6th June 1712 to 6th June 2012 300 years or 109,573 days.

Someone has pointed out that the Gregorian Calendar was adopted in Germany in or around Bessler's time and can we accept the date of the 6th June as applicable today?

As we know, the 6th June 2012, will be the 300th anniversary of Bessler's first exhibition of his so-called Perpetual motion machine in Gera, Germany. Some of Bessler's accounts seem to suggest that he first set the wheel in motion on the 6th June 1712,as in his Apologia Poetica, "For, in 1712, during his stay at Gera in the Voigtland, he hit upon the genuine Prepondium, and so it was that on 6th June of that year he set in motion the first model of his Perpetual or self-moving Mobile, three and a half Leipzig Ell in diameter and four inches in thickness, for the very first time."

Whether that was the date of his first exhibition or the day he actually discovered the secret and set the wheel in motion for the first time doesn't really matter as we only have the date of the 6th June 1712 available. What might be important in determining the correct date for our anniverary is to discover whether this date incorporates the so-called 'New Style' dating or the 'Old style' dating. In England, dates in the Julian calendar that occur before the introduction of the Gregorian calendar in 1752 are termed Old Style. The initials 'O.S.' appearing after a date indicate it is in the Julian calendar. The initials 'N.S.' or the phrase 'Stylo novo', indicate the Gregorian calendar.

The Gregorian calendar,  is the internationally accepted civil calendar.It was introduced by Pope Gregory XIII, after whom the calendar was named, by a decree signed on 24 February 1582. Although it was slow to be taken up even by Catholic countries, it eventually spread across the world, the last European country to adopt it was Greece in 1923.

The motivation for the Gregorian reform was that the Julian calendar assumes that the time between vernal equinoxes is 365.25 days, when in fact it is presently almost exactly 11 minutes shorter.The error between these values accumulated at the rate of about three days every four centuries. This is the basis for the use of the leap year. Every year that is exactly divisible by four is a leap year, except for years that are exactly divisible by 100; the centurial years that are exactly divisible by 400 are still leap years. For example, the year 1900 was not a leap year; the year 2000 was a leap year.

Because of the Protestant Reformation, however, many Western European countries did not initially follow the Gregorian reform, and maintained their old-style systems. Eventually other countries followed the reform for the sake of consistency. So despite the prudence of Pope Gregory's correction, many Protestant countries, including England, ignored the papal bull. In the Protestant states of Germany it was officially adopted in 1700 and the day following 18 February 1700, became 1st March 1700. So despite the factthat Britain did not adopt the new calendar until 1752, it is clear that we can accept the date of 6th June as according with the new style calendar.

I note that there are 172 days left between today and the 6th June next year -  or 5 months and 20 days.

There have been since 6th June 1712, 299 years, 6 months, and 11 days - or 109,401 days.  (thanks to http://www.convertunits.com/dates/)

JC

Bessler's simple wheel bearings

I think that discussions about the bearings on the forum have become too convoluted. There is nothing complex about them, in my opinion. If you have a load-bearing shaft rotating in a bearing shell, you have two components. The journal which is the end of the shaft, made of steel, iron or brass - and it rests in a bearing shell of a similar metal which, in Bessler's day, was filled with a thick grease, pig or goose fat or even bear grease. It is usually covered by the other half of the shell to protect it from ingress of dirt, which if it wasn't included, might add friction and thus wear to the moving parts. Bessler routinely removed the upper shell so that the spectators could examine and see that there was no possible external connection. The bearings (journals) were slightly tapered to control the axle's lateral movement and keep it centred within the shell.

This, from an account of the history of watermills. "Watermills utilised wooden axles and these generally had metal gudgeons held in place on the ends of the shafts using wedges and steel hoops, which allowed the wood axle to have a small metal tip on the end. These metal tips or 'journals' would then ride on an iron half-shell liberally greased with animal fat."

Finally this from wikipedia, "A plain bearing, or a friction bearing is the simplest type of bearing, comprising just a bearing surface and no rolling elements. Therefore the journal (i.e., the part of the shaft in contact with the bearing) slides over the bearing surface. The simplest example of a plain bearing is a shaft rotating in a hole."

There is only one place where the so-called 'curved' pieces which were said to extend outwards from the bearings on the end of the axle, are reported,and at is in Das Triumphirende - as per Stewart's translation which follows, 'They rest in their motion on two almost 1 inch thick, {am Ort} somewhat tapered steel pivots horizontal in the two sockets or bearings, [the pivots are] equipped with two curves, about which the rotary motion of the whole vertically suspended wheel can be somewhat modified by applying pendula on both sides, as the attached figures at the end of this treatise clearly show'. In other words there are no witness descriptions of these strange curved pieces because they never existed outside Bessler's imagination. He introduced them into Das Triumphirende for good reasons that I shall explain at a later date.

JC

The Orffyreus documentary

I returned from Rome on Thursday night having been invited to take part in an Italian documentary for RAI 2, a part of the government television network. The documentary is about Orffyreus or Bessler as we tend to refer to him. They have already filmed actors in period costume telling the basic story of Bessler and they wish to end it with an interview about him. The director had sent me a series of topics which they would ask me to comment on.

Bear in mind the questions were translated from Italian, so the phrasing is a little awkward.

The topics included:-

What is the perpetual motion?

Can you describe the character traits of Orffyreus?

Can you describe the first Orffyreus’s wheel?

Can you give us an overview of the writings of Bessler? What do they contain? Are they logical and comprehensible to the eyes of whoever? What messages have you succeeded in deciphering? Describe how the name Orffyreus is fruit of a manipulation.

Which rivalries did Orffyreus’s increasing reputation raise up? And Who were the most persistent opponents of Orffyreus and what actions did they put into practice?

Can you tell us what happened in Merseburg?

Which tests were done on the wheel exhibited in Kassel after the 54 days of isolation?

Who was interested in the Orffyreus’s discovery following the exhibition in Kassel?

We would like also for you to comment on the following: many people are wondering how the world would be today, if the professor Gravesande had not yielded to the temptation to spy on the secret mechanism of the wheel of Orffyreus. Already, because this gesture, which proved inadequate to understand the essence of the mechanism of the wheel, determined the end of every possibility that the secret of the invention was finally released. Orffyreus, in fact, cannot tolerate such an insult. Went rapturously, and in a gesture of baleful wrath destroyed violently also his last creation under the bewildered eyes of those present.

The Royal Society dropped each contact believing that they were dealing with a madman and the Landgrave quickly found an excuse to remove that visitor now deemed unpredictable and dangerous.

Not difficult subjects for me to comment on and yet, sat in front of a two cameras, the director, a sound man, two cameramen, an interpreter and the director's assistant plus the two owners of the house where it was filmed.... I froze! I got it together on the third or fourth take for the first question though! They will send me a copy of the finished product when it's ready and it is budgeted to be finished by December 31st!

I added some additional information concerning the coded material but I don't know how much, if any, they will include as it wasn't in the original specification.

I've included some pictures for your amusement!

JC

Why gravity is a source of energy for continuous motion.

Following some comments on my last blog, I thought I'd make my case again here rather than adding to the 60 or so comments already in.

I realise that the vast majority do not accept the possibility that a gravity-wheel can be driven continuously just by the force of gravity alone as, I believe, Bessler's was. But if I state my case often enough, maybe enough people, cleverer than I, will take it on board and devise a better explanation. Until then...

My analogy that the force of gravity was similar in its action to the wind or a current of water, and it was therefore perfectly reasonable to believe one could use it as a source of energy, is routinely scorned by most people. They have taken exception to the above analogy, ignoring the fact that is just an analogy. An analogy is an inference based on the idea that if two different things show a similarity in one sense, it may be possible to draw conclusions about other aspects of the thing. It is a way of looking at something differently to try to understand it. I was not suggesting that gravity was in fact either a 'wind' or a 'stream'.

The argument against, goes something like this. Air is a collection of gases, flowing molecules - and water is similar - and when they impact on certain surfaces we can make use of them to drive machinery - but, on the other hand, because gravity is an attraction between two masses, and there are no physical particles available (such as molecules of gas) to impact on the machinery in a way we can use, it is said that it is not capable of supplying energy in the way that Bessler seems to have done. But Bessler did not know about molecules or the laws affecting gravity; he could only observe and experiment. His empirical evidence gave him the answer, and as he said, "these weights are themselves the PM device, the 'essential constituent parts' which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force derived from the PM principle) indefinitely - so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity."

How anyone can read that sentence and not understand that it means he used gravity, is beyond me.  But of course as some have suggested he might have been lying or incorporating hidden meaning within the text -  or he didn't mean gravity alone.  But for me it is plain and simple and he used gravity alone to drive his machine.

What gravity is, and what air and water are, is not relevant to my argument; the only thing that matters is that wind can move objects of mass, a current of water can move objects of mass and gravity can move objects of mass. It doesn't matter how they do it, just that they do.

One of the arguments used against the possibility of gravity as an energy source is that gravity represents potential energy. It's there if you've already put in the work. There's potential energy in a book on a shelf because you've lifted it and placed it there. Once you use that energy, when the book falls to the floor, it's gone until you lift it back up again. This is true - and it also applies to wind and water currents. Again, the work has to be put in first to gain the energy output. Release a balloon in the wind and watch it get carried along by the wind, and then grab it and take it back to the starting point (upwind) to release it again. Or put a toy boat in a stream and the same thing applies. It will float downstream and you can pick it up and take it back upstream again.  Just because we have found a way of obtaining work from wind and water streams that converts the force of wind and water to rotational energy output, does not necessarily rule out the same potential conversion of the gravitational force.

And that defines a conservative force. Since the work done by wind and water currents can be reversed, i.e. the object moved can be taken back upstream, or upwind, to be released and able to be moved again, they are conservative forces, as is gravity.  Notice the word up in upwind and upstream, its a clue.

I might not be able to add any comments for a day or two next week as I'm off to Rome on Tuesday and I'm busy writing some notes for the interview.  I'll post a blog when I get back and tell you about it.

JC

Bessler's Gravitywheel, the Bessler-Collins Project, an Italian Documentary and the five mechanisms discovery.

Now that I've got the alternative theories about Bessler's wheel out of the way, we can return to my own theory that it was driven solely by gravity and that this does not violate any laws of physics. I know that not all of my readers agree totally with me but I'm certain that I will prove to be correct.

I'm writing a lengthy document, called the 'Bessler-Collins Project' which sets out my case and I will publish it when I'm happy with it. It incorporates all the clues, both graphic and textual, as well as the work I've done so far. I'm doing this just in case I drop off my perch prematurely!

I'm pleased to say that the Italian documentary is still on, and I'm just waiting on a date to travel to Rome.

I am back in the workshop and in the process of building the mechanism again and still making further discoveries in Bessler's papers - I've found further verification that he used five mechanisms and I know in this instance it does not refer to codes.

This implies that there is a sound reason for needing five mechanisms and I think I know why. Many people have suggested that one mechanisms would suffice to prove the wheel and I agree that it should certainly be able to initiate some rotation, but in my opinion it will be shown that it can only rotate the wheel so far and regardless of being in balance elsewhere it will not rotate further. I know why - or at least I think I do, but I prefer to keep quiet about that for now.

JC

The Leiden Jar, static electricity, a solenoid and some springs!

This is in response to a long email I received about the Leyden (Leiden jar). It is not my opinion, in fact I don't think it has anything to do with Bessler, but in case I'm wrong I thought I'd air the views of another, no matter how wacky -  he's aware of my opinion of his ideas.

I mentioned in my biography on Bessler, the coincidence of Pieter van Musschenbroek, a professor of physics at Leiden University, inventing the Leiden jar, an early method of storing static electricity, in 1745 - the year Bessler died, (it was also discovered by Ewald Georg von Kleist in Germany the previous year). I had previously examined the remote possibility that Bessler used static electricity in some way to provide the additional force often suggested as necessary, to make a gravity-driven wheel complete a full rotation, and recently the idea has reappeared in a couple of emails.

The story of the first test of the Leiden jar and its effect on van Musschenbroek's student helper, Andreas Cunaeus, is well reported in wikipedia. He was virtually knocked out by the strength of the electric shock he received and was unwell for two days following. Van Musschenbroek went on to arrange some spectacular demonstrations of the power of the device, and after having experienced the shock himself he wrote, in a letter to his French colleague Réaumur, that the whole kingdom of France could not compel him to repeat the experience. The French priest Jean Antoine Nollet, a great popularizer of electrical phenomena, learned of the Leiden experiments via this letter and lost no time in contriving even more spectacular demonstrations. They culminated in one involving 700 monks joined in a circle to a Leiden jar!

It was suggested that if 's Gravesande, being a close friend and colleague of Musschenbroek, was so intently examining Bessler's wheel perhaps it was because he suspected some electric component at work within the wheel.

The static electricity stored in the Leiden jar was generated in the first place by transforming mechanical work into electric energy, usually by means of friction against a glass. Jan Ingenhousz invented an electrostatic machine made of plate glass - in 1746.

It will be recalled that Pieter van Musschenbroek, was the guy who was contacted by Daniel Schumacher, Peter the Great's librarian, charged with buying experimental equipment for his universities and of course it was Schumacher who negotiated with Bessler to buy his wheel for Peter.

My correspondent wondered if, perhaps Bessler had already discovered how to generate and store static electricity in a capacitor, or something akin to the Leiden jar. This he might achieve by including glass plates within his wheel, as per Jan Ingenhousz's method. The capacitor would have to be fully charged before he began. However I have questioned whether it is possible to temporarily power a magnet by discharging a capacitor suddenly. I suspect that the resistance in the magnet's coils might be too high for the sudden discharge of static electricity to overcome, but I'm not knowledgeable about this.

He went on to suggest that if it were possible then it might lead one to suspect that Bessler had designed an electromagnet or even a simple solenoid, powered by sudden discharges of static electricity which could be used to deflect weights on springs, thus overcoming the wheel's reluctance to continue to turn. Bessler, you will recall, said that he used springs but not in the way you think.

I know - it's crazy, but I like it!

JC

Update - and the Conversion of Centrifugal Force Into Linear Force and Motion

Well it seems to me that the Italian interview has gone the way of previous offers from the media. I had an email a couple of weeks ago saying that they were unable to obtain permission to film within the Trivulziana library at Castello Sforzesco, which doesn't surprise me, so an alternative date has been promised for an interview in Rome. I won't be holding my breath in anticipation, but if something concrete does materialise I'll let you know.

My own efforts to reconstruct Bessler's wheel progress at a snail's pace because of frequent calls on my time from other commitments. I'm busy trying to make my garden (yard?) fox-proof at the present. We have a problem with urban foxes and they seem to be living next door - you should see the holes leading to their dens! Now back to matters Bessler.

Some years ago David E. Cowlishaw produced an invention he called a Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster, this was a way of the mechanically generating a unidirectional force, with which it was hoped one could direct a vehicle or a boat, in any direction, or indeed drive a space ship. It would replace gear trains, propellers and jets, as a device for generating thrust

It was said that this device was a consequence of the variable inertia property of matter. I would suggest that it was an example of parametric oscillation.

If Bessler's wheel is successfully built, it too will rely on parametric oscillation, (see my article on 'kiiking') and might show the way to a successful inertial propulsion engine - providing the correct configuration is used, to swing weights around, in such a way that the circular movement ends up producing a unidirectional thrust. In much the same way that an electric motor reversed becomes an electricity generator, so Bessler's wheel reversed, or driven, could be designed to produce a unidirectional force from weights rotating about the wheel axle.

There have been a number of claims to have successfully built an inertial thrust engine but I am not aware of any reliable examples - although someone may correct this impression. The point I am making here is that, just as in theory one could reverse the direction of energy in Bessler's wheel to produce linear force and motion and this would prove that inertial propulsion engines were a valid area of research, so on the other hand would the successful construction of an inertial propulsion engine also prove that Bessler's wheel was a valid area for research.

JC

There would be enough energy output from Bessler's wheel to power every home in the world.

Sorry to bang on about this but it is important in my opinin. There's been some discussions on the forum about how much power Bessler's wheel could generate and it has been argued that Bessler's wheel will never be of any practical use. I quoted some of Bessler's words and one particular sentence that struck me afresh was, "If I were to place, next to a 12-Ell wheel, one of 6-Ells, then, if I wanted to, I could cause the smaller one to revolve with more force and useful power than the large one. I can, in fact, make 2, or 3, or even more, wheels all revolving on the same axis."

I know there are many, both here and on the forum, who are sceptical about the amount of power which would be available from a modern gravity wheel. I have a sanguine disregard for this scepticism and ask you to consider this.

There are two conclusions to be drawn from the above quote; firstly that the inventor could make his wheels more or less powerful, regardless of the apparent external dimensions; and secondly by placing more wheels on the same axle he could increase the power output.

The Kassel wheel was able to lift a chest of stones weighting 70 pounds on the end of a rope, but I have argued that it was designed to turn more slowly to increase its chances of surviving the longevity test. Now picture two or more Kassel wheels, both mounted on the same axle. Together, they should be able to lift 140 pounds or more, depending how many are added. Applying the first conclusion from the above quote means that the 140 pounds lifted could be increased - elsewhere he claims a fourfold increase. So possibly, the 140 pounds lifted could be increased to 560 pounds, or a quarter of a ton. Given due consideration, I am sure that there is enough potential to run a home electricity generator, and overcome the maximum possible load, as long as there are enough wheels of the optimum configuration on each axle.

By 'optimum configuration', I mean a wheel which can only turn one way. Two-way wheels were balanced and needed a push to start them, therefore I do not subscribe to the idea that the mechanisms could turn the wheel in either direction. My idea of mirror image mechanisms is more logical to my mind, in which case removing the reverse-turning mechanisms would reduce an unnecessary additional load imposed on them, and remove their extra weight. This configuration would be less complicated, less likely to suffer problems and probably have more power available.

So I am confident that when it is finally built, Bessler's wheel will provide electrcity for every house - everywhere.

JC

Why the Kassel wheel turned so slowly and what this could mean for us today.

I posted this thought on the Bessler forum but I think the message got lost in the argument I was trying to make, so I repeat the point here.

If Bessler was able to make his first three wheels turn at 50 RPM regardless of whether they were one or two-way wheels, why would he make his final and most robustly built one, only able to turn at about half the speed of the others?

My suggestion was that it was done in anticipation of the the long endurance test, so he could be sure that it would suffer less wear and tear because it would only have to to turn half the number of times, compared to the Merseberg wheel.

We know he claimed to be able to make wheels that could turn slowly or faster, so the slow rotation inherent in the Kassel wheel was deliberate. But there was a disadvantage to this decision, the slower RPM was less powerful, in my opinion, so he added extra weights on either side of the existing ones to give the wheel a little more power, and that is why the Kassel wheel was thicker than the Merseberg one, which was the same diameter, but only two-thirds the depth.  It seems to me that a slower turning wheel might produce less power than a faster turning one? If so that would explain the extra depth to his wheel when compared to the Merseberg one - he needed to add some extra weights.

On the above understanding I suggest that it would be possible to produce a much faster turning wheel complete with extra weights that could generate the kind of power we seek for our modern electrical requirements.

JC

Could Bessler's wheel be the answer to the global recession?

I had a dream last night that inspired me greatly. I dreamed that I had finished the wheel and it worked! I posted a video on youtube showing the wheel with all the detail about how it worked clearly revealed, and when I awoke the next morning (still in my dream) and looked out the window, the road in which I live was filled with photographers, reporters and TV vans etc, all waiting for me to appear.

I was interviewed and said that this discovery would end the global recession and create growth and employment through out the globe, and would prove to be the greatest invention of the century.

Then I really woke up - what a disappointment to know it was only a dream! But I must have been thinking along those lines even if only subconsciously, and I think perhaps there is an element of truth in the dream - I think this machine could have a major impact on unemployment.

I looked up "global recession" on google and found this statement in the first link I looked at "The biggest threat to the global economy is the dearth of growth and jobs rather than the size of government budget deficits."

So I return to the hunt for a solution with new determination, and so should we all - and anyway, I don't want acres and acres of windmills and solar panels covering the English countryside and that could happen unless we can find the answer.

JC

6th June 1712 + 300 years = 6th June 2012

In my last post I tried to make the point that without a small additional force we cannot make the wheel turn a full circle, and since no other force has been found that accomplishes this simple fact, I maintain my belief that there was only gravity required to drive the wheel. To my mind, believing that there is this other mysterious force available is far less believeable than that two bites at gravity were taken by each mechanism. I respect other people's opinions but I can't help feeling that there are going to be some people with egg on their faces when the solution is found.

I have just read an excellent explanation as to why these other forces such as centrifugal and the other ones associated with a spinning wheel cannot ever be sufficient to supply that extra force. See the Besslerwheel forum response to my post entitled, "A theory about why the number five is so prominent in Johann Bessler's works." by nicbordeaux. The link is at http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=93780&highlight=#93780

Thanks to technoguy for reminding me about next year's 300th anniversary of Bessler's first exhibition of his gravitywheel at Gera. I hadn't forgotten but these things have a habit of creeping up on you and all of a sudden it's here and nothing has been done in preparation. Somehow we must find a way to celebrate it, ideally with a working version of Bessler's wheel. While I am optimistic that this will be achieved by then, I have to be realistic and admit that after 300 years of failures, the odds are against us succeeding, so we might just miss that date!

Nevertheless, I'm confident that someone will succeed in the next couple of years and I intend to do something to draw people's attention to this significant date - why? Because if a working wheel has not been made by then I think we shall need more publicity to attract new minds to the problem. Maybe none of us 'oldies' familar with the story will succeed and it will take someone with a completely fresh outlook to finally win the prize. How can we grab some headlines? I don't know and I'm not really into making a public spectacle of myself,at least not deliberately - however....

From 27 July to 12 August 2012 the London Olympics will be taking place and the eyes of the world will turned this way, and maybe with all the journalists and other media present and probably looking for stories to send home, before the Olympics start, perhaps I can grab some media attention? I don't have any ideas yet but I'm working on it.

JC

Gravity can be used to power gravitywheels continuously because it is a conservative force.

Many people believe that Johann Bessler's claims were genuine, in which case an acceptable theory which fits in with modern science, has to be found which will allow a gravity-driven (or gravity-powered) wheel to work. There is strong scepticism against such a device for good reason. It appears to go against everything we have been taught. Putting on one side, for a moment, the statement which says you can't do it because gravity is a conservative force, there is the seeming impossibility of raising a weight again once it has fallen, causing a wheel to overbalance. That energy appears to be lost and therefore an additional energy source is sought which will bridge the gap or close the circle.

Various methods have been suggested such as using ambient temperature changes or static electricity or even a solenoid valve on a spring. The truth is that no one has come up with a viable additional energy source - except for me! We know Bessler said his weights worked in pairs; I have suggested that the secondary, 'shifter', weight fell and in doing so moved the primary or 'shifted' weight into a position which unbalanced the wheel. The additional energy source is therefore also gravity. There are two weights, one falls and has no effect on overbalancing the wheel but the second weight is moved by the action of the first weight and it is that one's position which overbalances the wheel.  There are two pieces of gravity used separately,

I have, in the past compared the force of gravity to the wind in an attempt to show that it may be a conservative force but that does not mean it cannot be used to drive a weighted wheel continuously. The wind is used to drive windmills, waterwheels and boats, why not gravity?

Because my argument rested on the theory that wind was a conservative force I sought support for the idea from the internet. Surely I would find either a definitive statement that wind was conservative or nonconservative. Imagine my surprise therefore to discover the extraordinary fact that I am unable to find a single web site which definitively states that wind is either conservative or nonconservative! Nobody discusses it - or nobody is able to say one way or the other.

I did find one fleeting reference which stated that "wind drag is friction and therefore non-conservative". The example referred to a racing car and the effect of wind drag which was therefore friction and so a nonconservative force. I agree in that context, but let us consider some simple definitions secured from the internet.

"The work done by a conservative force in moving a particle between two points is independent of the path taken." This also applies to the wind, we only measure the strength of the wind by seeing how far it moves something from A to B, the path is irrelevant.

I can lift a fallen rock against gravity and allow it to fall again. I can also catch a balloon blowing in the wind towards me and carry it back upwind and allow it to blow downwind again. There is a clue in the words "UPwind" and "DOWNwind".

"A conservative force can be thought of as a force that conserves mechanical energy. Suppose a particle starts at point A, and there is a constant force F acting on it. Then the particle is moved around by other forces, and eventually ends up at A again. Though the particle may still be moving, at that instant when it passes point A again, it has traveled a closed path. If the net work done by F at this point is 0, then F passes the closed path test. Any force that passes the closed path test for all possible closed paths is classified as a conservative force". When the wind causes a windmill to rotate, the blades travel a closed path so the wind is a conservative force.

"For non-conservative forces, the mechanical energy that is lost (not conserved) has to go somewhere else, by conservation of energy. Usually the energy is turned into heat, for example the heat generated by friction. In addition to heat, friction also often produces some sound energy. The water drag on a moving boat converts the boat's mechanical energy into not only heat and sound energy, but also wave energy at the edges of its wake. These and other energy losses are irreversible because of the second law of thermodynamics."  The windmills provide useful and usable energy - it is not 'lost' - which can grind flour and pump water etc. So wind is not a nonconservative force.

"Conservative Forces are reversible forces, meaning that the work done by a conservative force is recoverable, i.e. you can get out any work you put in or vise versa." Wind is a reversible force. Not only does the wind drive windmills but, for instance, you can electrically drive a windmill and produce wind. The wind is a reversible conservative force. use an electric fan and place a small windmill in the path of the wind. The windmill will begin to turn.

Saying that gravity cannot power a gravitywheel because it is a conservative force is incorrect. However this does not solve the problem of how to make it work for us but it does show that it is not impossible just because it is a conservative force.

JC

Why is the number five so prominent in Johann Bessler's works?

I wasn't sure whether to place this on the Bessler forum or just put it here on my blog, and certainly previous experience has taught me that many people either deride the theories expressed or argue forcefully against them, but I hope to gather some more support to my own view. I know I tend to be in a minority when expressing my belief that Bessler's wheel was gravity-driven, even here, but perhaps it will help me if I give my thoughts an airing. Any way I'll probably post it on both because it seems to me to be too important to ignore.

Most people are aware of the ubiquity of the number 5 encoded in all of Bessler's publications and many don't see any significance other than perhaps a nod to some kind of mystery school teaching designed to hint at the inventor's knowledge of ancient wisdom. I don't believe that theory, I'm convinced that Bessler was passing on information.

I have always thought that there were two hard facts established about the internal workings of Bessler's wheel and one of them was that there were five mechanisms. The other was that the weights worked in pairs. All else is open to conjecture. But one certainty is that Bessler thought that this piece of information was extremely important and even encoded it in his name right from the moment he adopted the pseudonym, Orffyreus.

I believe that five mechanisms were required because for me there is no other sensible interpretation to be taken from the clues - the number five is indicated by both the numeral five in text and code and by the presence of the pentagram in the drawings. I cannot think of any other reason for its presence so here I try to understand why it's a necessity to a working wheel.

Five mechanisms would need the wheel to be divided into five equal parts of 72 degrees each. Although I understand the argument that even one or maybe two mechanisms should be enough to demonstrate the principle, I think more will be required to achieve a useful rate of rotation. Let's suppose that each mechanism only produces a mechanical advantage (or overbalance) once in each rotation; then each one must be able to produce it sufficiently to turn the wheel at least 72 degrees, but less than, say 90, otherwise four mechanisms might suffice. Maybe it can just about reach 90 degrees but perhaps that isn't enough to maintain rotation? There would have to be an overlap of mechanical advantage (or overbalance) for each mechanism in order to maintain rotation and the greater the overlap the faster the acceleration.

Bessler wrote that "one cross bar makes the machine revolve slowly, just as if it can hardly turn at all. But on the contrary when I arrange to have many crossbars, pulleys and weights, the machine revolves much faster". (from Apologia Poetica - published by John Collins). If the mechanical advantage (or overbalancing effect) only amounted to a little over 72 degrees, and this happened only once in a single rotation, and there was only one such mechanism on the wheel, then the rest of the turn would have to take place with the wheel in a condition of balance. One can see how such an arrangement would produce a wheel which could hardly turn. Two, three, or four mechanisms would have little different effect if the overbalance only amounted to just over 72 degrees as there would be no continuity between each mechanism's action. An overlap of overbalancing would be required and if the mechanisms can only achieve an overbalance for, say 80 degrees of any single rotation, then anything less than five mechanisms will result as Bessler has described.

But if five mechanisms were introduced, then with more than a 72 degree portion of the full rotation for each mechanism, you would get the required overlap and an accelerating and continuous rotation.

This argument presupposes that the reader accepts the possibility of a gravity driven wheel - as I do! ;-)

JC

Bessler's defence statement

It has often been suggested that perhaps Bessler was not as innocent as he claimed, otherwise he would have done more to defend himself against the claims of the maid. Well he did, but the records of his defence are unpublished as yet.

On New Year's day in 1728, shortly after the maid's accusations were made, Bessler began writing a 60 page statement concerning the claims of his maid and others and answering all accusations with a strong and righteous defence. I have a copy which, unfortunately, is largely illegible (for me at least) as it is the version Bessler kept for his records. The clean copy is undergoing restoration currently and may not be available for some time to come.

The little I have been given reveals that he complains frequently about the 'evil maid' and also about a large group of conspirators who have acted against him. They include several of his first wife's in-laws, including his former mother-in-law, his sisters-in-law and their husbands and other hangers on. His father-in-law was dead and therefore his wife was left to her own devices and she had little or no money and so she headed for Kassel to ingratiate herself with her daughter, Barbara, who unfortunately died in May 1726. Apparently the mother-in-law, also called Barbara, tried to manipulate Bessler to her financial advantage. His official title of Commercial Councellor gave him access to a number of schemes, some of the funding of which, she tried to divert for her own purposes. It seems that the accusations of the maid may well have been instigated by Barbara senior in an effort to threaten/blackmail Bessler into giving in to her coercions.

If this seems unlikely, remember that the maid had already served two prison sentences - and Barbara senior was the subject of a thirteen year long investigation into an infanticide in which herself, her maid and two of her daughters was involved.  The legal investigators had been searching for the maid who was 'lost', and it is suggested that with Barabara senior's husband's death and therfore the withdrawal of his protection as Mayor of their towm she had to flee, and so she headed for the maid's home and her recently deceased daughter. The baby in question might have been Bessler's, conceived on an earlier visit, but there is no evidence yet to prove or disprove that possibility.

I look forward to the day when the cleaned document is available and we can at last get the other side of the story.

JC

Johann Bessler's Hydrostatic balance.

In 1720 Johann Bessler is recorded as having made a hydrostatic balance for Johann Adam Cass. I have included a picture of it, as it still exists in the Landesmuseum in Kassel. I don't know how much of the whole instrument was down to Bessler, but looks well made.

This picture is from a book written by Henri Michel, called "Scientific Instruments in Art and History" Viking 1967.  He writes:-

"The balance shown here was made in 1720, by Johann Ernst Elias Bessler (1680- 1745), (known as Orffyreus, and notorious for his "Wheel" or perpetual motion machine) for the military engineer Johann Adam Cass of Kassel".

There is also a picture of the same instrument in "Die Naturwissenschaftlich-Technischesammlung" by Ludolf Von Mackensen (Kassel: George Wenderloth Verlag, 1991).

It will be recalled that Johann Adam Cass was a witness and one of the signatories and chief examiner of the Gera wheel. It seems that he moved to Kassel shortly after Bessler, to be in charge of military engineering there there.

In 1720 Cass published a book called "Neu verbesserter Ingenieur" which means "New Advanced Engineering", In 1722 he published "Nouveau corrige ou par des demostrations guide de l'ingenieur à la veritable mathematique",meaning "New or corrected by demonstration, Engineering Guide to mathematical truth". These publications were sponsored by Karl, the Landgrave.

The hydrostatic balance was a frequent component of perpetual motion designs and is still sometimes introduced as part of the mechanism.  Bessler seems to have included them in some of his Maschinen Tractate designs

I have also included the concept in my own designs from time to time but in the end I prefer the simplicity of weights, but are we denying the potential benefits of a the hydrostatic balance?  I don't think so.

JC

A real Bessler documentary on the cards?

Wow! You guys have been busy, it's taken me an hour just to catch up on all your comments. I hate to interrupt the flow with a blog but perhaps you can continue here or on the previous blog?

I'm back after a delightful week in sunny Spain, and among the emails awaiting me, I received an interesting one from an Italian documentary maker, who wishes to produce a film about Johann Bessler.

They say that they would use me as the main narrator (God help them!) and intend to film in the Trivulziana Library of the Castello Sforzesco in Milan. Interestingly for me, somebody on the Bessler forum kindly brough to my attention the existence of another copy of Das Triumphirende which is held at that this particular library.  I was able  to obtain high definition copies of their portraits from the library. This is the only other example that I'm aware of which includes the double portraits with the hole in one as did my own copy, which I used to have but which I passed on to another, safer pair of hands.

I assume (at this early stage I have no details) that if we are to film in this famous library, that I shall be able to see and examine this copy and I am delighted at the prospect.

The company, FarmStudioFactory, are an Italian film and television production company, but appear to make films for other people so it will be interesting to try to get some background on this to see where the idea originated.  I scraped up a few details on the library as I was so interested in it and this is what I found:-

"Along with the Cathedral - Milan's most famous and much beloved monument - the big Castle is linked to the vicissitudes and dramatic events that the city has experienced over the past centuries. For many years, in fact, it has represented a symbol of the power in the hands of the Dukes, as well as of the foreign dominators. Only at the beginning of the 20th century the Castle assumed its distinctive role, becoming a place of culture, which hosted numerous Lombard art collections. The Castle was named after Francesco Sforza, who transformed it into a ducal residence in 1450. But its origins date back to the second half of the 14th century, at the time of Galeazzo II Visconti.

Hosted inside the Castello Sforzesco is the revered Trivulziana Library. The library can be accessed to examine parchments, documents, records and prints. The Historic Archive preserves all the acts of the Municipality of Milan and of the Duchy dating back as far as 1385."

I also would like to know the history, the provenance,  of this particular copy of the Das Tri and how it came to reside in Italy. I have always believed that the other countries of Europe might hold some further accounts of Johann Bessler and it seems to me that a documentary about him could engage the attention of the right people to bring such information to the surface.

I'll tell you more when I know more. I should not get too excited as this kind of thing has happened to me before, more than once, and the project has always gone out like a damp squib!

JC

Pendulums again.

Still trying to find the time to make my latest mechanism, unfortunately another week in Spain looms close, so it looks as though I'll be delayed again! Who am I kidding, I love it there! This week has seen the hottest October since records began, with temperatures of 29 degrees Celsius( that's 84F deg in real money!) - I know that's not particularly hot but for October its just amazing. It's all going downhill again on Tuesday so it looks as though my trip is timed to perfection. I will be connected there so I can keep any eye on things and maybe even write a blog about the wine, beer and sangria!

I'm tangled up in thoughts about the second drawing in Das Tri at the moment, and trying to discern exactly what Bessler was trying to tell us with the double drawing. The large triangular pendulum is intriguing and the three different angles seem to point, in my opinion, to the thirty degrees at the bottom - maybe its critical? I have the thought that a weight about to fall through 90 degrees ( a quarter) would need to be leaning a little in order to begin its fall as soon as possible. Each number on the clock is seperated by thirty degrees, so one o'clock is thirty degrees from twelve o'clock. Should we start the fall at one o'clock to stop at three o'clock?

JC

Do the pendulums regulate or obfuscate?

Many among we 'Bessler's wheel' researchers have our own pet theories about different aspects of our self-appointed task, and they can be as diverse as the numbers of people involved. So it comes as no surprise to find my own theories treated with as much indifference as I treat many other people's - no offence intended and none taken. But one theory I have subscribed to, among a couple of others, for most of my life is the one about the pendulums indicated in two of Bessler's drawings; I refer to the drawing in Grundlicher Bericht published December 1715 and the one in Das Triumphirende published in October 1719. Both depict Bessler's Merseberg wheel and include a complex pendulum and according to Bessler they could be used to regulate the speed but, if not required, could be dispensed with. However as at least two reports comment on the extreme eveness and regularity of rotation of the wheels, there seems little or no requirement for their use.

My very first thought was that they were included to add interest to what was after all, pictorially a pretty dull subject matter without them. This thought was supported by the later drawings in Das Triumphirende which show an archimedes screw being turned. However not content with that drawing, Bessler also added another one which shows a large triangular pendulum with three bobs. As we have already dismissed the need for pendulums to regulate the wheel's speed why would he include yet another one, four years after the first?

I therefore dismissed the idea that they were there as mere decoration. I took the view that they were intended to convey information about the inner structure of the wheel; the mechanism in fact. I have expressed this thought elsewhere but my opinion has been largely ignored and it seems that most people attempt to make the case for their use as governors, something I would argue against.

Following my belief in the true purpose of the pendulums, I have over the years, played with a number of mechanisms designs loosely based on the pendulms, several with interesting properties, but nothing that subscribed to the concept which I have favoured for some years now - the actual way that gravity alone was able to drive Bessler's wheel.

But, as I've been unable to get on with my Bessler wheel experiments for the last few weeks, due to other commitments, I have been restricted to just thinking about it and studying the drawings - and I think I have discovered something interesting in his main wheel drawing. It's extremely obscure and I'm fairly confident that you are unlikely to find it unless you've followed my own train of thought over the last three or four years. Having said that I wouldn't be surprised to learn that others have made the same connection, but I should think that if I am right then so should they be and therefore we would surely have heard about it by now - in which case either I'm wrong about this particular aspect of ther drawing - or no one else has made the connection.

I hope to make an experimental mechanism to test my thinking next week and if it works I'll follow it up with a full prototype - and that may test my basic hypothesis to destruction!

JC

Disenchanted with Bessler's wheel? Energize - Invigorate - Revitalize!

I'd be interested to know how people became aware of, and interested in, Johann Bessler.

I fear that the enthusiasm for Bessler's wheel is waining. I don't mean those who are already 'on board' so to speak but 'newbies' seem to be few and far between. I note that the majority of those who frequent the websites devoted to Bessler with an open mind are retired or approaching retirement, I apologise to those to whom retirement is still a long way off, but there does seem to be a lack of interest in this puzzle among younger people. I assume it has something to do with the public perception of 'perpetual motionists', as we are seen to be. The facts about Bessler are completely swamped by negative opinion and a humorous/scornful approach to descriptions of those who are dedicated to finding his solution.

When I began this journey in 1997, by publishing "Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?", I was pleasantly surprised by the amount of interest worldwide, I don't mean that it became an instant best seller (I wish!!!) but there were emails from all around the world and lots of interest from academics as well as engineers and people from many varied professions and as well as educated amateurs. Now there is nothing. I see that posts on the forum have largely dropped to armchair discussions - few people have any input on possible solutions any more. Do we think we have we exhausted every possible concept or design? I know I haven't and in fact I'm working on something that I feel more confident about than I have for some time.

Of course I was helped in the early days by articles about my book, appearing in Nexus magazine, Infinite Energy magazine, the Journal of Free Enery and others. This may have triggered interest in my book - I don't know. But I do think that this subject does not appeal to younger people and I regret that. When you look back at the history of great scientific discoveries, many were made by people in their intellectual prime, usually their twenties and thirties, and the majority were not 'professional' scientists but educated amateurs. Some, such as Michael Faraday, had only the most basic education yet his achievements in the fields of chemistry, electricity and magnetism were huge. I feel that we need to find some way of attracting the interest of younger people to inject some new thinking into this ancient topic.

When I finally get around to finishing my book on Bessler I will court the advertising media again as I did in 1997 but I have nothing to offer them at this point so there is nothing to new to engage them. I don't know how we can engender new interest but we must keep trying.

PS. Note the American spelling in the title - I love all those 'z's!  As did Bessler.

JC

Another bunch of clues interpreted

Recently I said that I would comment occasionally on one or two of Bessler's clues, so here is another one I've been working on. This one is my interpetation of the strange passage which follows:

“He will be called a great craftsman,

who can easily/lightly throw a heavy thing high, 

 if one pound falls a quarter, 

it shoots four pounds, four quarters high.”

Firstly, the most obvious point is that if one pound falls a quarter and lifts another four pounds then we have a total of five pounds and those who are familiar with my work in decoding Bessler’s clues will at once recognise the presence of the ubiquitous number 5 again - which I have suggested refers to five mechanisms.

Secondly, he implies that there are five one pound weights (one plus four), but one of them is falling. Since one of the falling weights is one pound and the other four being lifted are also one pound each, all five of them are of equal mass - one pound each.

Thirdly it follows that if one of the weights was falling and four were rising, then there were either five one pound weights in total, alternately falling and being lifted again - or there were ten one pound weights, operating in pairs within the five mechanism, five falling and five rising. I suggest that there were in fact five pairs of similar weights, and the reason I think this, is because elsewhere he says,

 “... a work of this kind of craftsmanship has, as its basis of motion, many separate pieces of lead. These come in pairs, such that, as one of them takes up an outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axle. Later, they swap places, and so they go on and on changing places all the time.”

This description supports my contention that there must have been ten one pound weights operating in five pairs.

Fourthly, if  "..it shoots four pounds, four quarters high,” then one pound is shot one quarter high, which is no big deal from a similar weight falling the same distance.

Fifthly, "...if one pound falls a quarter, " it means it falls 90 degrees. If a pendulum is placed upside down against a clock face with the weight at twelve o'clock, then it can only fall in total, 180 degrees, or half way around the clock to the six o'clock point. If it falls a quarter then it only falls from twelve o'clock to three o'clock, 90 degrees.

It should be also be remembered that when the bi-directional Kassel wheel was started from a stand still it required only the smallest of pushes from two fingers for it to begin to accelerate, BUT it was also reported that rotation did not begin until a single weight was heard to fall, hence the phrase "...if one pound falls..." , meaning that it only takes one pound weight to fall for the whole wheel to begin to rotate and therefore cause the other weights to move.

There is one more piece of information in the passage which I am still working on but I don't want to discuss it at this time.

The above quotation is an extremely clever piece of text containing a wealth of information and I believe there are other pieces which may also contain additional information if we only knew how to extract it.

JC

Updates and words that unintentionaly offend

Recently, I intimated that I had a small revelation to make - and now I have written it up on one of my websites. I haven't published it yet, but now I'm wondering if I'm right, and if I am, should I be broadcasting it, and if I'm wrong do I want to stick my head up above the parapet to get shot at again?

Its not much of a revelation, I think that word was used by another blogger who used it when I mentioned that I had something else to discuss. I had what I think was a moment of clarity just before I went on holiday and nothing I have done since has dispelled the feeling I have that I'm right - but as I always say, I've been there before - and been wrong before! So I'm making a video to show the effect which I have described on my web site (not published yet) and I'll include it there. I mention this now because I've had a couple of emails asking me when I'm going to reveal it, but I'm not ready yet.

On another subject, writing blogs and responding to comments can be a tricky business, and I am as careful as I can be not to upset people and if I discovered that someone had taken offence at my words I would be extremely sorry. I have always requested that people moderate their language and try to do myself. Recently I discovered that someone had felt personally insulted at my words and I regret that, I therefore offer my sincerest apologies - they know who they are. May I say that having read and reread my words I can find nothing to take offence at, in fact they appear to me to be supportive of that person's view so I am at a loss to understand where I have overstepped the mark. Perhaps a private communication to explain would assist my understanding?

JC

J.E.E.Bessler -> W.R.R.Orffyres

Having time away from all things Bessler while on holiday, allowed me time to think and mentally review many things I had speculated upon. One of them was Bessler's use of his pseudonym - Orffyreus.

I have spoken about the fact that Bessler was born with just one forename, Elias. About the time he invented his working wheel he adopted the pseudonym, Orffyreus, using the 'Albam' method - at the same time he added two additonal forenames, Johann Ernst. I think that the Hebrew 'Albam' method of encoding these names is familiar to everyone interested in this story. I had always thought that having two 'E's as his initials was meant to point to the numbers '5' or '55' which are present in encoded form seemingly throughout his publications. However there has always been a disquieting feature to this idea which has caused me some doubt as to my interpretation of it.

For a start in this case, the fact that Bessler used the Albam alphabetic substitution rather than alphanumeric susbstitution to obtain his pseudonym, suggested that the former is to be used and not the latter, in which case the fact that 'E' is the fifth letter of the alphabet is no more than a fortunate coincidence.

In addition, converting the intials J.E.E.Bessler through 'albam' results in W.R.R.Orffyres, and the 'W' is formed from two V's which, in Roman numerals, produces the number '55' again and to suggest that the two 'E's represent the '5's too, seems almost tautological (if there is such a word!). Seriously is it likely that Bessler would have used the letter 'J' for any other reason than as part of an albam code? He could have left the 'J' out and used alphanumeric substitution to get '55'. So the letter 'J' is important but so is the letter 'R' which is derived via the 'albam method from 'E'.

You can see Bessler's own version of the letter 'W' above left, which differs from those used in the fraktur font - except when used to point a finger at his enemies, Gartner, Wagner and Borlach, taken from Apologia Poetica, the metaphorical passage!!!  It is definitely two 'V's.

So the letter 'J' leads us to the letter 'W' which points to 55. Now if the letter 'E' is not deliberately included to point to 5, then it points to 'R', its albam equivalent. Bessler routinely signed his name with a large 'O', presumably short for Orffyreus; he included a dot in the middle so it could also represent his wheel. But then he added two letter 'R's, one on either side of the 'O', the left one pointing the wrong way. This appeared to represent a wheel supported by two 'R' shaped figures.

Artistic as this may seem, there has to be more to it than sheer artistic vanity. It was important enough to add new forenames to his pseudonym, and the number 55 was of great importance to him as is clear from the many occurences of it, so one must conclude that the letter 'R' was of at least equal importance. The only thing I can conclude from my own research is that it has to refer to the path of the weights. One weight moves through a short curved circle and the other one moves through a longer less curved circle.

I have my own theory about how this helps and I am writing my ideas out in detail and I will post them when they are done. I'm considering doing another video to explain graphically what I mean, but if anyone else has any thoughts about the letter 'R' and its meaning I'd love to hear it.

JC

Planes that go bump in the night - when skimming a hurrican.

Three weeks away in sunny Florida and no access to my workshop - and my wheel! But now I'm back and eager to bring a fresh approach to the task thanks to some imaginitive thinking while away.

Although I love roller coaster rides I suffer from a fear of heights, motion sickness and a compressed disc which gives me pins and needles in my left leg, so by the time we had come to the end of our stay I had had a surfeit of thrill rides, so when we discovered that hurrican Irene was bearing down on us just as we were due to board our aircrafte, my wife and daughter expressed their doubts at the wisdom of flying through the middle of a hurrican, in rather colorful language actually!

We were assured by the aircrew that we would be flying around Irene and not through her and there were, therefore, no grounds for concern - huh!!! A sudden drop of 200 feet without warning, may not seem much, but when you add in the air speed of over 500 miles an hour it acquires considerable significance - my head bears the bruises to show for it, as I had just risen from seat in my usual gentlemanly fashion to allow my wife to partake of the facilities provided by means of a restroom. That was just the beginning and we suffered about an hour and half of something not so different, I should imagine, from trying to stay on board a bucking bronco!

Tough devices these modern aircraft! Despite the wings flapping like a demented duck landing on a pond, we all arrived safely if somewhat bruised and were politely informed that we had made up some time despite taking a longer course due to the sling-shot effect engendered by skimming the edge of hurrican Irene! Hhhhmmmm - as my seven year old grandaughter is wont to say, "I smell a porky, grandad!"

Actually the sling-shot idea came up in conversation aboard the bronco and we thought it had merit, but then we had taken a few medicinal drinks to calm my wife's shattered nerves - not mine of course you understand.

Open for comments again and hopefully I shall have some interesting information to share with you all that miiiiiiiiight just lead to a break through - unless you prove me wrong of course.

JC

Gravity-alone is all that is required for Bessler's wheel

This isjust a parting shot as I'm going away for a couple of weeks and all comments will be hidden until I return.

The source of energy for Bessler's wheel has to be gravity and nothing else, for some pretty obvious reasons.  Bessler certainly implied that it needed only gravity, but even if you  stick to the physics we have been taught, that such a device is impossible, and that Bessler was toying with us, then you need an additional force to assist the wheel to complete one rotation.   So what forces are available to us?

Ambient temperature changes might have been used to make changes in the weight positions - too slow to react in my opinion and perhaps not enough of a movement to generate overbalance.  Centrifugal force is another posited force but it would be difficult to regulate when to apply its theoretical movement.  Magnets?  Too weak and too difficult to switch on and off.  Compressed air?  It has to be compressed first and that would use up precious energy before it can apply itself to moving a weight.  Springs?  These are delayed reactions created by compressing them a some other stage in a rotation thus using up energy again.  Electrostatic forces? The Leiden Jar was invented in 1745 by Dutch scientist Pieter van Musschenbroek of Leiden, who some will remember featured in my book, "Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?"  Again too weak a force and it would take too long to build up sufficient force to move a weight in several rotations let alone a single one.

There are others which are even weaker than those described briefly above and not readily adapted to quick or sudden requirement.  In my opinion gravity-only offers the only solution and I know why it works and why it isn't impossible and why it won't make the slightest difference to the laws of physics and all of the ramifications connected to that statement. 

All will be revealed upon my return  - I hope  ;-)

JC

Bessler's wheel must have been driven by gravity alone.

Someone posted a link on the bessler forum, in support of their view saying "all forces in closed systems are conserved. It's widely available knowledge."  The implication seemed to be that because of this fact we were all wasting our time trying to duplicate Bessler's wheel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law

The first line of the link says "In physics, a conservation law states that a particular measurable property of an isolated physical system does not change as the system evolves."

You can't argue with this - it is demonstrably true. However it doesn't apply to Bessler's wheel. Isolated systems are, as the definition suggests, closed sytems without any access to external sources of energy.

But in a gravitywheel such as I maintain, Bessler's was, if you take away the gravitational force the wheel will remain stationary, therefore it cannot possibly be described as an isolated system. Gravity is external to the wheel.

So although the law of Conservation is correct the particular ramifications alluded to, do not apply in this case.

It is frequently argued that Bessler did not state in precise language that his wheel depended entirely on gravity and therefore it must have required some additional force to operate. I don't think anyone has come up with a creditable alternative force and in my opinion there isn't one - there is only gravity and there is no physical reason why it should not do.

So Bessler may have only said that - "these weights are themselves the PM device, the essential constituent parts which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the perpetual motion principle) indefinitely - so long as they keep away from the cemntre of gravity." - but that is as close to saying it was driven by gravity as you can get without actually saying so!

I have argued this point since I first expressed it in my book, "Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?" in 1997 and I see no reason to change it.

JC

Why the number 5? What does it mean?

In a recent comment, Andre reminded me of something I have become so used to that I had forgotten how extraordinary it is. He said; It's monumentally obvious that the number 5 had a very special and important meaning to Bessler. It pops up everywhere."

I think this is something that people forget or are unaware of or disregard - and yet Johann Bessler was so preoccupied with the number five that he inserted it or hid it,in every single document he published as well as many that never saw the light of day, until recently.

Everyone is familiar with the pentagram and its association with the number five, and Bessler certainly was, because it too, appears, or should I say, is hidden within, many of his drawings. Hidden it may be, but it is easily found once you are aware of his fondness for it. Space prevents me from detailing all the many coded references to the pentagram and the number 5, but you can see some of the evidence at my website http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/

So the question is; why did Bessler include so many references to the number 5?

I suggested that it was to tell us that a gravity-driven wheel, capable of driving another device, has to have five mechanisms to accomplish the task. I also considered it likely that it was intended as a pointer to the most comprehensively encoded text of all of Bessler's publications, chapter 55 of his "Poetica Apologia".

Bessler became known as 'Orffyreus' at about the same time he first exhibited his wheel, a single-direction one, in 1712. So at that time he must have already decided on a simple code, alphabetic substitution, to use as a pseudonym for Bessler, probably designed to suggest that at least he had an interest or was knowledgeable about such things. In addition he added two more forenames to his given one, which was "Elias". The names, "Johann Ernst", do not appear on his birth registration documents but a glance through my website at http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/ shows how he also introduced the same 'number five' theme into his pseudonym at or before the time he first exhibited his wheel.

It seems to me that he must have already decided to encode information about his wheel so that, at some point in future, he would be able to show that he was the original inventor, long before he was successful - and to me that is a likely scenario as I have been guilty of the same!

So does the number five relate to the wheel or the code or something else? The problem is that the number five and the pentagram have several connotations. In fact they hold so many commonly understood, subjective cultural and emotional associations, in addition to their explicit or literal meaning, that the potential for misinterpretations are boundless. Connections include,the golden section, Mary Magdalen, the planet Venus and Freemasonry, to mention just some  the morer diverse ones.

I think that Bessler found the best way to produce a gravitywheel which was suffiently powerful to be able to drive an additional piece of machinery, such as a water pump. This design required five mechanisms for reasons which I will discuss in a later blog. Five then formed the core of his subsequent code. He built a large dual direction wheel at Kassel, which required two lots of five mechanisms - one for each direction - hence the ubiquity of the two number fives i.e."5,5". What better use of "5,5" than to write his autobiography "Apologia Poetica", incorporating his code into Chapter 55 and inserting numerous pentagrams into the drawings in other documents.

How delightful to fill the ensuing book and all his drawings with veiled references to the his mysterious number 5s - and sit back and watch as others pored over the clues and tried to make sense of them!

JC

Maybe Karl described the simplicity of the concept, and not the wheel itself.

I suppose I should mention this on the Besslerwheel form but it doesn't seem to warrant a new thread; it's just my musings again.

When Karl's emissary, Nathaniel von Stapff, first approached Bessler with a view to checking out his claims, he must have made it clear to Bessler that in order to take advantage of the Landgrave's patronage, he would be required to reveal the secret, under an oath of silence of course, of the wheel's construction. Clearly this was a highly contentious issue for Bessler and yet he was persuaded to accept, the issue molified to some extent by the promise of 4000 thalers for the privilege.

So before Karl could even consider such a proposal he had to verify to his own satisfaction that Bessler's wheel actually worked, and since the Kassel wheel would not be finished for several months, and the previous, Merseberg wheel, had been destroyed, the wheel Karl saw must have been the small model mentioned two or three times elsewhere.

This small model may have been Bessler's first fully working model or even one which showed some rotation without providing enough to drive another device and it could only turn one way. It may have been the same one that was found in pieces after his death, and the same one that Jean-Pierre de Crousaz wrote somewaht sarcastically about. So when Karl described its simplicity he was probably describing the basic concept and not the interior of the Kassel wheel.

It is evident that Karl was heavily involved with matters of State and probably never took time to view the interior of the larger wheel, so one might conclude that although the concept appeared extremely simple to Karl, as he examined the model wheel - and that idea was born out by Bessler's own fears that any potential buyer might think he deserved his money back once he knew the secret, in fact the actual working model might have been considerably more complicated.

By complicated I mean that, whereas I have always maintained that Bessler indicated that five mechanisms were necessary to a fully functioning wheel, there might have been as few as two in his model version - a very simple concept and an ideal method of constructing a proof of principle version.

JC

Principle of connectedness, and is five necessary?

Interpreting Bessler's principle of connectedness is a bit like knitting smoke. You can see it but you can't seem to grasp it. I thought I'd got it before, but now I think I really have! But have I? I think so but who knows at this point.

You can read the words 'principle of connectedness' and surmise that it refers to a degree of connection. Is it a vaccilating connection, sometimes fast and sometimes loose? Is it a flexible connection only capable of connection in one direction? Might be. There are several possibilities, but I think I understand what he was referring to now and if I'm right it doesn't in fact refer to the way the actual connections are made, in my opinion refer it refers to something else. I once thought I had found a feature of gravitywheels which no-one else was aware of. Then I met a guy who had come from Australia and had dropped into meet me and we discovered we were both aware of this oddity. I have seen comments which come close to what I'm thinking of but no one seems to have accurately described it. Of course it might not be as mysterious as I'm thinking, but I'm going to write something on the subject and post if for comment.

The other thing that concerns me - am I right in thinking that Bessler was indicating five mechanisms? I still think so, but testing five mechanisms on a wheel takes so much longer because I have to build each of them and attach them, whereas if I just wanted to test the hypothesis with two it would be so much quicker. But Bessler said "If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in the machine it revolves very slowly...", so will my two produce enough mechanical advantage to at least provide proof of the principle? Another rhetorical question for which the answer must be, try it and see.

JC

When Bessler's wheel is reconstructed it will match his design exactly.

Recently, a blog or so back, I mentioned that I had found additional confirmation that my design was correct, in one of Bessler's clues. This led me to consider my other interpreted codes and I found further examples which consolidated my view that I was on the right track. Ruminating on this while on holiday I was struck by the curious lack of interest in Bessler's codes, and I realised that as far as I can tell, there are few who support my work on this subject.

I know that the interpretation of these kinds of codes is highly subjective and prone to being influenced by personal prejudices. In other words, I may appear to be guilty of interpreting the facts to fit the theory, or finding what I'm looking for by ignoring equally valid alternatives. Where I have thought that this was possible in some of the interpretations I have posted at http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/, I have admitted that this might be the case, and have said that the results are more speculative. In other cases I have had no doubts and have said so too.

In which case I am surprised to see comments from time to time, on the besslerwheel forum posing possible solutions to apparent codes for which I have already offered my own interpretations and which I am satisfied are correct. Of course they may simply disagree with my views, but sometimes it seems as though other people are unaware of my work in this area and perhaps I should be doing more to broadcast it. Those who follow my progress (or lack of it!) in reconstructing Bessler's wheel might think that I should get on with finishing it, rather than encouraging people to read my decoding efforts just in case they get there first. But I am trying to cover all outcomes including one where I am stuck, or unable to finish the wheel for some reason beyond my control.

I have another website at http://www.orffyreus.net/, where I have published everything I have found which may lead to the decoding of Chapter 55 in Bessler's 'Apologia Poetica'. It seems to me that my descriptions of my work in deciphering that extraordinary document are certainly a step towards full decipherment, yet no one has commented on it and as far as I know, no work is being done on it.

The methodology needed to recognise and decipher these numerous clues is straight forward. It should be obvious by now that I have deciphered far more than the limited amount I have revealed on my websites so I can say with a considerable degree of confidence that what is there is genuine, unless I have said that it is speculative. When I have more up-to-date information that requires additions or amendments to what is there I have added it.

I am writing a long document detailing the additional information concerning both the concept and the design revealed in Bessler's clues, and it will be published once I have succeeded in reconstructing Bessler's wheel. This will prove to those who say that we shall never know whether any new design is in any way similar to Bessler's, that they are wrong and that my design configuration is exactly the same as Bessler's.  I am confident that the design will match Bessler's because of the information I already have. 

JC