My Favourite Bessler Clues

I often get asked which of the many clues that are associated with Bessler are the best in my opinion, and which do I think will lead us to success.

There are textual clues as well as graphic, but I tend to favour the graphic ones, although there are a couple of pieces of text which in my opinion offer the most useful information and could help in our search for success.  But a single clue taken in isolation is hard to fathom and in my opinion is best understood when considered in conjunction with others.  Bessler had no desire to lie, if only because it would reflect badly upon him at a later date, even if the wheel was sold and accepted as a success.  But he could and did write ambiguously.  Much of his text when referring to the wheels, appeared to be either contradictory or even nonsensensical, but a search for anything constructive while attempting to accept the apparent meaning in an experimental way has led me to some interesting understandings.  Here are some of my preferred clues, not in any particular order of merit for me.

For instance Bessler says, "...these weights are themselves the PM device, the 'essential constituent parts' which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity."  This tells me that whatever arrangement is responsible for continuous rotation, it has to be ultimately gravity which enables it.

-and, “Alternately gravitating to the centre and climbing back up again." this seems obvious but is ambiguous, look for an alternative meaning which fits the words.

Or these ones,  “'Lightly' cause a heavy weight to fly upwards!” 

“I don't want to go into the details here of how suddenly the ‘excess’ weight is caused to rise." 

  “The inward structure is so arranged that by disposed weights once in rotation they gain force from their own swinging."

“This pressure of two fingers was applied until the moment when a single one of the weights present inside the body of the device began to fall.”

.

The above four quotes give me a feel for the mechanical action, but no detail.  The next one does give a little detail: "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 upan outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axle. Later, they swap places, and so they go on and on changingplaces all the time."  Very informative, and as before, don't take the words at face value, look for alternative ways to understand what he says.

This following text is the most sensible piece of advice given out by Bessler and I think it applies to almost all designs currently being worked on; "Many would-be Mobile-makers think that if they can arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the center than the others, then the thing will surely revolve. I learned all about this the hard way. One has to learn through bitter experience.”  It seems as though the design features he is dismissing are an absolute necessity for a gravity-enabled wheel to revolve continuously, but as it stands, his advice appears to rule it out utterly.  Do not be fooled, he admits elsewhere that his design relies on weights being a little more distant from the center than the others,so how do we explain this?  It's another example of his textual sleight-of-hand; it comes down to working out how you get the weights to be a little more distant from the center than the others.

There are many other clues in the text but the following one is my absolute favourite and one which is a supreme example of Bessler's deviousness, containing ambiguity, apparent nonsense and absolute truth, if you can work it out.  "A great craftsman would be that man who can "lightly" cause a heavy weight to fly upwards! Who can make a pound-weight rise as 4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall".  I understand it completely with the proviso that there are two possible outcomes either of which it can argued, he meant but which hands-on building will resolve.  There are other translations available but I like this one the best and they are each decipherable in the same way.

I'll discuss the graphic clues in my next blog, but I warn you I shan't be giving much away.

JC

Johann Bessler's three possible outcomes.

Johann Bessler spent an intense and lengthy period of time searching for the solution to a perpetual motion machine.  Having suceeded in his self-appointed task he then spent an equal amount of time trying to sell the secret for 100,000 thalers.  His options for obtaining such a large sum were extremely limited; only rulers or princes of kingdoms had the necessary finances.  

He describes early on how he was told that a perpetual motion device was worth its weight in gold, or words to that effect.  Clearly, despite his strong religious convictions he wanted fame and fortune and he went all out to get it, via his chosen route - a perpetual motion machine.

There were three possible outcomes to his search for the solution to perpetual motion.  The first outcome; his search ended in success and he sold the secret for 100,000 Thaler.  That didn't happen. Secondly, he succeeded in finding the secret but failed to sell it.  That is the outcome we all know, and which we hope to correct in order to achieve his desired ending, if post humously.  But the third outcome involves him spending his entire life searching for the elusive secret and never finding it.

What might his life have been like in those circumstances?  Actually he had several options open to him.  Herr Weise, his schoolmaster, had tried to educate many of his pupils for positions within the establishment, and we know that Bessler was a star pupil in which case perhaps his prospects were good for a position at court, or within the maintence of large organisations such as Kassel, as blacksmith, surveyor, armourer or instrument maker - he had the skills. Or he could have continued as an organ maker or a medical man, even if not entitled to call himself a Doctor, or even found work as a watchmaker. His options seem almost limitless compared to most who had his upbringing.  We know he had an entrepreneurial ability, so his chosen course seems almost suicidal given the reception his claims had.

But he never wavered from his determined course, despite numerous setbacks, he seems to have been obsessed with finding the secret. Such a preoccupation or fixation is easily understood by we fellow researchers, but hopefully we do not exclude all external stimuli to the degree he did.  We are required to work, to earn a living and provide for our families to some extent, if possible.  This limits the time we can spend in our chosen field of research, but Bessler states that the chief reason he succeeded when all before had failed, was for the very simple reason that he had no family and no income other than that required to feed, clothe himself and fund his activities.  He was therefore able to devote evey working hour to finding the secret of perpetual motion.

This brings me to another aspect of our research.  Much is made of the marvellous ability of simulation software to permit the testing of various designs.  Yes I agree it can be a great time and expense saver, but only if you have the complete design available to input. One of the greatest benefits for me has been the occasional 'eureka' moment when, in mid-assembly of a particular mechanism, I suddenly see an alternative which looks more hopeful than the current design, and I either complete the assembly I'm working on before returning to the new avenue of promise to test my new revelation, or sometimes I forgo completion of the current assembly and go straight to the modified version.

I'm sure many will say that obviously the new avenue of design did not fulfill its promise and therefore such revelations are not worth exxperiencing, but I disagree.  One of those periodic revelations were exactly what Bessler experienced and many of us who insist that hands-on building is the only way to achieve success know exactly what I mean.

One more thing; producing a sim of a working wheel will have absolutely no benefit in convincing the vast numbers of sceptics in accepting the claim to success.  Neither will producing a video of a working wheel.  The only thing that will convince is the precise description of all the parts with explanations of how and why they work ...plus a full explanation of the actual concept; the reason why it does not conflict with the physical laws.  Once that information is published and enough people test the theory and explanation to prove the claims, then and only then will the concept be accepted and become incorporated in the world of science.

JC

Trading Width and Height, a Curiousity.

This subject regularly pops up on the besslerwheel forum but no progress has been made in finding a way to use the principle to advantage.  A few years ago I found something I thought might have some mileage, but I've never seen it discussed so I decided to offer it here.

In the drawing below, the curved red arrow in fig 1 shows the path of a weight on the end of a lever, starting at the twelve o’clock position it falls to three o’clock.  The green lines show that the width and the height measurements are the same.  The letter 'C' is supposed to represent the centre of a wheel and is therefore at the point of rotation of a proposed wheel upon which the mechanism is mounted

In the second drawing below the upper portion of the red curved line, shows by the green lines that the weighted lever has fallen a shorter distance than it has  moved horizontally.  On the other hand the lower portion of the red curved line shows by means of the blue lines, that the horizontal distance is much shorter than the vertical distance.

Can we use this to design a mechanical advantage? Arranged on a revolving wheel it might perhaps be possible.

I've done some work on this and I thought it might be of interest.  If you use the drawings or discuss it anywhere else I'd appreciate due acknowledgement and a link to this blog.

JC

Errant Assumptions - they are usually at the root of nearly all failures.

There is some muddled thinking going on and I'd like to clarify what I believe are facts.

Firstly Bessler's first two wheels began to spin spontaneously as soon as a brake was released.  For some reason a few people find this fact hard to accept.  For the wheel to do this means that it was in a state of imbalance at all times.  This is not hard to understand, in fact I think that it is a prerequisite for a continually spinning wheel.  The evidence that his wheels did start without a push is well documented and I am puzzled by the seeming scepticism that is engendered in some people's mind.

There is also a tendency to assume that there were eight weights and/or mechanisms in the wheels - why? The only evidence which includes the suggestion that eight weights were in a wheel, is in Fischer Von Erlach's report on his two hour examination of the Kassel wheel. As I've said many times, the Kassel wheel was different to the two earliest wheels because it could turn in either direction, whereas the earliest ones only turned in one direction, plus it needed a gentle push in one direction or the other before it began to accelerate to its maximum speed.  The conclusion is obvious and again is backed up by documentary evidence, the interior design of the Kassel wheel and it's predecessor, the Merseberg wheel were more complex.  So why assume there must have been eight weights inside the first two wheels?  Or, why try to design a more complex wheel before you've managed to build a successful one direction wheel?

Then there are the energy sources sought for the wheels; the minuscule depletion of mass to drive a twelve foot wheel!  Ridiculous!  Gravity enabled but not the direct source? Do we pick and choose which comments Bessler made and discard those we find hard to accept?  If we think Bessler's claims were genuine then the solution lies, as he said, within the weights themselves Manipulation of falling weights is the only possible scenario which ties in with Bessler's description and it must be possible even if no design has been discovered so far. It's not using gravity directly but using the result of gravity acting on a weight and making it fall.  Some say what's the difference? Well for those who are particular about such things, the fine detail must be examined, if we continue to believe Bessler, but at the same time accept that gravity itself cannot be used as a form of energy, that leaves, as Bessler, put it, the weights themselves.  The only energy available is that which results in the weights moving under the influence of gravity.

It's a bit like the official view on heavier-than-air machines before the Wright brothers showed how it could be done.  The theory of gliders was recognised long before the Wrights achieved powered flight, but before them there was no suitable engine, they were too heavy.  It was the introduction of an aluminium crank case which lightened the engine enough to allow the airframe to lift it in flight. Yet the academic response to their claims and even to a model that actually flew, was denial.  But people believed instinctively that it might be possible to fly an aircraft, in the same way that we believe that is possible to construct a weight driven wheel which will spin continuously.

We need to keep it simple, just as Karl described the interior of Bessler's wheel, so simple a carpenter's boy could make one if he was allowed to study it for a short while.  Anything which requires complex mechanics should be avoided.  Bessler was afraid that people wouldn't think the wheel worth so much money once they knew how it was done - that is what he said.

Ignore anything which does not apply to the one way wheels, but rule out nothing.  Conflicting advice?  No, but don't just assume eight weights/mechanisms are necessary.  Accept that the wheel started spontaneously when the brake was released.  Make a working model; the Wright brothers did and even then there were many sceptics who denied its possibility, so we have an uphill struggle even if a working model is produced so for that reason, in my opinion, simulations are a waste of time.

JC