Update.

Ok, so I'm not selling up and moving house after all!  We both admitted to each other that we didn't really want to leave this house and we have been unable to find one we like as much, so we've cancelled the sale.  No villa in Spain either, at least not until the wheel works!

My current build incorporates the principle I discovered two or three years ago, and it's proving difficult to get it to perform correctly.  I know it is in the right place and it operates as I think it should but it is not causing the weight to 'shoot up' quickly enough, as Bessler described it.  I feel confident that I will get the configuration right in time but now that I am free of the house-moving troubles I can get on with playing with variations on the leverage to generate enough lift to move the weight upwards quickly.  The speed of the lift will affect the wheel's speed - too slow and it will have a braking effect.
  

I have always insisted that there are five mechanisms, but it was interesting to learn that the sound of the Kassel wheel was described in a newspaper report as making seven or eight bumping noises.  This fits in with my belief that there have to be an odd number of mechanisms and therefore  includes the possibility of seven as described by me on my web site at

 http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/html/mt_137_part_two.html

Having said that, according to my own work on deciphering Bessler's clues, there are many more potential sources for various mechanical noises, and the seven or eight reported sounds must either be ignoring the lesser ones, or they have all been silenced in some way.  I note that the early wheels were remarkable for the amount of noise coming from them when they turned.  Bear in mind that Bessler said he had tried to dampen the sounds with felt on some occasions and this seems to lend support to the idea 

And another thing, Karl reported that the design of the wheel was very simple, but I am aware of the principle that permits the force of gravity to drive the wheel without conflicting with the laws of physics and  I do not think he could possibly have understood all of what he was seeing.  It would not have been at all obvious even to someone as intelligent as he was.  I suspect that Bessler showed him the internal workings without pointing out the particular features which make the wheel comply with the principle I mentioned earlier.  It will easily escape attention unless you know what you are looking for.

My wheel is quite complex, in that it has several components which interact with each other and it is this interaction which is causing me problems in finalising one perfect mechanism whose precise configuration I can transfer to the other four to produce an exact copy of Bessler's wheel.  Confidence is high!

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’

How Many Ways might there be to Solve Bessler's wheel? Update.

It has been said many times that even when we solve Bessler's wheel, we won't know for sure whether it will be the same design as his. Perhaps this doesn't matter but it seems an unlikely conclusion to me anyway.  I have known the principle or trick, if you like, to the secret of Bessler's wheel, for  a couple of years and I am certain that the principle I'm referring to is a vital part of the configuration; without its use the wheel will not spin.

I also know that if I hadn't found it, I would still suspect that there would only be one way to make gravity able to drive the wheel and therefore whoever solved the problem would still require this particular specific principle to be incorporated in its construction.  So for his wheel to work, Bessler must have known and used the same principle and therefore anyone having to use this same principle would result in a duplication of Bessler's wheel. If you consider that for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years, man has sought the answer to this riddle, as far as we know, without success except for the once, there can surely only be one principle involved and therefore only an extremely limited number of ways it can be used - and maybe only one way.

I have give some consideration to potential alternative ways it might be used and I suspect that it might be possible to use it in a reactionless drive.  How this might be achieved using the principle I have in mind is beyond my engineering skills to make, although I have sketched some ideas.  When you consider that in Bessler's wheel you are attempting to convert the downward linear force of gravity into a rotational one, then it doesn't seem too big a jump to assume that you could reverse it and use a rotational drive to create linear thrust.  Of course I am fully aware that to date, no reactionless drive has ever been validated under properly controlled conditions but then neither has a gravity-driven wheel. It seems that a consequence of building either one would conflict with Newton's third law, (for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction), however the same principle which I think will work for Bessler's wheel should be available for use in the opposite direction and we are all working to prove Bessler's wheel because we believe it was genuine.  If the consequences of Newton's third law can be circumvented in one direction then it should also be possible in the other.

I guess you are asking, if I know the principle why have I not created a working model by now?  A reasonable question and I shall try to answer it.  I know and understand the principle and the reason why it will work, and I'm confident that everyone will agree with me when I explain it.  But finding out how to use it has proved more difficult than I imagined when I first found it.  I have over the last couple of years, through a combination of hands-on building, trial and error, and successfully teasing out the desired information from Bessler's drawings I have at last arrived at the correct configuration, and I am completing my final construction.  

My intention is to finish this model and - if it works - then I can finally publish the details.  If it doesn't work, I shall also publish the details of the principle and also the extracted information from the particular drawings I used. I'll explain how I arrived at my conclusions and let someone else carry it forward.  I will do this because I am certain that I have everything right, but who knows?  Perhaps the quality of my workmanship might result in a less than continuous motion.

I understand with the utmost clarity that the vast majority of readers here, will think I'm deluded and I don't blame you.  But, I am fed up with constructing endless stationary wheels and I want to share the only bit of real information that I do have, the principle!  But allow me, please to just finish this last attempt to build a working model.

The reason for my belated apparent haste after many years of procrastination, is because we are planning to sell our current home and buy a smaller one here and maybe a small villa in Spain, where we can try and avoid the miserable winters in England.   This means that my current project will suffer an extended hiatus  The house is being tidied up for sale and my workshop is suffering the same fate - being tidied up and all my work hidden away. If this one fails to rotate continuously and drive another device, then I will publish everything as video, digital and printed documents within the next few weeks.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’

What Secret Lies within Bessler's Portraits?

This is an interim blog which I decided to write concerning recent speculation about the Bessler portraits.

There has been much discussion about the two portraits of Johann Bessler.  Do they contain hidden information and what that information might tell us?

In extracting meaning from Bessler's portraits it can sometimes be helpful to try and put yourself in his shoes.  What information was he trying to convey?

Personally, I don't see how he could transmit sufficient information about how to reconstruct his wheel from anything he contrived to hide in his portrait or portraits, so what do all the apparent clues mean? I am expressing my personal opinion here and I have published what I have been able to discover about the portraits at
http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/html/bessler_s_portrait.html.and here http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/html/part_2_portrait.html and
also here http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/html/2nd_portrait.html

The only facts that we can reliably extract are the quirky finger gesture which seems to point at some hidden meaning and the odd writing below the portrait which contains some alphanumeric clues and some curious font variables, plus the objects within the portraits, some indicating memento mori, and of course there is the pentagon, but all of these details seem to lead us to a dead end.  These vague hints seem to point to some secret knowledge relating to the Freemasons, the Rosicrucians, the Jesuits or some other secret organisation.  They are definitely clues, but with this sketchy information it seems impossible to understand what he is trying to say. 

Approaching the puzzle from a different angle, I think that if Bessler wished to give us the information it, had to be in the form of detailed construction information in a separate place elsewhere, and maybe he designed the portraits to tell us where to look.

So where would we be likely to find the information that Bessler might be trying to point us to?Obviously the most important source would be drawings because a picture is worth a thousand words, but if its textual clues you want then you won't find a better place than his Apologia Poetica.  I have described some of my findings in my web site at 

http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/html/aps_chapter_55.html 

So somewhere in the design of the portraits lies a series of clues which may lead us to the source of the real secret - how to build a Bessler wheel..

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’

Bessler 's Curious Hand Gesture

I had considered posting the subject of this blog on the forum but decided against because of its length.  I have no objection to anyone taking the suject to the forum for further discussion.

Many years ago I commented on what I described as the poorly drawn hands in the main portrait of Bessler.  I wrote this because to me the hands looked unnatural and were therefore not well drawn. Subsequently I believed that I had discovered that the particular arrangement of the middle and ring finger being pressed together while the other fingers were held apart was a secret method of recognition among the Freemasons mainly in formal portraits.  I thought that this was probably not too surprising given the apparent involvement of Karl the Landgrave in the Masonic brotherhood. The subject of Freemasons has come up from time to time and suggestions have been made that perhaps Bessler was a Mason.   If the house of Hess at Kassel was deeply involved in Freemasonry then there is little doubt that Bessler was either made aware of it, or learned of it while he stayed at Hessen-Kassel.

Coincidentally the man to whom Baron Fischer wrote, in support of Bessler's wheel, Dr Desaguliers, Sir Isaac Newton's curator of experiments at the Royal Society, was, himself a keen Freemason and was mainly responsible for the upsurge in membership all over Europe. However further research indicates that Desaguliers was not connected with Freemasonry until 1719 and did not induct anyone on the continent before 1731 so I think we can dismiss any connection of Bessler to Freemasonry, at least while he was at Hess-Kassel.   Neither is there any evidence that Karl the Landgrave of Hess-Kassel was a member and anyway, it was too early for his involvement, although several of his descendants were.

As for Ken's findings on the subject of Bessler's portraits, I am neither supporting nor dismissing his work on deciphering the meanings he claims to have found - I simply don't know..  

In the main portrait Bessler's middle and ring fingers on his left hand, are held close together and anyone who wishes to research the significance of this in a formal portrait will find a wealth of information about the use of this symbol by the Masonic fraternity.  But I think we can ignore that information for the reason I have given above, so why was it used in his case?

The symbols shown in the portrait; the skull, book and jar are commonly used in art to denote the passing of time and our ultimate death and the words Memento Mori are ascribed to the notion.  It means remember, we die.  In my web site at http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/html/part_2_portrait.html I suggested a link to Mary Magdalene, Venus and the pentagram, which I admitted was highly dubious speculation.  In fact the answer is more prosaic.  I think that in addition to the alphanumeric cipher, as described on my website www.theorffyreuscode.com the two Roman letter 'M's in the bottom line below the portrait stand for Memento Mori.


But that still doesn't explain why Bessler used the curious finger gesture.  Around the year 1578 in Toledo or Madrid, Spain, the painter known as "El Greco", created a painting that is now called "El caballero de la mano al pecho" -- "The man with his hand on his chest."  In this painting the fingers , of his right hand are displayed as in Bessler's portrait except that Bessler has them resting on a book.  Space prevents me going into detail  about the various speculations about its meaning, but you can read a good review of the painting and its associated ideas at http://www.darkfiber.com/pz/chapter1.html

I should also point out that dozens of famous, and infamous people have had portraits done in which their fingers have adopted similar positions including Newton and Hitler, some are obviously accidental due to the position of their hands against their hip or leg..

My own take from this with regard to Bessler is this.  We know that in later life he published documents arguing for the unification of the Christian religions. I assume he included Catholic, Protestant, Jews and the Jesuits.  He spent a period of time in Prague meeting frequently with a Jesuit priest and Jewish Rabbi, and I suspect that it was there that he learned of the the hand gesture which is a type of Jewish secret sign that was used among the crypto-Jews (i.e., false Christians) of 16th century Toledo to recognize each other, much like a secret masonic handshake.  Bessler's gesture may originate from there, or another theory has it that the gesture was recommended by St. Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Society of Jesus, the Jesuits, in his Spiritual Exercises? There are also a number of paintings showing the virgin Mary using the same gesture while feeding the baby Jesus   The problem with all of these is that they place the hand on the chest or breasts as in the above picture.

I can imagine that Bessler might choose to use the Marrano gesture as it is called, but why not place it on his chest?  It looks to me as though his left arm originally came diagonally towards his chest ending up either with the hand at his chest or near to it.  The current left hand looks almost like a disembodied part simply placed there at the last moment.  Perhaps he intended to place it on his chest and then changed it at the last moment.  I wondered if the reason for his change of heart (pun!) was due to the fact that Loyola required that the sign be made against the chest for each sin the believer had committed, and I doubt that Bessler would have wanted such a public display of his sins.

I should also mention that there is a medical condition which causes a similar positioning of the fingers and as an alternative, the ancient art of dactylonomy may require a similar finger positioning, although I haven't been able find that precise one!

Any suggestions welcome.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’

Would Millions of Bessler's Wheels Affect the Planet's Rotation?

Previously there have been discussions on the BWF about the effects of having numerous Besslerwheels around the planet earth, all spinning and generating electricity (I wish!) and it has been argued that using weights and thus gravity, to drive all those wheels, will affect the rotation of the earth.  I assume the thinking is that with the force of gravity being used to continually drop and raise weights all over the world, the energy it spends in doing that is removed from the total sum pressing on earth?  It seems that some people think this would result in a slowing of the earth's rate of spin with some other, so far undefined effects?

What would the force of gravity be doing if it wasn't expending energy on moving Bessler's wheels?   It would be pushing or trying to push everything within its scope into the earth.  If some things are already in or on the earth does it still do work?  Yes. Does it lose some of its force?  No, because it's continuous. If a weight is driven around in a wheel by gravity, the energy is simply transferred to another form, first rotational and then electricity and then whatever electricity is used for.

I do not have an opinion on the likelihood of this action resulting in an effect which can be detected, and I'm doubtful that any number of Bessler wheels would have any impact on the earth's spin.  In writing this blog it occurred to me that, no one has proposed a similar result being caused by the millions upon millions of rotating engines all over the globe throwing weights around and around and up and down. All those pistons being exploded up and down and side to side.  What about elevators? Lifts in tall buildings going up and down, apparently the world's tallest skyscrapers are set to double in height after an elevator company developed a new super-strong 'rope' to haul lifts to the top.   Would a mass of 3 tons accelerating up and down the tallest building ( quarter of a mile) multiplied many time have any effect?  Seems unlikely.

Trains weighing thousands of tons travelling in excess of 100 mph accelerating and braking, or just shifting their mass across the surface of the earth; aircraft taking of and landing, moving their weigh from a runway and spreading it onto the atmosphere while travelling at many hundreds of miles an hour.  Huge cargo ships and tankers loading up and taking to the seas, spreading the load which was concentrated on a dockside onto the ocean. Aren't these kinds of activities just as likely to effect the earth's rate of spin as a hundred million Besslerwheels all rotating 24/7?

So the one difference between all of the above and Bessler's Wheel is that the latter will be driven by gravity, although many people believe that that is impossible and there is some other force driving the wheels, and that then puts it in the same category as those mentioned above.

I do not know if the concerns expressed here are legitimate or not, but I suspect the wheels will be produced regardless, if their existence proves commercially desirable.  That of course is another question which has exercised us over the years, can Bessler's wheel be justified as a generator of electricity? My personal view is that it could be.  To use an old English proverb, 'necessity is the mother of invention'.  In the Oxford Dictionary the proverb has been defined as – when the need for something becomes imperative, you are forced to find ways of getting or achieving it. And that is the key; if all alternative forms of energy creation become too expensive, detrimental to the planet or us, or unavailable everywhere then some one will take Bessler's wheel and use the concept which allows it to work without violating the standard laws of physics, and build a useful generator which can supply sufficient electricity for each one's needs.

For me the answer to the question posed in the title of this blog is - no, not at all and even if it did,not in any detectable way.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’

Breaking Down the Wall of Scepticism.

I have been immersed in Bessleriana for so long that I have become accustomed to the idea that it will only be a matter of time before we prove that Bessler was right and it is possible to extract energy from gravity.  Suddenly I realised I had got too used to the possibility and had forgotten what a bombshell that news would be should it come true!

The reminder came because I was rereading through Sir Isaac Newtons 'Quaestions' notebook the other day, and came across his brief comment about how perpetual motion might be possible if you could somehow shield half the wheel from the effects of gravity, when I sensed a subtext in his note. He wasn't suggesting that it was possible, what he was saying was that one way to achieve it would require the invention of a material which was utterly impossible.  In other words he was implying that it was impossible and you would have to invent an equally impossible method to achieve it. So even my attempt to vindicate my stance by suggesting that even Newton considered perpetual motion might be possible, was flawed!

But I do not accept that it is impossible, because I am completely persuaded otherwise by the huge amount of evidence in Bessler's work, but it does demonstrate very clearly the monumental task we have in trying to persuade anyone else of our conviction.  Newton has achieved an almost God-like status, and his work is taught world wide.  Other scientists of the era have also defined physical laws which still stand today, and every scientist, teacher and in fact anyone with even a little education knows that Bessler's wheel violates some law and is therefore inpossible, so how come we few are so convinced that we know better, that we are prepared to go against the tide and do all in our power to prove 99 percent of the world's population have got it wrong?

Call it instinct, intuition, a feeling, a hunch, a sixth sense, a gut feeling - whatever it is, it has been in the mind of man for thousands of years.  There was a magnetic wheel design in 8th Century Bavaria, and a design for another  perpetual motion machine by Indian mathematician–astronomer Bhaskara in 1159.  There are hints that they were being investigated as far back as the Sumerians, 5000 years ago. Somehow, we just know that it is possible to create a continuously turning wheel powered by weights, and therefore gravity.  In Bessler's day the possibility was discussed by the intellectuals but most of those who understood the argument were swayed by those who said it was in violation of certain physical laws which could not be argued with. The mere fact that it was so hotly debated suggests that the idea went against man's intuition.

The sceptic's argument was logical and those who espoused it were unable to find a concept which would allow such a device to work.  Phillipe de La Hire (1614-1718)  wrote that 'one would need to find a body that was both heavier and lighter at the same time', as equally daft an idea as Newton's gravity shield - and yet there is a certain truth in the statements.  La Hire's reflects Newton's idea too. Either the object changes weight or the effect of gravity on it varies; the end result is the same, the  amount of the perceived weight alters.

There is a scientific consensus that perpetual motion in an isolated system violates either the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics, or both.  The only question is this; is gravity an external force or not?  To me it is obviously external.  All physical bodies of mass are attracted to each other by the 'action at a distance' phenomenon hence the force must be external to the wheel - no question.  We can therefore dismiss the 'scientific consensus that perpetual motion in an isolated system violates either the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics, or both'. That consensus does not apply here, a gravity-powered wheel isn't an isolated system.

In the end, simulations, learned texts littered with illustrations, lectures - none of them will persuade the hard-liners; only a working model will convince them that after 300 years Johann Bessler's claims were justified.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’

Would Bessler's wheel be patentable?

This question seems to have surfaced again recently and despite reading a lot of patent advice I am uncertain if I can answer the question asked in the title of this blog. What follows is my take on the issue but it is quite possibly erroneous in some aspects, for which I apologise.

Let us assume for the sake of argument, that a means has been found to produce a continuously rotating wheel, driven only by the force of gravity.  This has nothing to do with Johann Bessler's work.  It seems safe to assume that this would be patentable, in the USA and many other countries.

However, suppose someone should come along and announce that the wheel in question is an exact copy of Bessler's wheel, and therefore it could not be patented.  This raises two questions, firstly so what? Bessler did not patent it so it's fair game for someone else to patent, and secondly how do we know it is an exact copy of Bessler's wheel; everyone knows that he did not reveal the secret of his wheel, so  we can never prove or disprove that as a fact.

The decision on the first point may depend on the outcome of the second point.  If it was proved that the new wheel did in fact copy Bessler's wheel exactly, would that negate the possibility of patenting it?  Personally I don't think it would, even if it was proved that it was exactly the same design as Bessler's.  Look at a patent today; it covers every possible alternative reading of an invention.  It tries to cover all eventualities because the patent lawyer knows that the opposition will read everything in the patent to try to find a chink which he can use towards a new patent application.  Bessler's clues leave the field wide open for similar patent applications

The fact that Bessler left sufficient clues to allow someone to reconstruct his wheel exactly would not, in my opinion, be enough to make any future patent application invalid.  The clues, such as they are, are so obscure as to allow the formation of numerous designs which 999 times out of every thousand will undoubtedly fail due to the fact that he wrote them deliberately obscurely to keep them secret, and as I said recently, I think they were only there to allow him to point to them post the sale of his wheel, to show how devious and clever he had been.

I am aware of only two people who believe that they have solved most of the clues and are close to achieving success, and expect a working device soon, either simulated or an actual build - myself and Ken.  Having said that, in illustration of the difficulties in deciphering these clues, both Ken and I have arrived at our widely differing solutions via completely different sets of clues.

I should also mention that there are others who also feel that they are making progress in the right direction although I'm not aware of any soon-to-be announced working models.

This blog raises one more point.  It has been said many times, that even if somebody succeeds in making the continuously-turning wheel there will be no way of knowing if Bessler's wheel resembled it in any way.  I would reject that argument utterly, my own design has borrowed extensively from Bessler's work and while I am unwilling to share anything until I have finished it, I am confident of success, but does that mean that Ken's wheel will fail?  I have no idea, but I have made mine without any springs and that he will see as a major error.  LOL

Finally, should any of us succeed and knowingly base it on the information Bessler left in his clues, would it be morally wrong to patent it without acknowledging Bessler's part?

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’

How will you choose a verifier of high repute?

Recent discussions on the Besslerwheel Forum have revealed a minor conundrum.  One member has assured us that his wheel works and as proof he will take a video of it running, albeit with covers over the sides to prevent us from seeing how it works.  As proof that the video is genuine he says that he will include other devices running at the same time. Leaving aside the question of trust, it seems to me that such a demonstration would prove pointless anyway.  If no one can see how the wheel works, how are they to judge it?  All that will be visible will be the speed and regularity (or not) of the spinning device. No matter how you try to prove the wheel is the genuine article there is no way to establish its validity unless someone can see it, understand how it works and vouch for it.

The question then arises, who might be the most suitable person to provide his assurance that the wheel is genuine?  It is critical that an independent examination is carried out by someone who has no personal interest in the demonstration and is seen to be impartial.  This rules out family connections, employment relations, patrons, friends, others with an interest in the device, potential buyers, financially interested people and the majority of members of the forum, including myself.  Obviously he would require expertise in the subject.

Johann Bessler had exactly the same problem.  He tried to prove the wheel did work as he claimed by demonstrating a number of tests that he and Gottfried Leibniz thought were compelling at least if not irrefutable.  He also sought the most reliable and trusted person possible, to validate his machine, a man of unblemished reputation and one held in the highest respect by other rulers and their subjects. Despite this, the modern world seeks to tarnish Karl the Landgrave of Hessen Kassel's reputation by casting doubt on his honour, trying, it seems to me, to find a chink in the armour of good solid, but circumstantial evidence in favour of Bessler's wheel.

At that time the most sensible suggestion was that another ruler hold a sum of money equal to the price Bessler demanded for his secret, in escrow pending the verification of the wheel.  An escrow is a deposit of funds, a deed or other instrument by one party for the delivery to another party upon completion of a particular condition or event.  That the suggestion failed was partly down to the chosen escrow holder taking offence at a related matter and partly down to the fact that Bessler did not trust anyone.

Even if the escrow arrangement had been accomplished, a reputable person would then have to be found who could verify or not the wheel's behaviour and then inform the escrow holder so that the money could have been handed over.  But one person of unimpeachable reputation had already given the wheel his seal of approval, Karl who insisted that he must verify Bessler's claims before agreeing to provide his patronage in the form of employment, room and board for Bessler and his family.

It seems to me that trying to do the same thing today would be just as fraught with difficulties as Bessler discovered. There will always be a feeling that some agreement has compromised the reliability of the verification.  There are however, some excellent forum members who I would trust absolutely, but perhaps like me, they would prefer not be involves in such an important role.

I should point out here, that I am completely against patenting the device because I think it's a waste of time and money.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Do we know, or are we Guessing, Speculating or do we have a Hunch about how Bessler's Wheels worked?

I sometimes wonder if Bessler had any qualms about publishing his Apologia Poetica and his Das Triumphans books.  Did he fear that he had provided clues that were too easy to decipher?  I know I am reluctant to give any hints about my current thinking for fear of giving anything away and I suspect most of us are of a similar mind.

However, I think he must have been pretty confident that the clues were too difficult to decipher otherwise he would never have published them.  But that raises the question are they too difficult for us too?  He must have thought that at some point people would work on his books in an effort to extract the original meaning he intended us to grasp; but that this should begin to happen three hundred years after his death was probably not something that occurred to him.

He published the books when he was at the height of his fame and confident that his wheel would be sold, in which case the books were just there to allow him to reveal that the clues had been there all along and only his own cleverness had kept them invisible.

I have been criticised in the past for publishing speculation without labelling it as such, thereby giving the impression that my speculations were factual. I hope I corrected that impression but I think there is a thin wall between what we think is fact, speculation, following a hunch and guessing.

Speculation is the consideration of some subject which leads to a conclusion or opinion reached by such contemplation. Often such speculations are impossible to verify, and one can say that it is the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

Besides speculating, I have followed many hunches over the years most of which ended in a firm conviction that my hunch was wrong. Other hunches I chased have led me to believe they were correct or true, even though I did not have any proof.  Like all hunches these were based on a feeling or guess, based on intuition rather than fact.

Guessing combines elements of  hunches and speculation but is broader based.  For example you can guess the next roll of a dice but you can't speculate what it would be.  It won't be accurate at all because the dice has no memory of previous rolls, but you can speculate what the dice roll will be, based on, for example, looking at the statistical distribution of past rolls and so forth. But it just won't be very accurate.

So I think that speculation is an informed guess.   But a hunch is something extra; some unconscious conclusion about the way to the solution.  I often awaken in the night having had a sudden revelation about something I had been thinking about during the previous day or week.  Often it it proves unfounded in the cold light of dawn, on the other hand I have made some major discoveries which I was able to verify subsequently.

But some of the most interesting revelations have come to me as I was writing descriptions of my various discoveries. These have confirmed what I considered was hardly more than speculation at the time  and thus became facts.

So revelations can materialise out of the blue and I'm sure they stem from unconscious activity in a part of the brain which appears to be able to work unsupervised, independently and in a focussed way.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.