5th February - 72 today! Update

It's my birthday today so I thought I'd write something a little different.  First an update.

Building work is drawing to a close on my house.  My log cabin which is now known fondly, in my family as Bessler Research Activity and Inspiration  Nerve centre (BRAIN!)  is finished and has all my drawings, computer files etc in it, but actual hands-on work is now possible in my somewhat truncated garage.

I think I'm in pretty good health but I remember back in school reading George Orwell's book, 1984, and wondering if I'd make it to that date!  So far so good! That phrase reminds me of Steve McQueen's comment in the film, "The Magnificent Seven", when he said, “It reminds me of that fellow back home that fell off a ten story building. As he was falling people on each floor kept hearing him say, "So far, so good."'

Two people known to me suffered brain aneurisms last year, one was only 40 and survived thank goodness - it was touch and go; but the other, who was in her seventies died.  So it is not sufficient to assume good health is enough, you need some good luck too, to avoid these invisible weaknesses which can manifest themselves at any moment without warning.

So my new year resolution is to publish my research this year pending success or failure in my wheel building.  Now that I have my workshop back and the workmen are about to leave us in peace, I can get on with it all.

One of the unavoidable consequences of this research which is full of documentary information is that the information is ambiguous.  It is all presented in a 300 year old foreign language, it apparently includes encoded information, but no one is sure what this information is designed to reveal; will it be Bessler's last laugh, tying us up in knots in our attempts to extract real information, which is only the inventor showing us how he fooled everyone, or will it contain actual instructions for building his wheel?

This ambiguity leads to numerous false starts, and the dissemination of inaccurate or just plain wrong information presented as fact.  But as time goes by I see also a faint light at the end of a very long tunnel.  It is my firm belief that Bessler strived to leave sufficient information after his death, to allow us to work out his discovery and reconstruct his wheel, but he also had to find a way to prevent those people in his day from working out his secret.  These two requirements were and are incompatible. This makes our job doubly hard.  Are we in the 21st century any cleverer than those of Bessler's day?

People such as Blaise Pascall, Sir Isaac Newton, Gottfried Leibniz, Leonard Euler - the list in endless, that tiny sample of people of Bessler's day demonstrates that the human mind was at least as ingenious as any today, so how do you go about leaving information encoded in such a way that people of those days could not decipher the message and yet others of a later age could do it?

I came to the conclusion mnay years ago that Bessler must have left something in his family grave which would point the way to full disclosure.  We know he obtained permission to be buried in his own vault in his garden.  I and another reseacher sought details of the burial site and came to the conclusion that the site was covered by a carpark, and was probably destroyed at some point prior to its construction.  The only other potential site was the windmill from which he fell to his death; but this did not belong to him and he must have built it assuming that he would return to his home and garden once that commission had been completed.  It is therefore most unlikely that that anything of value would be found there.  I have also visted the windmill which is still in existance although in a somewhat ruinous state.

To my mind that is the most likely method he might have chosen to direct those who searched for a solution after his death.  Nevertheless, I remain confident that my own research will provide a lead in the right direction if not the complete reconstruction and it will be apparent this year.

Cheers

JC

Bessler's Workaround - a method for overcoming a problem or limitation in a program or system.

Given that the search for the solution to Bessler's wheel has gone on for what seems like for ever with no real sign of any progress, and that all apparent alternative means of lifting the fallen weights has drawn a blank.....maybe its time to consider the impossible?

Despite the scornful comments which this post will doubtless engender, from those who (understandably) believe what they have been taught, that gravity cannot be used to drive Bessler's wheel, - and indeed see no convenient loophole which could accommodate my suggestion which follows -  I remain convinced that Johann Bessler found a workaround that allowed him to do just that. I will try to explain why, so please read on.

In the first place much has been made of the vagueness of his statements regarding his probable assumption that gravity drove his machine. The first, and final, impression that I got when reading Bessler's words was that he believed his wheel was driven by gravity.  He implied that it was the cause of the weight's movement. But..... .subsequent analysis by those who search for such nuances of expression, believe that he was not suggesting that gravity alone,  was the source of his wheel's energy, but some additional other unidentified agency.

Having considered the idea that gravity was the prime initiator of rotation, and also the cause of continuation of such motion, someone such as Bessler would have considered every conceivable method to achieve continuing action, including the use of gravity and/or some other agency to relift the fallen weights at the opportune moment, just as we who research this subject have continued to do so since before Bessler and after him.  He states that it was following a dream that he attacked the problem with renewed vigour and enthusiasm, which culminated in success.

This dream seem to have confirmed something he was considering, and the end result was success.  So what could have so inspired him to contimue his research with so much confidence?

This other agency has been extensively sought, and suggestions made as to its nature, but no one has come up with a convincing story.  The truth surely is that if a suitable energy souce had existed, it would have been found by now, and since it hasn't I must conclude that the other agency is the same as the one which caused the weights to fall, i.e. gravity, and that he devised a workaround to avoid the problem.  I'm not sure if Bessler was aware just how impossible his claim to have invented a machine which was driven exclusively by gravity was regarded by the establishment, but I doubt he believed it, even if he had been told many times.  In which case he just persevered with the search instictively searching for a workaround to access gravity  for all his wheel's energy needs.

We know that he was aware of the wall of scepticism around him, but was he aware of exactly why he was not believed?  Why gravity was utterly rejected as a potential sole power source?  He made his discovery before he became notorious and it is likely that he succeeded because he did not know in those early days, why it was impossible!

There were even fewer alternative forces available to Bessler than there are today, and to assume that he found some additional energy to lift the weights, due to changes in ambient temperature, magnetism, air pressure, steam, static electricity or some other force, begs the question why not take the simple route?  Use Occam's razor - when you want to explain something, make no more assumptions than are necessary.  Assuming that some additional source of energy was found, for which there seems to be no evidence, seems to me to be complicating an already puzzling problem.

To find the answer I think we have to dismiss the idea that there is absolutely no means of using gravity to be the sole source of energy for Bessler's wheel.  I believe that there is a workaround that will work, and when it is found it will be very simple in concept, but not so easy in design.  As some of you may know I believe I have found what seems to be that simple concept, which is why I continue to argue that gravity can be used to drive the wheel around for as long as the wheel and its components remain within the field of gravity, subject to certain design elements.

As long as we continue to deny the possibility that Bessler found a way of using gravity to drive his wheel, we shall fail to replicate his machine.  We must bite the bullet and seek a workaround for Bessler's wheel.

JC

Johann Bessler - A Man Before His Time.

Johann Bessler's timing was unforunate; Thomas Newcomen installed the first working steam engine at a coalmine in Staffordshire, England, in 1712, the exact same year that Bessler produced his first working gravity-enabled wheel.  When Newcomen died seventeen years later, over 100 Newcomen engines had been built throughout England and Europe.  Bessler had sold none.

Newcomen's engines were proven; loud, dirty, inefficient but reliable, and using coal in a coalmine made fuelling them easy, even if consumption was high.  Bessler's wheel was an unknowm quantity; even though Newcomen kept the details of his machines secret everyone could see what they were capable of.  Bessler also kept the details of his machines secret, but their power appeared to be extremely limited, in comparison.

In addition he promoted a principle which even then, was loudly rejected by the scientific community whereas steam power had already undergone a series of proven inventions by Denis Papin, who published a study on steam power, including a number of new ideas.  So Bessler's invention was ignored for the same reason it has been ignored ever since; it's premise that it acquired its energy from gravity was proscribed.

But ..... if Bessler had been born today and posted a youtube video of his machine working, with all the parts visible in detail - surely he would have been in the same position as we find ourselves in today, if we were able to replicate his wheel?  It seems curious that he made the discovery back in 1712 when Thomas Newcomen was about to ignite the Victorian industrial age.  Bessler's wheel was far more suited to today's world, than the early 18th century, in my opinion.

It's almost as if he was out of time with his invention;  300 years premature!  Even if the scientific community of Bessler's time had accepted his claims to have used gravity to drive his wheel, the competition from Newcomen would have killed his invention stone dead.  

Despite various claims that Bessler's wheel is too limited in its ability generate usable energy, I do not accept this view.  To me it seems obvious that his wheel can be scaled up to provide sufficient energy for many modern uses.  We have discussed this before on this blog, so I'm not necessarily inviting discussion on this point, but I wanted to reiterate the importance of not dismissing Bessler's wheel as a useful and practical invention at the start of the 21st century - and that it's time is now.

JC

Why I'm sure that 2017 will reveal Bessler's Wheel.

When I  look back at the posts here and on the Besslerwheel forum, at this time of the year I note, with some sadness, how each new year we are optimistic that this year will be the one!

The truth is, we want it to be this year, whatever year it may have been, but wishing is never enough, even when you have devised a new mechanical arrangement.  Something new, a novel principle or an additional element that has so far been lacking is needed, then we may see our wishes fulfilled. I am as guilty as anyone for forecasting success, and yet despite numerous setbacks (failures) I remain optimistic that this year will see success.

So what's different about this year, why now and not before?  Ever since I began this search roughly 55 years ago, I have ignored Bessler's advice and concentrated on creating an over-balancing wheel, totally dependent on having its weights further out on the falling side and closer in on the rising side.  A few weeks ago I asked the question, "is over-balancing a side-effect of some other principle?"

This was an obscure clue to something I'm working on at the moment.  I suddenly realised several months ago how Bessler's wheel could do all that it did without conflicting with the well-known argument that gravity-driven, or as I prefer, gravity-enabled wheels, violate the laws of gravity.  I'm convinced that the dream  Bessler had, which encouraged him in his persuit for a solution, revealed to him the same principle I discovered.

Although I'm not ready to share the information yet, until I've tested it, I can say that there is confirmation of a sort in Bessler's text in his Apologia Poetica.  The passage I refer to is the one where he begins, "For greed is an evil plant"' etc. (chapter XLVI). He mentions various substances and the effect gravity has on them, and includes other types of force.  If the confirmation I referred to sounds a little vague it is because a Bessler is deliberately vague, but there is something about the words he uses which struck a chord with me and I related it immediately to my own discovery.  I doubt anyone could make the connection in reverse, you have to understand why he included it and have the principle in your mind before the words make sense.

So even if I am unable to incorporate the principle in a working wheel, I will share the information widely, and that is why I remain more optimistic than ever before because this year there is a new element to include in the wheel's design which has never been there before.  Someone, maybe not myself, but someone will make the wheel work this year, of that I'm certain.

JC