If Johann Bessler had Sold his Perpetual Motion Machine.

I wonder what changes might have occured to the world in which we live if Bessler had sold his machine.  There were only two potential purchasers; the first being Karl the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel, and the other, Peter the Great, Czar of Russia.  There was a third, the Baron Anton von Mannsberg, Bessler’s landlord in later years, who ordered the inventor to build another copy of his machine, but once again circumstances beyond his control prevented the examination of the model and it was finally lost to us.

Karl was a clever man, intensely interested in the latest discoveries in science theory and fact.  He financed research into astronomy and numerous other areas of the burgeoning field of scientific investigation, as well as his steam experiments with Denis Papin. Despite his initial interest in Bessler's machine he was more interested in Newcomen’s steam engine and I think he knew Bessler’s wheel would not do to pump water up the 300 metres necessary to feed the cascade. The fact that Newcomen's machine would not have coped either,  was probably realised quite quickly as reservoirs for collecting water at the top of the hill were planned before his death and they are still functioning today.

But Peter, the Czar, was another who looked into the future and sought help in every field of science and technology.  He was on his way to examine Bessler’s wheel when he died. Professor Christian Wolff had been invited to St Petersburg to head up the university recently founded by Peter and one of Wolff’s requirements was that he be involved in developing Bessler’s wheel.  So both potential purchasers failed to complete.

Peter was the best chance of securing the machine for future generations and would have succeeded in developing a useful version with Wolff's help.  Despite the much more powerful machine designed and built by Thomas Newcomen, Bessler's wheel was so much cheaper and more easily constructed, and given the poor state of technology in Russia at that time, it is likely that Bessler's machine would have thrived. During the subsequent 300 years it is inconceivable that new uses and developments would not have ocurred.

Elsewhere, the year 1701 saw the opening of the Navigation School in tMoscow; in 1715 it was moved to St. Petersburg, where it became the foundation for the Navy Academy. Later it was followed with Engineering, Artillery and Medical schools.

The St. Petersburg Academy opened on the initiative of Peter I in 1725 and played a great role in formation and development of the Russian science.  Originally the Academy was mostly based on foreign scientists such as Professor Christian Wolff, who were willing to work in Russia.

It is clear that Bessler's machine would have become something of a workhorse in areas unsuited to the development of the much more complex Newcomen machine.  But what if any, form would it take today and for what purpose?

I would have thought that given the introduction of electricity to Russia in 1876, when the first power station was built, and in 1879 electric street lighting was installed in St. Petersburg, (only a year or two after the the USA, France and England), it would not have taken long for the same development process which was happening around the world, to have taken place in Russia too.

Who knows what additional uses might have been discovered which might have pushed some of the later inventions into a lower position iin the world of technology?

I don't wish to go over old ground too often but here are a few of my previous blog referring to alternative used for Bessler's wheel.

Friday, 27 July 2018                   

Wednesday, 30 March 2016

Friday, 6 March 2015

Thursday, 2 August 2012

Wednesday, 16 November 2011

Friday, 15 January 2010

JC

The "TOYS" Page Reviewed

When Johann Bessler was arrested he destroyed any drawings which explained how his wheel worked, but he still arranged to leave a number of drawings which he felt would lead someone with the right credentials to the solution....eventually.

The torrent of text speculating about something he wrote or drew and what it might mean, is fascinating but in my opinion, so far from the inventor's actual meaning and ultimate intention as to be beyond any likelyhood of revealing the solution.  There are clues written within the text but they are ambiguous and hard to make sense of but I’m certain that in the end they will be found to make sense within the laws of physics - they have to, because there cannot be any reason or sense in trying to circumvent them.

In Das Triumphirend, Bessler makes some interesting comments which may have been largely ignored.  I have added my own theory about the meaning of the 'Toys' page after the following.  He wrote.

"In a machine such as mine, ..... the motive force, the ability to move itself and drive other objects makes up the FORM of the device, without which its framework is just any old heap of material, which has completely lost its essence.  To cause the machine to stop requires the application of a greater external force, and can be accomplished without difficulty whenever one requires it, e.g. for the machine’s longer conservation.  Such a cessation can also occur through the (page 216) wearing-out or breaking of the machine’s parts.  The first is a “moral accident”, the second a “material accident.”  As an example of the ideas I am discussing, consider the case of two small metal spheres, one of iron and one of lead.  For both of them, their FORM consists in their regular sphericity.  But we find that, placed in a furnace, one loses its shape quicker than the other.  Therefore the greater or lesser “meltability” of such spheres is not the result of “sphericalness” – common to both – but of the physical characteristics of the two materials.  And it is this “material accident” which is the FORMAL CAUSE of the difference.        

"I must stress that if a Perpetual Motion machine of the type I have described really is in conformity with the demands of the most eminent mathematicians and (page 76) engineers, then it really deserves to have the Perpetual Motion appellation no matter how fragile the material from which it is constructed.  The case is no different from that of a leaden or even waxen sphere.  They are both as perfectly deserving of the description “sphere” as is an iron one, despite the fact that the latter will withstand fire and other attacks better than the two former.  For form gives the essence of the thing."

So what can we glean from these comments? It is interesting that he capitalises the word FORM and uses bold type to reinforce the idea.  He implies that FORM can be more important than the material it is constructed from.  My own efforts to make sense of the "Toys" page, sometimes referred to recently as MT138 although it is actually MT 138,139,140 and 141, have led me to believe that the figures shown on the page simply show the FORM.  He actually uses the word 'FORMA' in both the German and the Latin text which translates into FORM or SHAPE or APPEARANCE.

So, examining the "Toys" page, in my opinion, it is wrong to assume that item 'A' represents a Jacob's Ladder.  It is actually telling you that there are five mechanisms each having a form or shape, similar to that of items 'C' and 'D', but not working as they do. Each of the five items in 'A' are not part of what appears to be a Jacob's Ladder. Item 'B' has no connection with item 'A, even though it may appear to. It is telling you that each of the five items' in 'A' have a single twist to their design.  The same information is repeated in items 'C' and 'D'. 'C' shows you the form of the mechanism and 'D' repeats it with the same twist. 

Item 'E' includes an additional piece of information about the form. It's form or shape is present in the final mechanism shape, but as Bessler states in a handwritten note, " 5. Children's game in which there is something extraordinary for anyone who knows how to apply them in a different way."  The number 5 refers to the five labelled parts 'A', 'B', 'C', 'D' and 'E', and his comment relates to those same parts.  This supports my conclusion that the figures shown are not intended to be used as you see them, but they should "be applied in a different way". For more on this see my blog of  Wednesday, 22 March 2017.  (Johann Bessler's Graphic Clues)

 In his quote above Bessler says that the two spheres are made of two different materials but they are still spheres.  Their differences are not apparent at first sight, but they each have different characteristsics and behave differently under certain circumstances, so at first sight might be misconstrued.

So in my opinion he is saying that FORM or SHAPE is important but two similar shapes may have different characteristics or to put it another way, is, use the SHAPE you see on the paper but don't assume that you understand the way that shape will function and is the way the inventor intended.  This is hard to explain. Just because item 'A' on the 'TOYS' page looks like a Jacobs ladder, don't assume that is what it is.  Separate the component parts, try merging them to get the intended design but retain the obvious differences.

This digression in DT is there for a reason and I think it is a hint to look at the drawings but don't make any assumptions abut their actions.

JC

HAPPY NEW YEAR! ..Welcome Bessler's Wheel in 2019.

My usual New Year message expresses the hope that the coming year will see the solution to Johann Bessler's Wheel, but this time I'm actually predicting that the solution will be found!

In a previous post I asked if Johann Bessler foretold the year of the reappearance of his wheel? I asked this because he published a panegyric to Karl, the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel, dated 2019.  This seemed an odd date to seemingly pluck out of the air for no apparent reason, but it did relate to the year 1719 when he published it, although 300 years out!  He also dated others, 1519, 1619, 1819 and 1919.  Hedging his bets? Some people have suggested that Bessler obtained knowledge of the future of his wheel from his subconscious mind.   I’m sure it was a coincidence, but a happy one for us because I am firmly convinced that this year, 2019, will see the reappearance of a working Bessler wheel.

In recent years I have become fairly confident that I knew how his wheel worked, but not in precise detail.  I shared my design with someone who pointed out the defects in the design, and any doubts I had about its validity were confirmed. However this year I have been familiar with the current design for several months but have been unable to do much of any work on it due to other more urgent calls on my time but  I have had plenty of time to dwell on it, consider it and turn it over and over in my mind. Once the new year is under way I intend to work hard on completing the device according to the design I have worked out from Johann Bessler's clues.

But as I always say, I've been wrong before and I could be wrong again. But I have deciphered many clues and I'm confident that my interpretations are correct, which is why I feel more confident than I have ever been before that this coming year will see Bessler's wheel working once again.  Later this year I will publish what I know, with or without an actual working model, including photos of it. Then I shall publish the book I've been working on for the last few years, explaining all of the clues I have deciphered and why they lead to the solution.

So....fingers crossed Bessler's Wheel might just reappear in 2019.

JC

Why did Johann Bessler Use So Many Codes?

Enormous amounts of text have been published concerning Johann Bessler's clues. I am as guilty as anyone in publishing my own findings, views and opinions. But as time has passed I believe I have come to understand Bessler's purpose in placing so many apparently pointless pieces of code in every conceivable place and in every kind of code known to man, or so it seems.  So why is there so much of it, when none of it appears to be of any use in discovering the solution?

The reason is, in my opinion, that Bessler wanted to make sure that someone who was familiar with a particular code would recognise a bit of it when he saw it and realise that perhaps there was more to be discovered. But it would take a considerable amount of effort to discover the final message for the simple reason that Johann Bessler contrived a new code system unique to himself, and one that would take anyone unfamiliar with the field of codes, forever if not several years of trying, to solve it.  But an expert in the field of cryptography might more quickly decipher the hidden message.

Consequently we perceive an avalanche of codes each of which is a recognised form of cipher, each capable of attracting the attention of someone with a special knowledge of that particular type of code.  I suggest he did this because he wasn't sure if anyone would even suspect the existence of coded information, or to put it another way, he wanted to attract the attention of anyone with a good knowledge of codes.  He could have stated that there was coded information within his books, but if it was too simple, that might have resulted in someone deciphering the information before he had sold his secret.

So we have alphanumeric, alphabetic substitution, Caesar shifts, Rosicrucian, Baconian, Hebrew Atbash and Albam, Pythagorian and Plato codes, geometric and algebraic codes, chronograms and  John Dee's Language of Angels; the list seems endless and yet pointless if there is no forward progress in deciphering his meaning.  But the whole purpose was get someone to look for a different code and then try deciphering it. But are there any other codes? There is indeed Johann Bessler's own ingenious code, so far undeciphered and barely recognised. The details of one of them that I have worked on can be seen here http://www.orffyreus.net/ 

Unfortunately I haven't made any progress in deciphering it other than that which I have decribed on the web site. From the evidence I have described, the existence of the code is undeniable.

Others I have found and interpreted can be seen at http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/ 

I believe I have managed to decipher one of them, but it is a work in progress and one I first began to understand about two or three years ago.  I am confident that I am making progress and what ever happens, 2019 seem to be the most appropriat year to publish it.

JC