Update - and musings on the word 'pairs'.

The test rig did not perform as I had hoped.  I completed the construction of the single mechanism and oriented it so that when one weight fell, the other weight was lifted in a certain way, but there was insufficient mechanical advantage available to achieve the full lift.  I would like to show the details so that you can see why I was optimistic that this would work, but I'm not ready to show that yet.  The concept hidden below my initials at the end of each blog, is still the key to success in my opinion, and I have another design to work through before I can discuss this openly.

My theory that parametric oscillation was the key to understanding Bessler's wheel has kind of dropped in importance. I still think it has a part to play, but only in the way that moving weights within the wheel, back and forth, within the period of one rotation, will overbalance the wheel. "A parametric oscillator is a harmonic oscillator whose parameters oscillate in time. For example, a well known parametric oscillator is a child pumping a swing by periodically standing and squatting to increase the size of the swing's oscillation" (from wikipedia).  So the parameters of the weight's positions alter during the time of one rotation.  In other words I have discarded the notion that replicating the actions of a swing might be the answer, but I still believe the correct movement of the weights will lead to success.

One of the strange features of this research is that one can become completely convinced that a particular design concept is the answer. No other method can even be considered - that is, until you have proved to yourself that you were wrong.  Now another plan has slipped into my mind and is supported by another revelation about Bessler's words!  How cunning that man was, to present us with ambiguity upon ambiguity! One of the things I've learned about what Bessler wrote - and I guess it's fairly obvious when you think about it - he describes things in an ambiguous way, yes, and his words are accurate, but only in hindsight.  His intention was, in my opinion, to write comments which could be understood in more than one way, but even the alternative way was not right because only after his wheel had been built and sold could he then point to the many clues he had left and with a certain amount of glee, and say "that is what I meant when I said, blahdeblah!"  The words were written in such a way that no-one could doubt their actual meaning once it was explained.

Take this translation of one famous comment, "He shall be called a great craftsman who can easily/lightly throw up a heavy thing, and when one pound falls a quarter,it shoots up four pounds four quarters. &c." Apologia Poetica

There is an abundance of clues wrapped up in this ironic comment.  I found seven separate pieces of information in it, and the clever thing about it is that if is misinterpreted, or should I say, alternatively interpreted, it reveals another double meaning one of which is also valid. Plus of course it is also tongue-in-cheek by suggesting that it would indeed take a great craftsman to achieve something that appears, on the face of it, to be impossible - when another interpretation reveals what he really meant.

I will discuss the designs I have been working on upon my return from Spain, but for now I shall just comment on the following passage from Apologia Poetica.

" So then, 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."

Later translations suggest that the literal reading of the text goes, "a work of art must be driving many pieces lead; they are now always two and two;"  I did not see this apparent mistranslation when my friend Mike Senior first showed it to me.  Later he admitted that he took the meaning as 'pairs' simply because that is what he thought Bessler meant.  

But the word for pairs is variously, 'PAIRS = paarweise {adv}; in Paaren; PAIR of twins = Zwillingspaare; paar = twos; paarweise = in pairs; in twos; by pairs'.  Why didn't Bessler use that well-known word paars?  I have a theory....

If you had two weights working together as a pair you would use the word 'paar'; but if you had three weights, A B and C, working together, first you might have weight 'A' move weight 'B' and then upon weight 'A's return under gravity, again, it moves weight 'C', 'B' having already returned under gravity.  So out of three weights you are using two and two = AB and AC, alternately.  In confirmation of this possibility  note that there are two drawings in Das Triumphirende, which show wheels with three weights to each mechanism.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

The Legend of Johannn Bessler's Wheel, also known as ORFFYREUS.

This blog is temporarily closed to comments while I take a break and continue with my experiments to reconstruct Bessler's wheel.  My first task is to complete a test rig I'm building to evaluate the design of one mechanism; this is an attempt to try to make it perform in the way I have designed it to.  If this works I shall make several identical mechanisms and attach them to the wheel.  I am undecided as yet, whether I should immediately have five such mechanism on the wheel, or initially test it with fewer.  I have always believed that Bessler recommended five for the working machine, but he seems to suggest that he was able to at least obtain some very slow rotation with just one mechanism. For me the problem is that one mechanisms would require more careful balancing than multiple numbers and therefore something between three and five seems to be the better option if I wish to obtain a proof of principle.

If the test rig fails to deliver - despite any adjustments I might see fit to make - then I shall probably publish my design and explain how I came up with it; if it does work then the final test, which will require that I attach a number of mechanisms to the wheel, will follow and, I hope, prove that their operation is working according to the correct principle.  In this case there will be a further delay before I open my blog for comments again, while I follow a plan I devised should I ever meet with success.

During this period I shall put up a brief account of the Legend of Bessler's Wheel., as follows:-

The Legend of Johannn Bessler's Wheel, also known as ORFFYREUS.

In 1712 Johann Bessler (aka ORFFYREUS) exhibited a machine which he claimed, drew its energy from gravity. Despite nearly twenty years of the most stringent tests, examinations and public trials, not the slightest sign of deception was ever found. Bessler died 33 years later, in poverty, still maintaining that his machine was genuine and there was no convincing evidence to the contrary.He had a number of supporters as well as enemies, and among his champions were some of the most respected men of the day. These men, included Gottfried Leibniz and Christian Wolff, top scientists of the calibre of Newton.

Bessler wanted to sell his machine for the sum of £20,000, a fortune in those days, equivalent to well over a million Pounds today. Despite the apparent stupidity of asking such a large sum of money, it was not unique and in fact Bessler based the sum on the one offered by the British Board of Longitude, which, at the same time, was offering £20,000 to the first person to discover a means of locating the exact position of a ship at sea, longitudinally. John Harrison eventually won the money although it took him and his son many years to get all of it from a reluctant British government.

Bessler failed to sell his machine, not for a lack of customers, but because he refused to allow access to his secret until he had the money in his possession. He offered his head to the axe man if he should be found to have deceived his prospective clients. But his determination not to risk being cheated defeated all negotiations. He died in harrowing circumstances years later, building Europe's first horizontal windmill to his own design of course. In mid-winter, starving, weak and in debt, he fell to his death. The massive base of the mill still stands, decaying, weatherworn and utterly neglected, in a small town in Germany.

A lifetime's research has convinced me, against the traditional teachings of science, that Bessler's wheel really did work and it completely convinced all who examined it.  I first encountered Johann Bessler at the age of fifteen, and I'm now sixty-eight and I have total conviction about his claims to have designed and built and continuously turning wheel.  There has never been a more urgent need for this 300 year old technology to be rediscovered than right now.  If you are only the slightest bit intrigued by this story, please visit the websites linked at the edge of this blog.  

I'll be reporting back as soon as I have something to say.  In the meantime, keep working at the solution guys!

For those who don't know, the odd collection of characters after my name hold the secret principle of Bessler's wheel, encoded for now, and deciphered by myself some three years ago from Bessler's papers, all availbale from my websiteat www.free-energy.co.uk

John Collins  (JC)

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Update and a short hiatus for me.

My work on my own project to reconstruct Bessler's wheel is progressing at last and I plan to complete my single mechanism test rig in the next day or so.  When and if that works as I hope, then I will build some more mechanisms and test the final wheel in the next couple of weeks.  If the test rig experiment doesn't perform as I hope, then apart from seeing if there are any further adjustments I can make which will improve the situation, I'll have to reconsider my options.  I await the results of Øystein's build with great interest, but the two of us seem to be approaching the solution from two different perspectives and who is to say whether either or both, or none of them will prove right or wrong.  There are others out there who also believe that they are on the brink of success, but it would be foolish not to remember that we have been on the brink of success for what...300 years now!

I mentioned above that I intended to add 'more mechanisms', but I did not say anything about adding the ubiquitous five!  The reason for this is that lately I have come to the conclusion (as everyone has been telling me for the last, I don't know how mnay years!) that perhaps having five mechanisms wasn't strictly necessary for a proof of principle wheel.  Bessler said, "If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in the machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself at all, but, on the contrary, when I arrange several bars, pulleys and weights, the machine can revolve much faster..."  If my wheel turned so slowly but still continued to turn without stopping then I should consider that proof enough for me.  Then I could add sufficient to make a clear demonstration of the wheel's power.

I  have written 309 blogs and received 334,815 visitors over that time which works out at just over 1000 per blog, from more than ten countries.  I'm proud of this but it doesn't really compare with other blogs and to tell the truth I'm running out of ideas to write about.  What I thought I'd do is to leave the blog as it is for a few days to guage reaction and then leave it closed for some weeks with just a brief account of Bessler wheel on it until I have something useful to report.  That would either be some more information about my own theory or the revelation that my wheel worked.  If the information related to the latter then there would be some short period of time before I was able to say anything publicly anyway.

So it's time to take a break (not my Spanish break yet!) and see if anyone wishes me to continue writing and perhaps some will offer subjects to comment on.  

In the mean time a big thank you to all who commented, both positively and negatively - you can't have one without the other.

Best wishes to all and good luck.- and keep me informed!

JC

Look for a different principle for the solution to Bessler's wheel

After a liftetime's experience in Besslerland, one thing I have learned is this; there are hard and fast rules in physics and they cannot be bent or deformed to accomodate personal convictions about how Bessler's wheel worked and even though you may come up with numerous ingenious designs for gravity-eneabled wheels, they all have to be compatible with the laws of physics.  That is why I do, from time to time, suggest such things as the parametric oscillation (PO) as holding the key to the solution.

The reason why I do this is because I want to get people thinking about how it might be achieved without going the 'over-balancing route'. This particular blog is not so much about parametric oscillation (PO) but more about the need to find a way to use gravity to drive round a wheel, that is compatible with the laws of physics, but, most importantly, leaves behing for the lessons of history, the simple over-balancing wheel.

PO is simply, swinging on a swing and maintaining the motion by altering the position of the body relative to the fulcrum or crossbar on which the swing hangs.  Oscillation by itself will simply slow down until it comes to a stop, so you need a way to generate energy to maintain the swinging. Traditionally people have sought to overbalance the wheel by moving weights inwards and outwards from the centre of rotation, but it must surely be obvious by now that, as the scientists confirm, such a method will not work.  After hundreds of years without a single runner, except for Bessler's, no show means no go, pardon the aphorism.  

Did Bessler use PO?  In my opinion,yes.  He said that simply overbalancing a wheel was a waste of time and piling more weights on simply confirmed that it would not work.  But PO doesn't simply mean overbalancing although it does form a part of the action.  First you have to generate the initial energy which is induced by allowing a weight to fall, and it isn't necessary to have it fall into a position which would overbalnce the wheel.  It's job is to move another weight of identical mass and size, into a position which will then lead to a small angle of rotation in the wheel. 

Compare this action to that of the person on a swing.  To initiate movement the swinger leans backwards to start a small angle of rotation, and then forwards to repeat the action in the opposite direction.  With the right timing, he or she, can add the force generated in the first action to the second one, thus increasing the distance rotated back and forth.  The rider's action produces rotation just as the first weight does when it falls and moves the second weight.

The rider flexes his arms or pulls on them to move his body into an overbalancing position and that starts rotation so the movement of the arms is similar to the fall of the first weight.  Separate from the arms is the body which is equivalent to the second weight.  In the case of the sitting swinger, when he leans back, his weight is moved behind the fulcrum, thus moving the swing seat forward; and then he leans forward to bring his body weight in front of the fulcrum thus pushing it rearwards again.  

A more efficient method for our purposes is for the swinger to stand on the seat.  In this case he moves his body weight closer to the fulcrum and further from it dependant on whether he is swinging forwards or backwards. Of course he still needs to start the movement by altering his body position to the front or rear of the fulcrum, then he can adopt the rise and fall method This is more efficient use of the rider's energy.  In Estonia, as I have mentioned several times over the years, they have a national sport called in Estonian 'Kiiking'. In this case the swing has rigid ropes made of steel and the rider is fixed by his feet to the swing seat and this permits him to swing back and forth with increasing momentum until he completes a full turn and several afterwards.  In competitions the Estonians lengthen the steel ropes which makes it much more difficult to generate a full turn.

It is this technique that I am sure we can turn to our advantage and I believe is what Bessler incorporated within his wheels.

However if you do ot subscribe to this theory then you must find an alternative that does not depend entirley on simple overbalancing and as far as I know the only other potential techniques currently being studied either avail themselves of the centrifugal/centripetal force generated in turning the wheel, or David Cowlishall's Gyroscopic Inertial Thrust (GIT!).

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.