could cost the buyer hundreds of thousands of pounds.  There's a brokerage fee of 950 euros for start (correction that should read 5,950 Euros!) - not too much considering the investment opportunity, but the building is 'listed' and in England that is like buying a large hole and throwing your money in!  Nevertheless if I had the money I'd buy it just for me! 

Imagine walking around it and seeing Bessler's own work and looking to see if he had scribbled any messages or left documents mouldering away in some hidden cavity .. sorry I'm letting my imagination run away with me again!

Here's a couple of photos from the 'for sale' site.  I visited the windmill myself a few years ago but never went inside to see what it was like, but I hope to do so one day.

Sadly, in my opinion, they fail to mention the guy who built it!  After Bessler's death the building provided somewhere for the start of the porcelaine industry in that part of German, and that is all they say.

Any buyers out there?

Here's the link:-
http://www.immonet.de/niedersachsen/holzminden-fuerstenberg-besondere-immobilie-kaufen-105279c11227-1.html

JC

Update - and five mechanisms required for proof of principle

Because I remain convinced that parametric oscillation (or kiiking) is the key to understanding Bessler's wheel I hope those who read this will understand why I continue to discuss it here.

Following a suggestion by a member of BW forum, I reconstructed my wheel with one (modified) mechanism instead of five, in an attempt to provide proof of the principle. I then realised that I had set it up wrongly as I had included an equal weight on the opposite side of the wheel to counterbalance it. This of course reduced the torque available to a very small amount. A kiiking rider has only himself to rotate about the swing pivot but if he had a non-participating second rider attached on the other end of a pair of extended swing rods he would be counterbalanced either in his outer position or in his inner one, depending on how the counterbalance was arranged. But even if the counterbalancing rider was working at pumping the swing in concert with the main rider, the torque available would be tiny in comparison to that generated by one rider.

I removed the counterbalance, restoring the full torque available and the mechanism, when started at a position close to twelve o'clock, rotated to the eleven o'clock position where it stopped and reversed. Obviously the mechanism was generating too small a pulse. This also highlighted the fact that kiiking swingers have to pump their swing many times to get  up to twelve o'clock, (20 or 30 pumps) and this is clearly the only point from which they can achieve a full rotation.

The sport of "kiiking", or "kiikuda" to use the correct verb, requires the winner to be the one who can achieve a number of consecutive rotations using longer swing rods than anyone else. This implies that the rotation is easier to achieve with shorter rods - or that the distance the rider moves his body in or out is relatively more with shorter rods. Obviously the latter applies as the distance moved inwards or outwards is going to be roughly the same for every contestant (unless he or she has extremely long legs!) but is more effective on shorter rods.

As my mechanism moves the weight inwards a set amount because the weights are the same regardless of how long the rods are, I may shorten the rods a small amount to increase the change in the angle of momentum and generate a stronger pulse, but space is limited. So if I place a second mechanism exactly opposite the first one, I anticipate that with the reduced torque then available from the action of the mechanism, the wheel will still not achieve one rotation - why? Because the difference in length of the pendulum achieved by the falling shifter weight, will only produce a small impulse. I stated many times and on my web site at http://www.besslerswheel.com/ that I believe that the wheel required five mechanisms as I maintain Bessler implied by his ubiquitous use of the number five,and that is still my firm opinion. Because I believe this is true I shall omit further testing with anything less than five. I'll update this information when I have more to say.

I have updated an old web site at http://www.247website.co.uk/ I occasionally post things on which have little to do with Bessler, and have added a potted history of Kiiking and good evidence that it goes back a long time before Ado Kosk publicised it.

JC