Divided Opinions

Great comments guys, on the clues and which are the best and which aren't really clues and the various interpretations of each.  I may not comment much myself, but I love reading them, so thanks and keep it up!

Ever since I became acquainted with the legend of Bessler's wheel, I have been aware that opinion is divided into those who believe Bessler's claims that he had invented a perpetual motion machine, and those who reject them utterly. The latter group is vastly larger than the former.

As time has passed I have become increasingly surprised that there aren't more people, other than we few, who have looked at the evidence and concluded that there must be something in his claims.  But of course the reason is clear, science states that such machine are impossible, and so well-entrenched in our minds is this view that nothing but the clearest evidence of their own eyes would convince those sceptics that such a machine is possible.

I know that on our side of the chasm there is a subdivision; those who believe Bessler's claims but still reject the gravity-only thesis.  This is actually an encouraging fact.  I say this because obviously the evidence which most of the world ignores has convinced some people, despite the apparent impossibility of the claims, that Bessler did not lie.  Those people seek an alternative hypothesis and some suggest the presence of an additional force which assists gravity to complete the closed circle.

It seems to me that if the evidence that Bessler' wheel really worked is strong enough to convince such people, then it should be strong enough to convince more people and maybe some within the scientific community.  Part of the problem may be that there has been no theory published which might plausibly explain how such a device could overturn the entrenched view.  I have a theory in mind and it is instantly understandable once it is described and it requires no working model to prove it.  But it is one thing to know why it is possible but another to construct something which uses that information effectively.  I'm confident that I'm right but of course only a working model will prove it.

My own construction is mostly complete, although I'm only working with one mechanism at the moment.  This is because I have to get this one right before I adjust the others.  The action is almost there but I'm not happy with its range and I shall continue to adjust it until it performs as expected.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Did Bessler's wheel arrive too late or too early?

The timing of Bessler's discovery, after some ten years research, was unfortunate - 6th June 1712.

Denis Papin's experimental steam cylinder and piston was published in 1690 and he finally left Kassel in 1707.  After more than ten years his research culminated in 1704, with a ship powered by his steam engine, mechanically linked to paddles.  He died in London in 1712.

In 1698 Thomas Savery patented a steam-powered pump.  It was not as powerful as the Newcomen engine.

In 1712 Thomas Newcomen built the first successful steam engine in the world which was used for pumping water from coal mines. Savery's original patent of July 1698 gave 14 years' protection; the next year, 1699, an Act of Parliament was passed which extended his protection for a further 21 years.

Savery's patent covered all engines that raised water by fire and Newcomen was forced to go into partnership with Savery. By 1712, arrangements had been made with Newcomen to develop Newcomen's more advanced design of steam engine, which was marketed under Savery's patent. Newcomen's engine used the piston concept invented in 1690 by the Frenchman Denis Papin to produce the first steam engine capable of raising water from deep mines.

Unfortunately for him, the work of these men accidentally conspired to rob Bessler of his rightful place among the engine pioneers of .the 18th Century.  Their machines were designed and built by creditable 'gentlemen' and backed by establishment and  members of the Royal Society in London..

I often wonder what might have happened if the others had not been there when Bessler exhibited his machine - and if he had sold it!

Some people have speculated that it was because we experienced the steam age which, via the internal combustion engine, led to the petroleum age and hence the discovery of the many other benefits from the expansion of research into crude oil, and that we might have omitted that era if we had taken hold of Bessler's wheel and thus side-stepped much that we take for granted?  My personal opinion is that combustion engines would still have prevailed.

Even as far back as 1673, Huygens carried out experiments with a basic form of internal combustion engine, fuelled by gunpowder, and although he never succeeded in building one that worked, his attempts were helpful to those that were successful.  It seems to me perfectly reasonable to think that all the same engines and their fuels would have been developed in more or less the same time period as happened, with or without Bessler's wheel. 

JC

Bessler's double portrait - what was the purpose?

Recent comments about Bessler's two portraits caused me to review my thoughts about them.  The second portrait appears to show someone in front of an organ along with a number of instruments which could belong to the organ-building industry or an alchemist or heaven knows what else.  The reason why I tend to favour the organ-builder as the intended subject is because Bessler built organs and attributed much of his success to his knowledge of their construction.

What ever the intention, it is clear that the hole which has been cut so precisely in the second portrait to permit his face in the first portrait to show through with such startling accuracy, seems to me at least to indicate two things.  Firstly the second portait already existed, or was commissioned by him; and secondly the first portrait was deliberately designed and executed to allow the precise positioning of his face to match that of the second portrait.

[EDIT  - I forgot to say that I think the second portrait was not comissioned by Bessler because it has some text underneath it which has been carefully altered to convey a different meaning.  So in my opinion the picture had already been produced some while before Bessler decided to use it.]

There are only six examples of the double portraits known to date and they are all produced with the same precision.  This suggests that both portraits were designed to appear together and the first one was deliberately drawn with the subject's head an exact match to both size and position of that in the second one. Presumably Bessler wished to present himself in two lights, firstly as the persona in the first portrait and then as an alternative one in the second.  The two personas (or personae if you prefer) being different ones. 

Now I have commented before on the slightly odd look to Bessler's left arm and hand in the first portrait; it appears to be almost a disembodied part of Bessler himself.  Also there is the impression that the arm originally was intended to come down from his left shoulder at a higher angle, meeting near to his right hand at approximately the same level.  Bessler's coat or cloak shows slight rumpling along the higher line as if it originally contained the arm.  

In my opinion the arm was later corrected to its current lower position to allow the inclusion of the alignment with the pentagram as shown in my web site at http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/html/bessler_s_portrait.html

There are further speculations about the portrait at http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/html/2nd_portrait.html which may be of interest in considering the meaning of the symbols in the first portrait.

The main question in my mind is this; what information do people think the symbols in the first portrait are intended to convey?  A jar or gourd, a skull and a book.  Any suggestions?

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Big Ben's pendulum and an old English penny - variable parameters - the key to Bessler's wheel.

I have long held the belief that the principle which drives Bessler's wheel will prove to derive from the action of parametric oscillation.  The swing, otherwise known as a pendulum, is an extremely sensitive device and perhaps the following facts will demonstrate its power and inspire a solution?

Consider the following.  The clock tower soon to be known as the Elizabeth Tower in a tribute to Queen Elizabeth in her Diamond Jubilee year, but currently known as 'Big Ben' after the bell which sounds the hours, is 316 feet tall.  It holds the largest four-faced chiming clock in the world and is the third-tallest free-standing clock tower.

The four clock dials are 180 feet above ground and each is 23 feet in diameter.

The hour hands each weigh 661 pounds are almost nine feet long and the minute hands are 14 feet long, but they weigh only 220 pounds, being made of a lighter material.  

The clock is regulated by a pendulum which is 13 feet long, weighs 660 pounds (over a third of a ton) and beats every 2 seconds.

On top of the pendulum bob is a small stack of old penny coins; these are to adjust the time of the clock. Adding just one coin has the effect of minutely lifting the position of the pendulum's centre of mass, reducing the effective length of the pendulum rod and hence increasing the rate at which the pendulum swings. Adding or removing a penny from the bob will change the clock's speed by 0.4 seconds per day.

Adding and then removing the penny daily would not result in any discernable continuous motion but in Bessler's wheel however such variation applied on a larger scale to a pendulum - as happenes in a swing by a child swinging its legs and upper body to increase oscillation - or in 'kiiking' - will generate rotation. 

If such a mighty piece of machinery can be affected by the removal or replacement of one penny, surely we can come up with some visionary means of achieving success with Bessler's wheel.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.