Restrain your excitement and your need for approbation, or suffer from premature affirmation!

I've strived to understand how Johann Bessler produced what appeared to be a continuously-turning wheel, sometimes called a Perpetual Motion machine, and in doing so I've suffered from a variety of psychological stresses. Some  don't believe in Bessler's claims but are intrigued to know how he fooled everyone, both then and now.  They make their opinion clear and in turn receive the brickbats from those others equally vociferous in defence of the legendary inventor.  Others such as myself, are firmly of the opinion that his claims were just and honest and I've spent my life seeking the answer to this puzzle but from the stand-point that he knew the real secret to perpetual motion.

As a researcher I spend every hour available for research, striving to be the one who succeeds in the search.  This is not necessarily due to a desire for fame and fortune, though I cannot think that anyone would reject some kind of recogition for success. Neither do I blame anyone for seeking those attractive rewards which should be given to that person who finds success in this rather limited field.

Politicians often fall back on something they refer to as 'received wisdom'. Basically it is the official, stuffy, unimaginative and conventional viewpoint. And it sometimes turns out to be wrong. In this field of endeavour it is the idea that a gravity-enabled wheel that turns continuously is not possible.  Speaking for myself, I am desperate to prove that the received wisdom is wrong and many times in the past I have posted on forums my personal conviction that I am about to prove it, only to find that I was wrong.  Even as far back as 1997 I thought I had solved the mystery and having said so publicly, received many scornful comments and suggestions  that I should either put up or shut up.  These responses hurt at the time but experience teaches us humility and the wisdom to know when to keep silent and let only the successful machine speak for itself.

I am frequently surprised to read so often of others who make the same mistake that I made - and I still do in private conversations!  Why is it so hard to control the exuberance, excitement and utter certainty that I'm on the verge of success?  Why can't I restrain this strange desire to trumpet my news abroad before I have the certainty of a working wheel? It doesn't seeem to occur to me at the time, that everyone feels that they are on the verge of success, or have had a revelation that they believe will lead to success

I confess I don't know, and I have to admit to suffering mild irritation when reading such comments as appeared recently on the besslerwheel forum and from time to time here on this blog.  Let people tell the world after they have the proof, and not before. Without the working wheel there is nothing to shout about.  

If I succeed in building a besslerwheel you will only know of it when it is running, and not before.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Thought for the day - String's the thing!

I have long believed that Johann Bessler used some cord, or string if you prefer, in each of his mechanisms.  I'm sure that this statement will please at least one contributer to this blog, but I insist that there was only one cord per mechanism.  In his Apologia Poetica, XLVI, Bessler included a strange passage which contained the following comment :-

The dog creeps out of his kennel just as far as his chain will stretch.

This has always seemed to me to describe a flexible link from the 'kennel' to the 'dog', and a piece of chain is similar to a length of cord in that you can pull with it but you can't push.  It is a reversable, one-way, force transmitter.which can only pull.  In his Maschinen Tractate No 9, Bessler writes

nothing is to be accomplished with any device unless my principle of connectedness is activated.

I think his  principle of connectedness referred to the cord or chain he described in the first quote above.  As I've said before, the word connectedness implies a  degree of connection and also leads one to conclude that two items are indeed connected, no matter that it is not a rigid connection.  What would be the point of such a connection?

If the 'dog'  'creeps' out of its kennel, it seems like a slow action as if it is dragging a weight. Before this action Bessler writes:-

cat slinks silently along and snatches nice juicy mice

This looks like  a much quicker action and it takes place before the slow action of the dog,  I think the mice refer to weights as do the horses mentioned later in the same passage.  So a quick action followed by a slower one might be the falling of a weight (quick) then the slower replacement of the same weight.

The point of having a flexible connection seems to me to suggest that the weight drives its second weight into the desired position, but gravity is allowed to act in returning it because if the connection is rigid the mechanism will remain balanced.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Bessler's use of the circumpunct in his pseudonym, Orffyreus.

Before you begin, let me say, this is largely speculative!

A circumpunct is a circle with a dot or point in its centre. Bessler used it in place of the letter 'O' in Orffyreus, in almost all of his abbreviated signatures as well as many of his full ones.  The above two are typical examples.  I used to think that it was his own invention and simply represented his wheel, however in the last couple of years I have begun to think there is more to its presence than I had originally thought.  It was, as is the case with every little personal addition of Bessler's, deliberate, planned and with a double meaning. 

The circumpunct symbol has a long history and has represented the sun,  and was the hieroglyphic for the the Egyptian God, Ra.  As a nazar it was believed to protect against the evil eye.  It was the Alchemical symbol for Gold.  Its use dates back to the Hebrews and Egypt and for all I know further back.  It was used by Dan Brown in his book, 'The Lost Symbol', and interestingly has links to Freemasonry, where it was used as the symbol of an Entered Apprentice. This title refers to a junior member of the Freemasons and might apply to Bessler, but for what purpose I do not know. He might have been pointing to some kind of code system used by the Freemasons.  However, I'm not convinced that he was an accredited member, even if he was familiar with much of their history and methods; although he seems to hint at the square and compass in his drawings and of course they are crudely represented on the plaque at Carlshafen, bearing his image. Two of the three famous Rosicrucian Manifestos were published in Kassel and it was always recognised as a centre of Freemasonry and I'm sure that Bessler learned quickly all he could about the subject, given his propensity for doing so in other areas of interest.  I note that in the Masonic Lodge, the emblem is associated with St. John the Baptist and St. John the Evangelist, whose feast days fall on the summer and winter solstices.

In Cabbalistic mysticism, it represented the archangel Michael, - and it is related to the monad, which is a whole new can of worms.

To the Pythagoreans, the point and circle represented eternity, whose “centre is everywhere and the circumference nowhere.” This symbol was used by the Greek philosophers to represent the point of the beginning of creation. From this symbol they evolved towards the additional rules of creation including the Golden Ratio. 

There is one other possible connection and that points straight to Francis Bacon and his bilateral cipher. This alphabet clearly shows the circumpunct and if Bessler was familar with Bacon's work as well as the symbol he would have thought it perfect for use in his signature, both as a link to his wheel but also, possibly, as a link, potentially, to his use of the bilateral code.

I guess it would look something like the above in print:-

and here, just for my own amusement is my name, suitably embellished;

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

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,’.