My Hopes and Intentions for the Summer of 2018.

I have been planning to publish a video of a working Bessler wheel for a couple of years, (I haven’t got a working one yet!) ever since I found what I believe to be the true design or concept which formed the basis of the device.  I also intended to publish an explanation and demonstration of the details of the extensive range of clues which I uncovered.  These plans have been largely on hold for most of the last two years, firstly due to our decision to move house to a smaller property, which unfortunately lacked a workshop, and latterly to a string of random but serious illnesses within our family that required our presence almost daily.

Our circumstances are improving and I have managed to create a small working area in a somewhat reduced garage space and begun construction of the machine which I hope to have finished within a few weeks.  If in the end, the machine I have built does not work, as I freely admit, is a possibility, I shall immediately publish details of the discoveries I’ve made including the design of my wheel.

My hope is that someone will take my information forward and succeed where I failed, but of course I don’t think I will fail!

Once this machine is up and running no one will be able to deny that gravity may be the cause of the rotation if not the source of energy driving it.  I shall look forward to seeing the numerous red faces among those many people who scorned my determination to prove Bessler’s claims were genuine and who dismissed my suggestions; one called me a snake oil salesman (had to look that one up!) and  others just regarded me as a fool.  One thing in this field of research, you do acquire a thick skin!

So many ‘experts’ derided the subject of my book about Bessler, dismissing all the evidence as either contrived, misread or blatantly exaggerated.  Any discussions about the book began with the basic premise that such a machine as Bessler described is axiomatically impossible and therefore Bessler must have been lying. 

This has been the whole problem right from when Bessler himself tried to convince the authorities that his wheel was a perpetual motion machine as it was known then.  Yet here we are 306 years later and the position is exactly the same; prove it by revealing the workings or shut up and go away!  Fortunately I decided many years ago not to take the patent route for several reasons, so I shall be happy to reveal how it works......when it does (or doesn't!)

JC

Bessler the man versus his achievements.

When I began to publish information about Johann Bessler, I stuck strictly to the facts as I knew them then, so I included Bessler’s own comments about his life and feelings and emotions.  I also described the reactions of other people, not just their reactions to his claims, but as well, their impressions of Bessler the man.  These were important details to include, but to me, the most important facts were those relating to his wheels; the descriptions of them and the tests they were required to undergo; were the tests exhaustive, sufficient and carried out as well as possible given the times they lived in?

I believe they were as good as could be expected, given that Bessler did not wish to divulge the design concept.  He also had the benefit of Gottfried Leibniz's advice on the kind of tests he should arrange.  The tests do, in my opinion, provide the strongest evidence that Bessler’s claims to have discovered the secret of a machine which showed continuous rotation enabled by gravity.  They were absolutely genuine.

It does seem to me that some people on the forum are only now studying the mind of the man, rather than his works, to find fault with everything about him.  They suggest thst he was a showman, a conman, he told lies etc.  Those things are true but do not negate the other evidence.  We have no conception of how people survived in those days, there were no state handouts, no where to go for help and a man had to live on his wits just to find food and accommodation.  Once he had successfully completed the first part of his burning mission in life; to find the solution to perpetual motion; Bessler set about finding a way to publicise it.  His previous actions however morally dubious, do not necessarily mean that everything about him was unprincipled - he did what he had to do to survive.

So when discussions are taking place about the mind of the Bessler please make allowances for the times he lived in, his limited education and Leibniz’s opinion of him.  Leibniz was one of the cleverest and most accomplished men of the time and he called Bessler his friend and asked for people to make allowances for his manners as he had not been brought up to accomodate the correct etiquette of those far off days.

History  is full of accomplished scientists, inventors, authors and painters, whose works are widely admired, but most of whom had the usual human weaknesses.  Many showed personality disorders such as paranoia, dramatic, overly emotional or unpredictable thinking or behavior and manipulative, exploitative interactions with others.  But they were still admired for their accomplishments and Johann Bessler too, will be admires for his determination to find the solution to Perpetual Motion, once his machine has been proven.

JC

Precautions Against Loss of Information

Recently someone asked me if I had made provision for the publication of my discoveries about Bessler’s wheel, in the event of my early demise.  I gave the question some thought and began to appreciate the difficulties in making such an arrangement.  Creating the document is the easy part.  Publishing it is easy to, if you have somewhere in mind; I considered BWF and this blog.

The difficult bit is asking someone to publish it according to the instructions with the document, at a time when they care least about such a trivial matter, and probably wouldn’t have an idea about how to go about it.  One could of course consign the completed document to a trusted friend and ask him to publish it, but how would he know you had passed away?

It seems obvious that news of my death might percolate around this little community eventually but my recent experience says no.  Mike Senior, my friend who translated every word of Grundlicher Bericht, Apologia Poetica, Das Triumphirende and Maschinen Tractate; not mention the hundreds of letters to German libraries, museum, record centres etc, translating my words into German and their’s back into English for me to read, died  eighteen months ago and I didn’t find out for six months.  I only found out when I did a search of the death notices in the local newspaper.  I thought he was in and out of hospital for hip replacement so at his request did not visit him.

Yesterday I heard news of another friend who was about to make me famous or infamous!  Nick Turnbull died a year ago from cancer. Nick was a firmer TV producer for a Granada Television.  He was also a director, author publisher and TV pundit.  He had interviewed me at length twice and was in the process of putting a pilot of the propose film forward at an international film festival.  The film was provisionally called "Believing in Bessler"; he warned me that competition was stiff and not expect too much, but when I didn’t hear from him for several months I tried to contact him several times, but no luck.  It was a chance meeting with a mutual friend that led to my discovery of his death.

So you see my point?  There are legal ways of having the process arranged but I can’t be bothered going that route, but doubtless I shall think of something.  These deaths do make one aware of the transitory nature of our existence.  I’m 73 and feeling in pretty good health, but you never know what’s around the corner.  It makes me realise that I’d better stop procrastinating and get on and finish my wheel!

Bessler found a way to publish after his death; unfortunately he made it too difficult to interpret his information.  I think I'm there but until that blasted wheel materialises its still just empty words.

JC

Karl, the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel, Found Bessler’s Wheel was Easy to Understand.

When I began my biography about Johann Bessler, I had already completed several years research into his life, acquiring many documents, as well as much additional information from historic records, and I decided to publish everything I had found, concentrating on evidence provided by Bessler himself, and as much as possible from witnesses.  I hoped to provide enough of an incentive to persuade others to seek Bessler's solution.

I believe that Bessler fully intended to sell his machine if at all possible, but he seemed right from the beginning, to think that he might have to accept post humous acceptance, which is why he left as an alternative enough clues so that some one later, after his death, could still discover his secret.  To that end I was certain that Bessler would not have included any lies about his machine although he definitely wrote ambiguously at times.  Lies could be challenged by a purchaser of the wheel, after the event, and Bessler sought acceptance to higher social circles, through the sale of his machine. Lies, would not help either in the sale nor its aftermath.

As for the evidence of the eye witnesses, obviously they could not see inside the machine but they did their best to provide descriptions as accurately as possible.

It has therefore puzzled me from time to time to see many valiant, determined efforts to replicate Bessler's wheel, while undoubtedly making erroneous assumptions or just discounting some evidence that we can assume was accurate, in order to complete their designs as they saw them, or according to their pet theories.

I refer, for instance, to the frequent declaration that Bessler's wheel had eight weighs.  Where did this figure come from?  There is the letter to Sir Isaac Newton in which Fischer von Erlach describes the "sound of about eight weights landing on the side towards which the wheel turned". But this refers to the Kassel wheel, capable of turning in either direction and requiring a gentle push in either direction to start rotating, and which gradulally accelerated to full speed.  Fischer spent at least two hours with the wheel and could only say that there were about eight weights.  We can only speculate about the examination, but I'm sure Fischer attempted to define exact;y how many weight he could hear landing, and yet he couldn't be precise, which suggests that there was a lot of distracting noises occurring at the same time.

Let me explain why this eight weight assumption is wrong; let us return to Bessler's first two wheels which were only able to turn in one direction.  They were able to begin rotation as soon as the brake was released.  Not only does Besssler tell us that these two could begin to rotate spontaneously as soon as the brake was released, but we also know that many spectatorres were encouraged to screw a bolt in and out to slow or bring the wheel to a halt, by simply making the end of the bolt rub against the side of the wheel, and unscrewing it to release it to allow it to regain full speed.  The wheel did not require a push to start, it started spontaneously.  But why did Bessler invent a wheel which could turn in either direction?  To answer the accusations from some people that the wheel must have been wound up.  Bessler believed that the two directional wheels would answer that criticism.

He set out to design this two way wheel and it has always seemed to me that the first and most obvious solution might be to set two wheels, linked together on the same axle, to see what would happen, but with one set to drive the wheel in the opposite direction to the first one.  Obviously this would remove the spontaneous start, but perhaps a push might set them of spinning, and depending on which direction the push was given might provide accelerating rotation.in that direction.

But here is another assumption which Occam's Razor would appear to rule out. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the simpler one is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is. So when I see people ignoring the simplest explanation for the design of the two way wheels, by suggesting some clever mechanism which would allow both directions from one set of weights I'm extremely sceptical.  Why complicate what may be a simple solution to the two way wheels?

The eight weights applies to the two-way Kassel wheel; some weights may have been padded to remove or reduce the sound of their impact; this means there may have been one more for eac direction; this could add up to five weights for each direction, not four.  Bessler even admits to adding felt on his earlier wheels to deaden the sound they made. For someone today to be designing a one-wheel with eight weights is therefore illogical; designing a two-way wheel before you've designed a successful one way wheel is also illogical.

In my opinion the one-way wheels required five mechanisms.  The two-way wheels require five mechanisms for each direction.  This is something I have established to my own satisfaction, but that is not to say that some other configuration requiring more weights is not possible, but for me its a case of Occam's razor again.

JC