Orffyreus' use of Hebrew letters

I was leafing through Bessler's "Der rechtgläubige Orffyreer", http://books.google.co.uk/books and noticed that page 13 has some curious hand-drawn black markings on it which I recognised as, possibly, items from the Hebrew alphabet, which Bessler mentioned in his Apologia Poetica, he learned during his stay in Prague.

A glance at the picture below tells the story.  Bessler has inked in the Hebrew letters between the two parts of the decorative pattern at the head of the page. Below is a piece I copied from the page and in it I have included two examples found on the internet which clearly match what Bessler has written.  He has reproduced the Tetragrammaton, which is what the Jews call the word for their God - Yahwey.

The Tetragrammaton, from Greek  meaning a word having four letters, refers to the name of the God of Israel YHWH used in the Hebrew Bible. Different spellings of the tetragrammaton occur in Jewish magical papyri found in Egypt. One of these forms is the heptagram, These four letters are usually transliterated from Hebrew as IHVH in Latin, JHWH in German, French and Dutch, and JHVH/YHWH in English. This has been variously rendered as "Yahweh" or as "Jehovah", based on the Latin form of the term, while the Hebrew text does not clearly indicate the omitted vowels. It translates most basically as "I am that I am" or "I will be that which I now am".

The Latin pronunciation of the letter I/J as a consonant sound was, the 'y' sound of the English word 'you'. This changed in descendent languages into various stronger consonants, including at one point in French the 'j' sound of the word 'juice', and this was the sound the letter came to be used for in English. Thus the English pronunciation of the older form Jehovah has this 'j' sound, following the English pronunciation of its Latin spelling. In order to preserve the Latin and approximate Hebrew pronunciation of Jahweh, however, the English spelling was changed to Yahweh.

The septagram/heptagram is important in Western Kabbalah, where it symbolizes the sphere of Netzach, the seven planets, the seven alchemical metals, and the seven days of the week.

  [My thanks to Wikipedia for the above information.]

I assume Bessler wished to include the Jewish version of Christianity in his unified Christain religion and he did use the word JEHOVA frequently throughout this document.  This does lend credibility to Bessler's claim that he learned some Hebrew during his stay in Prague.   With reference to the above quote from Wikipeida I should also mention the presence of the heptagram in MT 137 as explained on my web site at www.theorffyreuscode.com - see the four MT 137 links there.

JC

It's my birthday - 67!

I'm 67 today!  I have decided that if I havn't made a working model of Bessler's wheel by the 6th June this year I'll give up trying to build one, and concentrate on finally writing and finishing the follow-up book to the first one which I wrote and published in 1997 - "Perpetual motion - An Ancient Mystery solved?"

I have started and restarted it several times but I kept receiving more information which I tried to include but which didn't really fit in with the lay-out of the first book.  So I am starting again and I'm just going to tell it in chronological order and try to get a published to take it on. I realise that I gave up much to soon in trying to get the first book published.

Louis L’Amour received 200 rejections before Bantam took a chance on him. He is now their best ever selling Author with 330 million sales.

"Too different from other juveniles on the market to warrant its selling." A rejection letter sent to Dr Seuss. 300 million sales and the 9th best-selling fiction Author of all time.

"You have no business being a writer and should give up." Zane Grey ignores the advice. His 90 books have now sold 250 million copies.

The Tale of Peter Rabbit by Beatrix Potter was rejected so many times she had to initially self publish. To date: 80 million sales.

"It is so badly written." The Author tries Doubleday instead and his little book makes an impression. The Da Vinci Code sells 80 million.

140 rejections stating "Anthologies don’t sell" until Chicken Soup for the Soul by Jack Canfield & Mark Victor Hansen sells 80 million copies.

Having sold only 800 copies on its limited first release, the Author finds a new Publisher and The Alchemist by Paulo Coelho sells 75 million.

"We feel that we don’t know the central character well enough." The author does a rewrite and his protagonist becomes an icon for a generation as The Catcher In The Rye sells 65 million.

5 Publishers reject L.M. Montgomery's debut novel. L.C. Page & Company does not, and Anne of Green Gables sells 50 million.

"Nobody will want to read a book about a seagull." Richard Bach's Jonathan Livingston Seagull went on to sell 44 million copies.

"Undisciplined, rambling and thoroughly amateurish writer." But Jacqueline Susann refuses to give up and her book the Valley of the Dolls sells 30 million.

Margaret Mitchell gets 38 rejections from publishers before finding one to publish her novel Gone With The Wind. Sold 30 million.

I could go on, but the lesson to be learned in publishing is never give up - and I won't!

After that date I shall publish on my web sites and here everything I have worked out regarding the way Bessler's wheel worked and why.

JC

Hypothesis first, then mechanism design

I may be misreading the situation but it seems to me that many people attempting to find a solution to Bessler's wheel are designing new ways of achieving this and they do not realise they are effectively running on the spot,  and I'm not necessarily referring to those who attend this blog but in general.

I read that simulation software is useful because one can test many variations of designs and save hundreds of workshop hours.  While I don't doubt that these variations can be tested quickly and accurately, I think my point is being missed.  I spoke of variations in the design of various parts which occur to you when you are handling the mechanisms, where as the variations being tested in the simulation program really only apply to the changes available to you such as altering the placing of weights, pivot points or dimensions of the parts - it does not mean that the variations being tested in the software will cause an entirely new design to spring to mind just by looking at their animations.

When you have the physical parts in front of you and they don't work, you can see by means of an ability we all have - common sense -  why something doesn't work.  There is no need to run dozens of variations through the simulator when your common sense shows you why it doesn't work, and why no amount of variation in the dimensions or placings of critical parts will improve the outcome.

I often write that I have found and understand the basic concept which drives the gravitywheel, but actually that is too broad a definition.  The basic concept is the actual idea that gravity can drive a wheel continuously through action upon its weights.  All of us who believe this is possible, understand that concept.  So the extra thing that I understand is more than the basic concept.  I understand how it is possible, why it does not conflict with any of the accepted laws of physics, and what the mechanism must do. The key to success for me lies in designing a mechanism that works according to my hypothesis.

So we are looking for a hypothesis initially which will fit within current laws of physics and then all we have to do is design a mechanism which will operate within those laws and fulfil the hypothesis we have thought of. 

So to return to my first point, you must create a hypothesis to explain how the wheel could work and then you can design a mechanism which works according your hypothesis.

JC

Some advice, worth repeating in my opinion - Don't simulate - fabricate!

I know I've mentioned this before here, but from time to time, both by email and through the blog, I'm urged by well-meaning people to test my designs with simulation software, and my response has always been the same; I have tried simulations and I don't get the feedback from it that I do when I build a model, so I don't use them.  For me, there is no substitute for holding the pieces of a mechanism in my hands and, when I find that it isn't working, playing around with it and making all sorts of interesting and new (to me) discoveries.  I enjoyed that experience earlier this January and made, what I think is a momentous discovery and suddenly the so-called 'connectedness principle' was laid bare before me and I understood exactly what Bessler meant.

I am fully aware that there are several people who are equally sure they too understand it, and maybe they do; perhaps we have all made the same discovery... and maybe not.  I would never have made this short leap of understanding using simulation software because I would never have thought of moving the parts in the way I did, and even if I had, I doubt that I would have bothered to go to the trouble of entering that particular variation into the program - and there wasn't just the one variation I tried, but several different ones - who is to say which, if any, I would have tried out in the simulator?  The truth is that you can test variations so much quicker on the work bench than at a computer - and you know that what you are seeing is real and not subject to some bug within the program. Other aspects of the design now find an echo in several different drawings from Bessler and some loose ends have been tied up.

If you have never tried making models to test your design, please try it.  There are many impressive models shown on the besslerwheel forum and I am envious of the skills displayed by their makers but in all honesty there is no need to spend much money to test a hypothesis.  I have often made test mechanisms out of cheap materials such as cardboard, ice-lolly sticks, string, glue, plastic plates, drinking straws, lead weights for curtains and even blutack.  If the test answers the question then you can make something you wouldn't be ashamed of displaying!

I have no idea how many models I've made and if I knew, would I have counted separately all the variations on one design I'd tried?  Bessler suggested he'd made hundreds and I'm sure he did if you include the variations he tried. I would say the same thing - hundreds.

So my advice is, don't depend on just testing the ideas out on simulation programs because you may miss a vital clue if you don't build a model.   I'm sure that the successful machine will be designed by someone who is building models and not by someone who relies on simulation software.

JC