The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune...are best ignored.

I wrote this to remind me of the heat of my angry reaction to the jeers and sneers I suffered in the early days - but on this day, in the cool of early dawn such gibes seem of little consequence and are best ignored.

I used to surf the net looking at comments about Bessler and it was clear then, and nothing has changed, that very few people know any details about him nor about the evidence which has convinced most of us here that he was genuine.  I read many comments to the effect that we were all wasting our time in trying to prove that he was not a con man.  Other remarks said that we had forgotten or never learned the true facts about gravity, force and friction etc.  But in fact I had a good education and since I left school I continued to learn and try to understand everything I could about the subject and yet I still believe Bessler was genuine because my training as an engineer convinces me.  So instead of merely claiming that Bessler was not a con man, I have tried to explain his success within current scientific laws.

I would describe the tenor of some of the comments as scornful laughter at our stupidity.  A common remark was that history is full of con-men like Bessler, attempting to defraud their investors and customers with promises of perpetual motion. At that time I used to be a regular on Jerry Decker's old keelynet forum, (http://keelynet.com/) one contributer called me a snake-oil salesman, a predictably offensive term but one I had to look up at the time, as I hadn't come across it before.  I checked and it's "a derogatory term used to describe quackery, the promotion of fraudulent or unproven medical practices. The expression is also applied metaphorically to any product with questionable and/or unverifiable quality or benefit. By extension, the term snake oil salesman may be applied to someone who sells fraudulent goods, or who is a fraud himself," thanks to wikipedia.  Frankly that is quite an offensive comment given that I am not trying to defraud anyone.

So when this is all over and the proof is out there for every one to see - that is, Bessler wasn't a fake and he really did have a continuously turning wheel - how many of those hardened sceptics will apologise for their contemptuous, disdainful comments which made myself and others who support Bessler's claims, feel despicable and unworthy?  Of course the answer is none, because they could only judge us on what they knew, and little of Bessler's work has filtered through and what has, has had to compete against the mainstream science which teaches us that Bessler's claims violate the laws of science.  But I look forward with tremendous enthusiasm and a certain amount of gloating, to the day when it becomes apparent that they were all wrong, and we are owed an enormous apology and a meek admission that they should not have been so patronising, smug and just plain obnoxious.

So I used to get all fired up by the nastier comments directed towards me but now I just let it pass me by and I rarely get into an argument with anyone because the only way to persuade them to see my point of view is for someone, anyone, to produce a working version of Bessler's wheel - and I think that will happen very soon.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Does size matter? And other questions about Bessler's wheel.

Bessler said, [paraphrased here] that he could make his machines in such a way that, big or small, he could make the resulting power small or big as he chose. He could get the power to a perfectly calculated degree, multiplied up even as much as fourfold. I was thinking about that and I guess the obvious ways to increase speed and/or power would include using more mechanisms within one wheel, or increasing the size of the wheel, and using more wheels on the same axle.  But I wonder what effect increasing the size of each weight would have?

Would it increase the wheel's speed or would it just provide more power or torque at the same speed?  More speed doesn't necessarily lead to more torque but more weight should increase it.

How would you increase speed without increasing the size of the weights?  Adding another wheel would effectively increase the size of the weights, but if you halved their size and used two wheels on one axle I wonder what if anything, the resultant change in speed might be?  Having double the number of mechanisms should have an effect on speed.

Increasing the size of the wheels but using the same weights suggests that the distances travelled by the weights within the wheel might generate more speed but would it produce more torque?  In theory yes, because the weights might be applying their mass at a greater distance from the axis. On the other hand although more speed might be possible would the greater distances travelled by the weights actually have a slowing effect when compared to a smaller version?

I realize we need to know what the design of the mechanisms were in order to know what the answers to the questions would be, but sometimes asking questions helps us make progress in discovering something about the nature of the mechanisms.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Do you show signs cognitive dissonance?

Yesterday at last, I managed to find some time to work on my project.  I am using my own interpretations of Bessler's clues, as will anyone who is trying to build Bessler's wheel, and those interpretations can be viewed as being highly subjective as opposed to objective.  By that I mean that these interpretations are in the end just an opinion whereas objective ideas are factual and provable.  But at some point my subjective opinions will become objective and true, I hope!  

Of course such opinions as I hold are biased because they are arrived at through a succession of revelations relating to the supposed clues I have found.  But because an objective piece of information needs to be factual and unbiased my view and the expression of my ideas can't be anything other than subjective.  So until I can either produce a working model or publish a complete explanation of my ideas, I can't give out any objective information until I've finished building my wheel.

Obviously I think I'm right or I wouldn't bother building the wheel, but discussing them here does not seem advisable as it would take too long to explain how I got to where I am. If I did try a shortened explanation it would miss the sequence of discoveries which confirm my interpretations are correct.  Some months ago I began to write a detailed document and I planned to put out a video with pictures and some filming to explain my reasoning, but sadly I haven't had time to continue with this but I shall get back to work on it as soon as possible.

As I have continued along this path I have discovered numerous additional clues which confirm what were previously just my interpretations of some clues.  When the full explanation comes out in due course I think people will amazed at the number of unarguable clues, found everywhere within his works, and I'm not only referring to the number 5.

An acquaintance who is a psychologist, told me that I exhibited typical signs of cognitive dissonance because on the one hand because I had been taught that gravitywheels were impossible and I believed it, but on the other hand I was trying to prove that they were possible and potentially valuable machines and this was causing me some conflict.  I had to look it up to understand what he was getting at.

Apparently if you hold two or more opposing ideas or beliefs it causes you discomfort.  Mountain climbers know the risk of death is ever present but they continue to climb; smokers continue to smoke even though they know it may kill them eventually.  To relieve the discomfort caused by these conflicting beliefs, we all attempt to reduce the dissonance by altering existing beliefs, adding new ones to create a consistent belief system, or alternatively by reducing the importance of any one of the dissonant elements.

That psychologist made me feel as if I was someone who suffered from some kind of weird rare psychological delusion and might be a step away from the madhouse!  But the fact of the matter is that I don't feel any discomfort with my apparently dissonant beliefs, so either I have succeeded in altering my existing beliefs or I've reduced their importance.  

I think the former has occurred, but it shows you what a load of old tosh these so-called experts spout from time to time. According to him we all show signs of cognitive dissonance! Of course there are some who think my attic's a little dusty....  

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Priorities

Little comment has appeared regarding the string of letters and numbers after my posts but several emails have queried their point and some good guesses have been made, so I have decided to explain their purpose - and I suppose in a way this is another clue.

In a letter to Leibniz in 1677, to try to ensure his priority in his work on calculus, Sir Isaac Newton,wrote:- “I cannot proceed with the explanation of the fluxions now, I have preferred to conceal it thus: 6accdae13eff7i3l9n4o4qrr4s8t12vx”.

The string of letters and numbers shows how many times each letter appears, which produces an anagram and once rearranged gives:- “Data aequatione quotcunque fluentes quantitates involvente, fluxiones invenire: et vice versa.” meaning, “Given an equation involving any number of fluent quantities, to find the fluxions, and vice versa.”

In 1610 Galileo Galilei, the Italian astronomer believed he had discovered two moons orbiting another Saturn.  He published the following anagram to ensure his own priority,"smaismrmilmepoetaleumibunenugttauiras". When rearranged, Galileo's secret message was, 'Altissimum planetam tergeminum observavi', and translated reads,"I have observed the most distant planet to have a triple form", which related to his mistaking the rings around Saturn for moons. 

So... in order to try to establish my own priority in this matter, I have decided to post my own encoded information regarding something I discovered about eighteen months ago.  This discovery is not a theory but a well-established and easily demonstrated fact which I have tested to my own satisfaction. I have verified that Bessler himself used it in his machines and published encoded informaton about it.  I do not know if it is his 'connectedness principle' however, although it could be, but I have alternative possible candidate for that.

I did not make the discovery by deciphering Bessler's clues but purely by a combination of frustration and desperation at my lack of progress.  I am not claiming that this is an undiscovered concept so much as an overlooked one in this particular application.  The following code has been slightly modified from the previous ones but the resulting plaintext is identical:-

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

JC