Hmm - No References to my Books about Johann Bessler on Wiki.

Curiously, despite the fact that I have added information on the subject of Johann Bessler on Wikipedia and other 'official' search engines, I can find no mention of the five books I published, which give more information in one place than anywhere else as far as I know.  There are no links to any of my web sites though I have added them in the past.

All the references and links point to either historical accounts or negative articles about Bessler.  I have added new information three or four times over the last few years but somehow all those references and the information I provided have been removed.

It isn't because I need to see my name up there but rather, anything that catches the attention of someone with the instinct, imagination and luck to make the leap from merely repeating what every one else has done to finding that unique concept which Bessler found, is exactly what we need. Any method that attracts the attention of the right person is valid.  Without such information on Wikipedia how can people who might be interested find out more about it?  I realise that google offers the ways and means of getting more information but Wikipedia lends authenticity to such searches.

If I was paranoid I might think there was a conspiracy to silence any attempts to promote Bessler's work, but I'm not.  I suppose that because the Bessler wheel type of perpetual motion is declared impossible by  historical precedent, Wikipedia censors anything which might seem to validate his claims.  I guess we could test that out by seeing if any other kind of alternative science which has not been accepted as legitimate by its peers is referenced with links and articles supporting its claims.

It seems to me that the majority of people interested in this subject are of an age similar to my own. Could it be that the younger generations have been brainwashed into believing that an interest in this subject is so laughable that they cannot even take a moment to consider it?

Computers and all their related offshoots require a different discipline quite alien to the way we thought out solutions to physical problems in our youth.  Just as I find it hard to get to grips with computers, so they, the younger generation are taught to find the answers with computers.  I think that we older ones are used to visualising mechanical processes, whereas the new generation can't because they don't need to.

But who removed the references I added to wiki?  Presumably someone with the education to 'know' that my information isn't backed up by the educational institutions and is therefore proscribed.

JC

Gravity plus Gravity Drives Bessler's Wheel

I decided to post this both here and the the Besslerwheel forum to publish my idea about the secondary force involved in Bessler's wheel and hopefully generate some discussion about its potential as possible step forward towards a solution.

I could apologise for writing in simple terms without the use of numbers and formulae, but I won't because I think they put people off and confuse some fairly basic concepts.

Bessler’s wheel used weights, he makes that clear.  Weights can only have an effect if they either overbalance something or they fall – I leave impetus and inertia to one side for now.  

Gravity enables the weights to fall, or as I prefer to say, it makes them fall, therefore let us cut out all the dancing around and say that Bessler’s wheel is driven by gravity.

What about gravity?  It supposed to be a conservative force, but what does that really mean? To me it simply means that it conserves its energy, or to put it another way, it’s a continuous force, therefore no matter how much work it does it is never diminished, at least not as far as we are concerned here on earth. 

We are taught that you cannot obtain continuous rotational motion from gravity i.e. in a wheel.  The reason is that the force acts on all parts of the wheel at the same time, so that even in a overbalancing wheel the falling weight has to be lifted back to its pre-fall position and it has to be lifted against the force of gravity.

In fact this does not preclude the possibility of achieving continuous motion, its just that no one could see how it might be achieved.  It is correct to say that gravity having made a weight fall, cannot be used to also raise the same weight again.  We need another force to raise it back to its pre-fall position.  For hundreds of years perpetual motionists have searched for the other force without success.  Even today we continue to look for the means to lift the weight back up and many have been forced to conclude that it is indeed impossible to find a force capable of acting quickly with equal power to gravity.

That force has been under our noses all the time.  Gravity is the only available force which matches the desired criteria.  Obviously we cannot use the falling weight’s own  kinetic energy to raise it or another weight back up, because that energy has already been used to rotate the wheel a little.

The answer, it seems to me is to have another weight whose sole purpose is to raise the first weight back up.  Obviously this second weight cannot have an effect on rotation or it would negate the rotation gained by the first weight.

Bessler have us two good clues about this.  Firstly he said his weights worked in pairs, and this seems to support the second weight notion.  And he also described in his Apologia Poetica how “A great fat herd of fat, lazy, plump horses wanders aimlessly”.  I think that this describes the weights whose job it is to raise the fallen weight, in their inactive state.  When they are not raising the fallen weight they must be in a neutral position, possibly their action takes place in the Z plane but I have design which does not require that.

JC

Why Science is wrong about Bessler's Wheel

Science has taught us that perpetual motion machines are impossible, they violate the laws of physics and we are all wasting our time and our lives in chasing this fantasy. It's interesting to look at the support for both the scientific point of view and the dogmatic one.

Science relies initially on theory which is an idea held contingent upon 'evidence'. A theory can be a set of statements supported by evidence  that can be used to predict natural phenomena. Predictions are the fundamental support of theories and they evolve from empirical observations.

Even 'established' laws of physics are still theories though regarded as proven by evidence and the fulfilled predictions based on that evidence, but they are still subject to re-evaluation if either; new evidence comes to light; or a better (simpler) theory comes along that explains the same evidence.

Dogma or doctrine, on the other hand, could be a statement originating from a revelation, vision, image, dream, or thought or any other source of mental origin. Its support is faith. No evidence is required and neither is it necessarily sought. Reliable and consistent predictions are absent from faith related statements. Dogmas may change and evolve exclusively from human decision and not from any empirical observations.

Perpetual motionist's beliefs tend to fall somewhere between science and dogma. Adherents believe, for what seems to them to be good reason, that perpetual motion machines are possible, in particular, gravity enabled machines. I used the word 'enabled' with good reason as we have been told an infinite number of times (it seems!) that gravity is not an energy source. Leaving that aside for a moment, perpetual motionists feel intuitively that a weight driven machine could be made to run continuously with no additional input of energy other than that from falling weights.  It seems so obvious to them, and I include myself,  that we think that science must be wrong - at least in rejecting Bessler's wheel.

But, without a theory explaining how this might be achieved, the disciples of this belief can only be regarded in much the same way as members of a religious faith, who, requiring no evidence other than their own subjective certainty that what they believe must be true, exhibit blind faith when questioned on their convictions.  This may be regarded as too simplistic a view but without evidence to the contrary where does this strong but inexplicable certainty come from?

Well in this case, Johann Bessler's extremely convincing demonstrations of his wheels provides the strongest evidence ever reported about such machines.  The vast majority of people dismiss the very idea that Johann Bessler could possibly have built a genuine perpetual motion machine. Personally I don't like to use the term 'perpetual motion' about a weight driven machine; it isn't perpetual motion so much as continuous motion, providing the force of gravity is present.  Continuous motion sounds more believable too, not that that is any kind of criterion to support such a contention.

The laws of physics must remain unaffected by this machine; there can be no conflict with them, in which case the theories I spoke of earlier will remain intact and supported by the evidence provided by Bessler's machine.  Only the predictions are wrong about such machines being impossible.  As I said above, the predictions are subject to re-evaluation and in this case they will be once the proof is self-evident, in the form of a working model.

JC

September UPDATE - at last!

I have been extremely busy for the last few weeks and I apologise for being absent from this blog.

My log cabin is finished and my workshop which was to be in it, has had to be moved to the garage, which is more suitable for drilling and sawing etc  The log cabin is now my writing and drawing place and will provide a good space to complete the numerous illustrations required for the book I am engaged in writing  I read somewhere that a surprisingly large proportion of authors prefer to work in a quiet bolt-hole out in the garden. Perhaps there they can let their creative juices flow away from the distractions they’d otherwise encounter in the main home or in a traditional office space. Not even a phone for many, and certainly no spouse, kids or visitors to disturb them. Perhaps this, together with the peace and tranquility which the garden lends, is the secret to their success …well you never know, it might work for me too!

I've had a number of emails and posts asking when I aim to be back so here is an update for now and normal service will return shortly

The code breaking has continued despite the hiatus caused by moving house and helping my family in several tasks, including building another log cabin, clearing and tidying another one's garden and of course my own self-imposed plans.

I read with fascination the many claims to know the secret to Bessler's wheel, and remember how many times I also made the same claim, only to discover that I was wrong.  I told myself back then, that I would not make the same mistake again...until I had found a work-around that would satisfy the demands of Bessler's wheel, without conflicting with the accepted laws of physics - well I have known of such a concept for several months but I was unable to figure out how to build it into a working wheel.  Now I have a complete design and it is all due to Bessler's clues and all I have to do is build it.

But I think that I have said too much already, I don't want to follow a certain person's lead on the BW forum, who has so far achieved about 90,000 views without actually saying anything!  So although I believe I have the secret I don't want anyone thinking I am making a claim to actually have it, I just think/hope I have...along with all the many others who also think they do.

The book so far contains over 30 illustrations, all of which will be refined before it becomes available as a download.  There are possibly going to be another 20!  If you think that is a lot, I have already combined some and eliminated others.  The reason for so many is that there are so many solid clues in Bessler's work that each step requires an explanation and an illustration of what it is and how it is used.  I'm confident that there will be little or no argument about my explanations, but I want to get it as precise and as good as I can get it, before I release it into the world outside!

So back to the log cabin - I must post a picture of it in my next post, it is thing of beauty and I am inordinately proud of it, considering I built the whole thing single handed.

Back soon, happy wheeling!

JC