Musings on Gravity

Trevor's comments about Besslers' wheel being a closed system got me thinking (thank you Trevor). I have posted an article at http://www.gravitywheel.com/ entitled, "Musings on Gravity". Any comments welcomed.

JC

Wheel update and Karl's comment

I'm working on the wheel again and I think (I hope) I know what was wrong with the last design and I'm reconfiguring the mechanism accordingly. I've found a way of making the correct weight rise upwards very quickly, at the right moment. This is something that is crucial in my design and also something that Bessler commented on.

There are other aspects to this design which have to be taken into account when arranging the actual range and position of the parts and this is something that Karl would have seen but almost certainly not recognised for its importance. Hence his comment that it was very simple. I have taken on board my own comments about sphexishness and tried not to make any assumptions in designing the new mechanical arrangenment, with the result that I have discovered that there is a variable which I had not appreciated before. I don't want to talk about it yet, but I will bring it up on the forum at a later date to get some feedback.

Finally to answer a couple of questions emailed to me, this rearrangement or reconfiguration of the mechanics does not mean I have abandoned the concept I have been working on, quite the opposite. The original concept is valid and unarguably the same as Bessler's, but there are variations possible within the design which improve the way it works and that is what I'm engaged on at the moment.

Regarding Karl's view of the machine's simplicity, I think someone commented similarly to my own view on the besslerwheel forum, that perhaps he had not appreciated how complex the design had to be; not complex in appearance, but requiring some very specific arrangement of the mechanism.  This I believe I know from my own work on this design and from the helpful hints given by Bessler.

I gave a small clue recently with my comment about opening windows.

JC

Wheel progress update

Doug made the point that 'A lot of scientific discoveries have been made by accident and even more thru trial and error. Did Bessler design a genuine perpetually turning wheel by trial and error, by accident, or by a dream in the night? Or did he realize the sphexishness of his efforts? Did he then design wheels that would convince everyone they were genuine, even though they weren't genuine?'

It's true that trial and error have played a part in scientific discoveries, but I think Bessler told the truth about his dream giving him the information he needed. I have had those kind of dreams as have others working in this field. But discovering the concept which may lead to the solution is usually followed by a bout of trial and error and might even involve sphexishness!

My own current construction has proven stubbornly stationary. Yesterday I finished the latest prototype and it failed miserably. However I know why and also what to do about it, so I won't be revealing anything just yet. The problem can best be explained by considering a horizontally opening window.

Imagine that it is wide open at 90 degrees from the closed position. The hardest effort to close it is at the start and then it become progressively easier to close . The same thing is happening to my mechanisms. They are slow to begin the move and then they slam into position, but too late. The solution appears to be to reduce their range of movement. It would be like only opening the window half way, to 45 degrees. Easier to close then.

This causes another problem which I also know how to solve - the range of movement of the main weight is reduced to the point of ineffectiveness. I must therefore increase the range of what I call the initiator, so that is what I shall be working on. Bessler described the weight as flying upwards and that is vital in my own design as it has to start and complete its range of movement within a fifth of a turn of the wheel itself, as there are five mechanisms.

I don't feel disheartened by this latest failure, as the end appears to be in sight.

JC

Sphexishness in Perpetual Motionists?

I'm indebted to Murilo, a regular on the besslerwheel forum, for the following link to an article about'sphexishness'.

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldman-sphex-20110515,0,7387307.story

It got me thinking. If, in response to a familar trigger situation, we follow an internal rule or command, maybe ignoring alternative paths to follow, is this an example of 'sphexishness', if it is then I would argue that we are all, to a small degree, infected with this same set of internal rules.

From the above link, briefly, "scientists have coined a word for a certain type of behaviour named "sphexishness", after the female digger wasp, the 'sphex'. She will sting and paralyze a cricket, stash it in a hole in a tree and lay her eggs on it. When the eggs hatch, the baby wasps have fresh cricket to eat. But sphex also has an internal rule. When she brings a cricket to the opening of the hole, she always goes inside for a look around before she drags it in. If the cricket is moved a few inches away while the sphex is in the hole, she will repeat the process, bringing the cricket back to the opening and going inside for a look. As often as the cricket is moved, the wasp will repeat the behavior. Her internal rule calls for her to look in the hole before she drags the cricket inside, and that is what she will do, ad infinitum, every time the cricket is moved."

It's fun to observe sphexishness in animals. I used to have a labrador dog and it amused me that she always turned around a couple of times before settling in her basket. I was told that this was an instinctive action inherited from her forebears, related to trampling down grass to make a bed. This was an internal rule unconnected with her present circumstances but impossible for her to ignore. Even when she grew old and arthritic and barely able to walk she still managed a turn or two before collapsing into her basket. Instinctive behaviour - or inherited? What's the difference?

"The trick, of course, is to be able to recognize it in ourselves. What behaviors do we humans senselessly repeat over and over because of some unquestioned internal rule? What entirely avoidable loop of stupidity are we stuck in?"

True, we seekers of new ways of producing energy do try to envisage new approaches to the problem at each step along the path to the solution, and yet how many of us, on our individual paths, make assumptions commanded thus by some unquestioned internal rule. This rule could be based on some learned behaviour or 'fact' instilled in us from our earliest experiences - or an inherited instinct. But it's not necessarily one rule, whatever that may be, it's the trait of sphexishmess which lies behind our thought processes. To paraphrase a question from the article, What behaviors do we perpetual motionists repeat over and over because of some unquestioned internal rule? What entirely avoidable loop of stupidity are we stuck in?

We have been told that the secret of Bessler's wheel was simple, right? Right! And we know in our hearts that we cannot realistically expect to discover a new unknown law of physics which will allow Bessler's wheel to operate - well I don't anyway! And lastly we, at least, know that Bessler's wheel did actually work. So if we haven't discovered the secret of such a simple device which complies with the physical laws as we understand them - we must be being steered by sphexishness and being guided (misguided?) by some internal rule. We often use phrases such as, "think outside the box", apply lateral thinking", but these concepts still don't allow us to recognise and ignore certain rules inherent within our makeup. How do we circumvent these cast iron cognitive processes?

I think we have to take each step as if we were ignorant of the outcome of every possible configuration of mechanical parts. We must not assume anything, so all bets are off - the situation has drastically changed. Any guarantees, implications, or assumptions regarding its outcome no longer apply.(Thanks to http://www.urbandictionary.com/)

Then maybe we will find what Bessler found. In the mean time I continue to struggle to find the time to complete my own version of Bessler's wheel. If I'm right then the other method described in this blog, (also known as trial and error) will not be necessary as I think that Bessler did leave enough information behind him to build his wheel. But it's not so easy as just copying what you see in his drawings, but the clues are there.

JC

Wheel update - cylindrical weights for me!

Yesterday was my granddaughter Amy's eighteenth birthday so there was no wheeling done then, and on Monday we are holding a big get together for the whole extended family so I shall have to hide my work from prying eyes! There are some members of my family (not many!) who think I might be on to something and they always come to see how I'm progressing. But on Monday they'll be nothing for them to see.

The weights I've used for the last few years are not suitable for the current construction so I've bought some new fishing weights, made from non-toxic lead. They are ideal as they are round discs.

The problem has been that the former weights were cut from a length of solid steel squared rod, so were rectangular in shape. I drilled a hole through the middle of each one, but slightly off-set and this has worked fine until now! The part of the mechanism to which they attach needs to be able to move freely, but the weights always try to hang downwards which is fine for some positions.In the current design, during rotation the weights continue to try to hang downwards and this causes them to interfere with the mechanism. I can't fix the weights without fixing the mechanism. The answer is simple. I need to use round or cylindrical weights, that can turn without affecting the mechanisms and remain balanced. Cylindrical weights! Sounds familiar.

I know I could use heavy flat washers but they too have problems. The only ones I can find have holes in the middle which are too large. But fisherman's weights are perfect. I only had to drill a hole in the middle to attach them and they are really heavy.

I am using ten weights and I can imagine that with the Kassel wheel containing two systems, one the reverse of the other, Bessler would have used twenty weights, and at 4 pounds a weight that comes to 80 pounds plus of course the weight of the wooden wheel.  This is just my opinion and not to be taken as factual, although I'm convinced!

JC

"The clues are there." as David Frost used to say.

Some readers are getting impatient for results but unfortunately other aspects of life have a way interfering with our best intentions. I continue to work on finishing the wheel as and when I can but as I've said before, I sometimes get a few minutes and that is all. My mother-in-law was in hospital but is now in a respite home for a few weeks. We visit her daily for a hour or so, but it is a 40 minute drive each way and we therefore lose a big chunk of each afternoon from our free time. So - time is tight..

What I can say is that the clues continue to support my view that I am on the right track and I will repeat that the best place for getting confirmatory information is the 'Toys' page - MT.138-139-140-141. The problem with this page is that unless you have already arrived at the right design, the page is almost meaningless. What the drawings on that page do, is help to refine the final design. That is what I'm engaged in when I can get the time.

Every drawing on that page supplies information, but they do not represent actual physical designs. As an example I can point out the slightly longer uprights on 'D' compared with 'C' - this is important information and without it would cause a problem which is only discernable if the right design is in front of you. Having said, that I worked out the solution to the problem when I saw it but it was good to have the confirmation that it was why Bessler had drawn the figures in that way and it was deliberate and not an incidental variation.

 

JC

Bessler's wheel worked by simple mechanics - no fancy physics required.

Now that I know how Bessler's wheel worked it has become a source of some concern to me to see so many people trying promote their own theories about how it worked. There are as many pet theories out there as there are people, I think, and each is as certain as I am that we are right.

Most people agree that it cannot violate any known laws of physics, therefore we must have erred in some way or perhaps be missing some crucial detail about the way gravity works. Perhaps, others have speculated, we need to involve a second natural force such as CF, or ambient temperature variation or some other such extra piece of energy to help our wheel complete just one rotation. In fact it could not be more simple. There is indeed no need to call for some new kind of physical law or even a new interpretation of the existing laws, because Bessler's wheel worked quite readily, getting its energy from the force of gravity (via falling weights Trevor ;-)) with nothing more than the same understanding that we have all been taught. Karl understood that and that is why he was surprised that no one had discovered the solution before.

I know that we have all touched upon the solution and have moved onwards without considering how we might overcome any obstacles that appear to be insurmountable, and that in my opinion, is why Bessler succeed.  Having ruled out all other possibilities he returned to basics.

JC

Websites being revised to include new information about Bessler's wheel.

I've temporarily removed everything from my websites at www.besslerswheel.com and www.gravitywheel.com -t hey will be updated and republished as soon as possible, but I am completely rewriting them as I have made some significant progress in my research into how Bessler's wheel worked and how it was constructed. Some of the content on the websites needs to be cahnged. This does not mean that everything on the websites was wrong, but there has been some over-complication of the principle, which seems now to be very simple. In fact I cannot understand why I ignored it for most of my life.

The truth is that I think we have all been on the right track at some stage but have not had the advantage I have recently had of being able to study Bessler's clues to the point where I now understand all of them including a lot that I don't think anyone else has noticed, (although I may be wrong about that, as I have no idea what others know or are working on!)

It has become clear to me as I have been building my latest construction, just how many clues there are which are overlooked simply because there are so many of them and they are therefore not suspected of being clues. It is also becoming increasingly obvious that Bessler's claim that 'no one else could have succeeded because no one else took so much trouble to try every possible variation', was nothing more than the simple plain unvarnished truth! As my latest construction progresses I notice small details in his papers which guide me and also cause me to make some corrections to what I'm doing, and to be honest without those clues I wouldn't have chance of succeeding. I probably won't anyway, but I like to think I will!

One detail I was working on, the design of which is revealed by Bessler, seemed to me to be wrong as it appeared to be counter-intuitive, but I thought I'd try it anyway as things weren't working out, and it turned out to be the solution to my problem. This has proved something to me - if and when a gravitywheel is succesfully made and is working, some people have questioned whether we will ever know if will be the same design as Bessler's - my answer is that if mine works I shall know and can prove that it is identical to Bessler's, apart perhaps from some possible minor variations in the sizes of the parts.

As I have now said several times, I shall publish all of this information whether the wheel works or not. I can do this because I know that the clues I've understood are real and apply to the wheel but it is also possible that I have neglected some detail that prevents success. Maybe someone else can complete the task, but first I want to have an attempt at a successful PoP.

JC

My Final POP Prototype? ... Again!

I'm just coming to the end of the construction of my latest design for Bessler's wheel. I've maintained my belief in the same concept which makes his wheel possible for some considerable time as, for me, it is the only explanation for his success. The number of ways one can achieve this is limited but does not rule out severl variations, each of which is designed to move a weight a sufficiently large distance, quickly.

I have always born in mind his comment about the importance of incorporating his 'connectedness principle' within the design and although I had an idea what this might refer to, it wasn't until I saw the first completed mechanism on my new wheel, working, that I realised why he referred to it in this way.

As I was carefully assembling the pieces that made up the mechanism I was musing on the problem I might have in describing my interpretation of his 'connectedness principle' and I realised that it was a very good description, if you had to do it in two words, one of which was 'principle'. 'Connectedness' may seem like a made-up word but it is perfect for this situation.

I hope to more or less finish this version in a day or so, working around visiting familes, because it's Easter, but there will be some minor adjustments to make before it is completely finished. I know this because the connectedness principle requires some adjustments, the precise amounts of which, won't become obvious until the wheel's mechanisms are finished and fitted and shown to be working properly.

I'll let you know what happens, but even if it should fail to rotate I am convinced that I am on the right lines - the only lines to success.

JC

www.theorffyreuscode.com updated again

I have updated www.theorffyreuscode.com again. It occurs to me that perhaps not many people understand why I have continued to search for clues among Bessler's works when I should be trying to build working model of the wheel. The truth is I do both.

Even as I construct a new design, I continue to ponder on Bessler's clues. I cannot ignore the strong hints that Bessler left regarding clues to the wheel's workings. He left textual clues which were designed to both intrigue and mystify. He left pictorial clues which achieved the same result and if all he wanted was to mystify, then it might appear to be a hopeless task to try to make sense of what he left.

But I'm convinced that he wanted us to learn his secret. Consider this. He demonstrated his wheel over a period of at least eleven years during which time it was thoroughly examined by a host of people intent on proving him a fraud - and no one ever found reason to disbelieve his claims. He allowed one person to observe the inside, who was known as a man of utter integrity, who said the claims were real. Even after he left this man's patronage Bessler designed a variety of machines some of which were based on his wheel. He never ever gave up, and maintained his innocence of any suggestion of fraud, 'til his death.

Given the above one must assume that he was telling the truth. It seems to me to be absurd to give up trying decipher his clues when he made it so clear that he wanted posthumous fame as the inventor, if he couldn't have it while he lived. To achieve fame after he'd gone he attempted to ensure that sufficient clues were left beind to help someone to replicate the wheel. The clues had to be obscure or someone might have deciphered everything while he lived, so it was never going to be easy.

Consequently he flooded his published works with clues of an intriguing nature, which by themselves, were of little help in actually building his wheel. He did everything in his power to make people understand that the solution was there if they looked. But so far few people other than myself have researched the possibility that the answer lies encoded within his publications.

My self-imposed task has been to underline any and all clues that I find, but so far they are merely eye-catchers which interest and intrigue us but don't provide the answer. But they were designed to lead to that answer and that is why I list every piece of code I find, with my interpretation of the meaning behind each. That is what my web site at http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/ is for.

There is no doubt that we are in desperate straits searching for a new form of energy, if there is a half a chance that Bessler's wheel will answer, than we should be doing all in our power to solve it, replicate it and use it.

JC

Will Bessler's wheel be a practical solution, if it works?

I wonder hown practical Bessler's wheel wll turn out to be, if it ever gets re-invented. How will the world react to the news that Bessler's wheel had been replicated and proven to work?

80 per cent of electricity globally is produced by steam powered turbines - an amazingly old-fashioned concept when you think about it. These massive generators can produce 2,000,000 hp or 1,500,000 kW. They are huge beasts and I find it hard to picture what size Bessler's wheel would have to be to achieve the same output, and yet George Westinghouse was able to scale up Sir Charles Parsons' original steam turbine, which had already been increased from a 7.5 kW set up to units of 50,000 kW capacity, by some 10,000 times. I'm sure that a similar exercise could be applied to Bessler's wheel to generate enough electricity for individual consumption.

Bessler mentioned the possibility of constructing a number of wheels in series and if they were all mounted on one axle it is obvious that one could scale up a wheel of unrestricted depth, mounted on an axle of say, 50 foot, with similarly enlarged weights operating in the same way as in the original design. But is this the way it would develop? There could be a massive reduction in demand from the centrally placed power generators if there was an equally large uptake of individual designed home electricity generators.

So how much electricity does the average home consume? Hard to answer because different homes use different methods for heating and/or air conditioning but if one wanted to eliminate the need for oil and natural gas then you would require Bessler's wheel to produce more than enough electricity to power everything.

It has proved difficult to obtain a figure but I found a site which suggested that the average American house uses approximately 12,000kwh per year which is about 32 kwh a day. Of course that figure may be wildy out, but as a guide it will do. There are a number of generators currently available, producing that kind of output, some cost more than $10,000! However these do of course include the very expensive diesel engines required to rotate the armature and the replacing of that with the much simpler Bessler's wheel would reduce the price considerably. I'm sure that given the amount of competition, improvenments in design and sheer quantity of entrepreneurial manufacturers, the price would drop just as it does in the world of improving TVs and computers.

This drop in demand for centrally produced electricity could go a long way towards making the nuclear/fossil-fuelled power stations almost redundant. I guess there would still be a need for limited amounts of electricity from a central location for distribution to industrial manufactureres, and those who have not been able to take advantage of the new devices. Perhaps those larger power generators might still be able to adopt an enlarged Bessler's wheel.

I know this is just a dream, but it could happen.

JC

"No" to more nuclear power. Free, clean, safe energy = Bessler's gravitywheel

The news that the Tokyo Electric Power Company will completely write off four of the six reactors at the crippled nuclear plant, suggests that the time is up for this expensive, potentially hazardous way of generating electricity. Many countries are reviewing their plans to build more 'improved' reactors and perhaps a halt will be called to further developments. I suggest that coal-fired electricity generators would be preferable to the nuclear option. I looked up the comparative costs of the options in the UK and found that one nuclear power station costs about £1.2b to build. A coal-fired one costs a little less at £1 billion. However the coal-fired one has the latest emmission cleaning technolog that reduces pollution to almost zero. The on-going cost of dealing with spent fuel rods from a nuclear reactor are almost limitless.

By comparison, an offshore wind turbine is rated at 3MW but only reaches about 40% of that capacity because of wind conditions. This means that you would need 1166 wind turbines to equal the output of a nuclear reactor! The cost of building them is estimated at £10.4b and would take up 406 square kilometers!

Why are we even considering wind power? It doesn't make economical nor ecological sense. Better to have coal fired power than the other options. However there is a snag. The cost in lives of coal mining is prohibitive and it is impossible to guarantee absolute safety even in the most advanced pits. So what's left?

What's the solution? There is one of course! Above these options Bessler's wheel would rein supreme as the
cleanest,cheapest, safest option.

Am I being presumptive and too naive in suggesting that such a system is even feasible let alone possible? No, the evidence that such a device was designed and built and demonstrated almost 300 years ago in Germany is so well established that it is regarded as a potential solution to the energy crisis in some quarters and is accepted as fact among a few in the higher echelons of the world of physics. We can, and must, continue our investigations into this phenomenon in order to present the world with this c lean, free, safe form of energy.

We have been taught that such a device, driven purely by gravity, is a violation of the laws of conservation of energy. Unfortunately there is an absolutely vast majority who continue to believe this and ignore the evidence. There is sound evidence that Bessler's wheel required no other force than gravity to drive it. What I find extraordinary is the lengths many of those who accept that Bessler's wheel worked, will go to, to explain why it works, summoning additional energies that in my opinion simply won't suffice. For me the truth is blindingly simple, gravity will do the job on its own and there is no conflict with the laws of physics. There is no need to imagine extra impetus from other forces, gravity will do the job. Bessler's wheel proves our teachers wrong and if it is wrong then it is up to we few who know the secret to build a working model, publish the how and the why and spread the information with all possible speed to stop any more of these toxic nuclear generators bringing forward the early demise of the human species not to mention the myriad other forms of life. It could happen.

JC

How many wheels? How long 'til success?

Someone emailed me recently asking how many wheels I had built. This is a hard question to answer, because you must first define what is a new design and what is a modification of a current design.

I've no idea how many wheels I've built over 36 years, but possibly over a hundred. I think I've modified every single one of them, by adjusting the lengths of levers, and increasing or decreasing the numbers of parts and adjusting the weights and altering the fulcrum points etc, etc. However the number of different designs or concepts by which each wheel was originally designed to work, must be fewer. I did sit down and try to draw rough diagrams of all the different designs I had built over the years but I gave up after I had done about 30 because I kept remembering others and some were so similar at first sight that I wasn't sure how or even whether, to define them as different. I guess that were between 80 and 100 completely different designs, but it could be more, I simply don't know.

In the end I came to the conclusion that I have built over a hundred and possibly two hundred wheels, none of which worked. I say none 'worked' and I mean that although some showed promise, none of them turned for more than about a minute.

The evidence that Bessler's wheel was genuine is so firmly established in my mind now that I cannot give up on my attempts to replicate it. It's like a puzzle that you turn over and over in your mind, you cannot solve it and yet you can't leave it alone, because it looks so simple, but must spend your waking hours worrying at it like a dog with a bone. You might think that I'd want to give up building the models by now, but this is unlikely to happen, unless I become incapable of building them. The truth is I feel as if I'm within a hair's breadth of success. This is because my own successes in decoding Bessler's hidden information has given me some very strong insights into the actual design of the mechanism. I have already worked out why it worked without coming up against the problem of the conservative force of gravity and I've given some strong hints at how this can be. I know that no one accepts my theories any more than I accept anyone else's. So...there is everything to play for and I am determined to prove I'm right by building a working wheel.

I know what has to be done to access the energy of gravity and if my latest model doesn't work I know how to adjust it to make it work. The design as it stands, is set to maximise the effect I have found - but within that design there is a negative reaction which may need reducing so that it doesn't overwhelm the excess force generated. I see it as a delicate balancing act to get just sufficient leverage without compromising the effect generated by the leverage.

I am well aware that there are dozens, perhaps, hundreds of others who share my feelings of confidence, so I'll just wish all of us good luck and hope that someone succeeds really soon.

JC

My wheels are too small!

My efforts to replicate Besslers wheel have been delayed over the last couple of weeks by a medical emergency in the family but I'm back on it now. I had got fed up with constantly finding that my mechanisms got entangled with each other because I made them too large and/or placed them too close to each other. This is a problem that has beset me frequently in the past. However, I'm sure that if I place them slightly further out and therefore less close together this will not reduce their effect ... if they work!

To put it another way, if they would have worked where I originally placed them, then in theory they should work in the new position and the worst that might happene is a reduction in power. We'll see!

The reason it has taken me so long to make this change is due to my habit of using and reusing the same pieces of material to make the mechanisms even for different designs,and fixing them to the same size wooden discs. I had a several of these discs all the same size and the pieces of steel I used were also of a certain length and I only altered them reluctantly.

This crazy false economy led to the mechanisms often being just a little too large for the space they occupied, with the result that they frequently got entangled with the adjacent one or locked up. The various pieces are so full of holes anyway, that if I continue to use them, they will just fall apart, and this also applies to the wooden disc that everything is mounted on. I finally accepted that I needed everything on a bigger scale and with more space to operate.

It is probably thought that making the mechanisms the right size from the start is an obvious and simple thing to achieve, but the trouble is that usually I do not know how much leverage it will take to lift a weight for a particular design, until I build it, and then to discover that there is not quite enough room to accomodate the length of lever required, means either redesigning another part of the mechanism to reduce its size, or enlarging the space available by using a larger disc.

I had made a partial move towards new material but using the same sized disc still limited the space. I now have a much larger disc and I'm using some new aluminum and steel for the mechanisms and hoping that this time everything works without locking up. Of course it may not drive the wheel but at least it should operate as I designed it.

JC

More Bessler findings at http://www.mikeyned.com/

I used to be in a small research group called called BORG, which stood Bessler Orffyreus Research Group. We thought we might succeed where others had failed in finding the solution to Bessler's wheel by trying to brain-storm a solution. For a while it was stimulating and exhilarating and we thought we might succeed, but as time went by, one by one, we began to drop out. The enterprise eventually ran out of steam and we went our separate ways. Unfortunately I lost everything to do with that episode due to a computer malfunction

One member of that group was a guy called Mikey Ned who has been a long time researcher into this subject. He has recently updated it at http://www.mikeyned.com/ and it has some interesting things to say about the measurement scales used in Bessler's drawings.

I have always been puzzled that no one appears to take any notice of Bessler's most widely known drawings. I refer to those which appear in Das Triumphirende. Each drawing has a purpose and they are stuffed so full of clues of an obvious kind, that it seems, to me at least, equally obvious that there are other clues of a more subtle kind.

I could mention for instance the presence of the pendulums (or pendula if you want the correct term). No witness ever recorded seeing them although they were mentioned by Bessler. Their presence was explained by a rather weak rationalsation which was really unnecessary. The reason for their presence is obvious to me even if it isn't to others. If you zoom in on a good scan of the drawings it is possible to see the great care taken with every line in each drawing.

It's interesting for me to see what someone else has posted about their own studies into this area of research because I sometimes think I'm the only one who has tried to make sense of the drawings which Bessler clearly laboured over. Those drawing are not just decorative they hold a wealth of clues and if we can only extend our knowledge of what is in them there is just a chance we can solve this puzzle that way instead of trying to do the way Bessler did, through a mixture of intuition and trial and error.

Good job, Mikey!

 

JC

Angular Momentum to Linear Momentum - and back again?

Sometimes when looking for a solution to a mechanical problem it helps to reverse the sequence of events required - or as Professor Eric Laithwaite liked to do, consider an analogy.

What we seek is a way of converting the downward linear force of gravity into rotational motion. As a means of seeking a solution for those of us who believe Bessler's wheel operated purely by gravitational force, perhap it might help to study the work of those whose ambition is to reverse the process. They wish to generate a unidirectional or linear force from a rapidly rotating weighted lever. There are a number of sites devoted to the experiments http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/IPEmain.htm for instance.

Now whether or not you believe it can be achieved, and I do, it is a fact is it not, that if Bessler's wheel is successfully built and is proved to be driven by gravity, and a working model demonstrated, then it follows that an engine that converts angular momentum to linear momentum can also be developed, since the action or process of one must be the reverse of the other.

Such an engine would have its own extraordinary abilities.  It could move over land and water and rise upwards against gravity.  Space drive with no emissions.

JC

Who best to play Bessler?

It has been remarked on more than one occasion that the story of Johann Bessler's life would make an excellent movie. It has already been made into an opera although I have not seen it, and it seems to me that a movie about the inventor would have all the ingredients needed to make a worldwide box office success.

There is lust, greed, jealousy, theft, hatred, love, a hunt for treasure, black magic, murder, corruption in high places and conspiracy - all set against the background of one man's struggle for recognition and a prize worth millions of dollars in today's money - not to mention a solution to today's energy and pollution problems. Need I say more?

And who is to play this tenacious, conceited, highly ingenious, emotional and troubled man? This is something I have pondered on at length for several years. For most of that time I wanted a British actor to play him, because I think they are the best actors, generally speaking. It requires someone who can express ingenuity, determination, obsession, triumph, paranoia and suspicion and blind fury - and yet call for the tenderest outpouring of love on occasion and be motivated by an overwhelming commitment to his religious belief.

That was until the other day when I saw Robert Downey Jr. and recognised his outstanding talent. He seems to have the look of Bessler sometimes. I now have him as my favourite for the part, unless someone else betters him in that unique role. - and someone probably will.

JC

Flights of Fancy - Or the right interpretation?

Over the years I've had a number of thoughts about Bessler's words and what he might have meant. Some of those I have published on my web sites (listed on the lower right). Some of it is speculative but nevertheless I didn't include anything I didn't seriously consider a valid proposal.

But there are other ideas that are more subjective and I won't publish them on my websites in case someone takes them as factual, but here on my blog I see no reason not to engage in what some might call flights of fancy. Therefore I shall post some comments on Bessler's words over the next few weeks. They are still valid interpretations but not certain.

I've no idea if this will generate any comments but this blog format is not ideal for discussion so although I shall read all comments with interest, I think that it will not be possible to respond to each one,  here.  I have considered opening a forum but I do not really have the time to run  it properly so I'll leave it to those who may want more discussion to take it elsewhere.  So, for my first example consider the words by Bessler.

"A great craftsman would be that man who can 'lightly' cause a heavy weight to fly upwards! Who can make a pound-weight rise as 4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall. If he can sort that out, the motion will perpetuate itself. But if he can't, then his hard work shall be all in vain." - page.295 of my book "Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?"

Or as Rainer on the besslerwheel forum wrote, more succinctly, "When 1 pound drops 1/4 , it will (swing,throw?) 4 pounds upwards by 4/4"

or as Stewart, also on the forum, says more precisely,"He will be called a great craftsman, who can easily/lightly throw a heavy thing high, and if one pound falls a quarter, it shoots four pounds four quarters high".

The gist of the comment seems to be that a one pound weight can lift a second one pound weight four times higher than the distance the first weight falls and the lift or thrust upwards is accomplished easily - or even that one pound could lift four pounds four time higher! These suggestions are, on the face of it, ludicrous. Obviously, Bessler cloaked his meaning in apparently meaningless nonsense and yet there is a sense to be obtained from it if we can, so here is my view on the matter.

One pound falls and four pounds rise - four plus one makes five. As has proved the case often, Bessler has hidden more than one layer of meaning in his clue and I think one layer of the phrase was intended to point us to the five mechanisms again.

Secondly, included in the comment is the emphasis on the second weight being lifted or thrown upwards easily. To me this means that if the weight can be lifted easily, it must mean that it is not lifted very high, just a 'kick' upwards. One way to do this is with a long lever with a weight at its end, doing the lifting.. 

Implicit in the comment is a corroboration of another of his clues which suggests that his weights worked in pairs, so that when the first weight in a pair fell, it moved its paired weight into a position from which the wheel was made to rotate. The other four mechanisms then revolved with the wheel and each rose at some point, so one pound falling made each of four pounds rise four times each.

The use of the word 'quarter' confused my translater and he adapted the word to the English system of weight, when actually I think Bessler meant that each lever-and-weight unit rotated a quarter of a turn.  However there is another possibility, and that is that the 'quarter' referred to, simply meant that the falling weight fell the same distance as the rising weight.  The word 'quarter' was used to throw us off the scent.  He might have said that each pound rose half way when the other pound fell half way. - or they rose and fell 15 degrees each.  The important clue was that both weights moved through the same distance.

Well that's my take on this particular comment by Bessler.  More to follow.

JC

Copyright © 2011 John Collins

A gravitywheel will still obey the laws of physics

I know that it is commonly believed by some people that when Bessler's wheel is finally successfully replicated, those who inhabit the higher echlons of science will have to eat humble pie and re-evaluate the laws of physics and a few believe that the laws will actually have to be rewritten.

I have long believed that a successful version of Bessler's wheel cannot require the overturning of well-established physical principles. No matter how it might appear to conflict with the laws of physics, a gravitywheel must adhere to them. In which case when a working model is produced it will not be the laws which are wrong, but our interpretation of them.

It will be more than enough just to produce a working model and there is no need, in my opinion, to invoke some new physical law which so far has been undetected by mankind. For such a law, if it could be established and verified, would surely have been observable in some other context long, long ago. So that simplifies things because we only need to look at the laws we already accept and see how our understanding of them can be modified - without changing the them - to acommodate Bessler's gravitywheel.

I have spent a lifetime looking at these laws and I think I know how Bessler's gravitywheel was able to operate within the confines of the law of conservation of energy. I have alluded to this before, briefly, but reactions have ranged from scorn to apathy. So, as I said recently, I am currently building a model with an accompanying video, with which I intend to demonstrate that, despite the fact that gravity is a conservative force, it does not preclude the possibility of a gravity-driven wheel.

JC

66 and still trying to invent the wheel!

I'm 66 today! They say time travels faster as you age, and my goodness, is it speeding past now! It's been fifty years since I first read about Johann Bessler and even longer since I began designing perpetual motion machines, and I thought I might have solved the problem long before now.

There is a nice succession of links in this story. I first read about Bessler in a book called "Oddities: A Book of Unexplained Facts", by Rupert T. Gould. He was a Lieutenant Commander in the British Royal Navy noted for his contributions to horology and a host of other things and was described as a polymath. He gained permission in 1920 to restore the marine chronometers of John Harrison, and this work was completed in 1933, aided no doubt by his photographic memory. Harrison was the guy who won (eventually) the British Board of Longitude's prize for establishing the longitude of a ship at sea. The prize was £20,000, a fortune in those days, and it was the publication of this prize in 1714, which it is believed was the inspiration for Johann Bessler's decision to ask the same sum for the secret of his own invention, the gravitywheel. (For more on Harrison and to see an animation of the grasshopper escapement see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harrison)

John Rowley, the finest instrument-maker in England at the time, was highly praised by Harrison in each of two volumes he published. The King of England, George l, who had already recognised Rowley's expertise in mechanics, and made him "Master of Mechanics to the King", requested a special sun dial from Rowley as a gift to Karl, the Landgrave of Hesse and Bessler's patron. Rowley took it to Kassel and installed at Karl's castle and during his visit was able to meet Bessler and see a demonstration of his wheel. He came away convinced of Bessler's claims and devoted the remaining years of his life to trying to replicate what Bessler had done.

Briefly, Rowley actually witnessed the wheel, he was a friend and colleague of John Harrison whose clocks were restored by Rupert Gould who also researched and published an account of Bessler, which I subsequently read. One cannot help but speculate that Gould must have had an interest in Bessler's machine and been aware of the connections between those involved.

As someone pointed out recently, mine and Bessler's obsession with the number 55 even includes my birthdate. 5th Feb 1945. There is a five and a two, so writing two fives makes 55 and then 1 and 9 is 10 plus 45 is 55 again! Amazing (not)!

Being the optimist that I am I am still convinced that Bessler's gravitywheel will be replicated and it can't happen a moment too soon. Time is, as I said, whizzing past at great speed and the need for this machine is growing at an alarming rate. Sticking to the 55 theme, I think I should have discovered the secret when I was fifty-five however I didn't and neither did anyone else. Maybe this year as I'm sixty-six and Bessler first exhibited his machine on the 6th June 1712, (six and six) someone will do it then, but of course next year, being the 300th anniversary since then, it would be even better.

No 'wheeling' for me today - just relaxing, being waited on - and the company of my very patient family. (patiently awaiting a working wheel!) But tomorrow I return to the task.

JC