The “Great Craftsman” Phrase Deciphered.

In his Apologia Poetica, Bessler included many textual clues, some encoded and some merely ambiguously phrased so that getting the true meaning from each was a struggle. This one is puzzling and in my opinion, has led to a misunderstanding of what he meant, however in the following explanation I believe the meaning becomes clear.

He wrote, “a great craftsman would be he who can lightly cause a heavy weight to fly upwards, or as one pound falls a quarter, cause four pounds to shoot upwards, four quarters.” This seems on the face of it to be nonsense and yet by picking it apart one can get at the meaning.

Note that within the quote he mentions that there are five weights; i.e., one plus four, and each one is equal to one pound. Secondly, one pound falls a quarter. How do we define what he meant by a quarter? In this case he was referring to a clock and a quarter of an hour meant 90 degrees. How could this single fall cause “ four pounds to shoot upwards four quarters”? 

It is very simple. In the first part above, the word ‘quarter’, referred to, not just 90 degrees but also to a clock. In the second part the word ‘quarter’ also refers to a clock but this time he has confused us by using the words ‘four quarters’. ‘Four quarter’s equals ‘one whole unit’. Each hour on a clock is divided into 30 degrees, so the words ‘four quarters’ meaning ‘one hour’ as used here equals thirty degrees. To paraphrase Bessler’s words, “a great craftsman would be he who, as one pound falls 90 degrees, causes each of the other four pounds to shoot upwards 30 degrees.”

You might think it would have been better to have said that when “one pound falls 90 degrees, it causes one pound to shoot upwards 30 degrees”, but that would have removed the information that five weights were involved, so it had to be four weights plus the one, and he liked to obfuscate otherwise it would have been too clear.

When he suggested that this advice would be understood by a great craftsman, I think he meant that it was possible to grasp his meaning if you recognised that at first sight it was impossible, and therefore you would have the mechanical knowledge to realise it, and work out the real meaning, and he was also informing us that those two angles were an important ingredient in the mechanism. Such a strong mechanical advantage would certainly ‘shoot’ a weight upwards ‘lightly’.

PS - Some people think I have never published any clues, except those on www.theorffyreuscode.com but you may be surprised to learn that I published this interpretation in a blog dated 14th October 2011, and the clock in September 2016 and many others at other times.  It’s  amazing to think I published this interpretation almost ten years ago and I see people are still trying to make four pounds shoot upwards by causing one pound to fall the same distance! I’m beginning to wonder if it’s worth publishing any more until I’ve finished my wheel.  Until you see the final design the clues are largely meaningless and I’m not going to publish any of the really useful ones until I’ve completed my own wheel!  I apologise if this is disappointing, but I hope that it won’t be long before I finish the wheel and I can publish it all and await the reactions.  

JC

Science, the New Religion.

The opinion that perpetual motion (PM) and Bessler’s wheel are impossible is so well established under the heading, ‘ science’ that it is incapable of change, modification or dismissal, because it has been accepted for more than three hundred years. The birth of ‘science’ was the eventual and inevitable response to religion and the priesthoods and those charlatans that spouted ‘faith’ as the answer to everything, and it replaced it with testable and shareable facts. Science provides a framework to organise observations which can be referenced and confirmed by other ‘scientists’.

Using inductive reasoning leads to the creation of theories which can be tested and if reproducible can form a basis for further theorising, but sometimes a wall is encountered which seems to bring progress to a halt. This leads to the assumption among established ‘scientists’ that all the facts are known and it is time to move on. But among younger-minded thinkers such stale opinions are open to reinterpretation, they seek a paradigm shift. I use the term ‘younger-minded thinkers’ to describe those who do not accept the tried and tested opinions that were drummed into them in their formative years, they seek innovative, imaginative solutions which weren’t available at the time the old indurate opinions were established.

The method used to acquire knowledge by observation, the empirical method, has been in use for a lot longer than three hundred years, and often we may observe some action without knowing the how or why of it. Bessler’s wheel was observed, tested and thoroughly examined. Rigorous scepticism about the tests was applied, but also note was taken of the opinion of the one man, a person of the greatest integrity, who insisted on being permitted to observe the interior of the wheel in action before agreeing to sponsor the inventor, Johann Bessler.

In today’s world scientists would demand information about how the wheel worked, but they would either have sign an NDA or the inventor would apply for a patent, (or give the solution away), but Bessler had no option other than demand the money after the machine had been subjected to the scientific method, empirical testing, observation and the respected declaration of an honest, knowledgeable man.

Some people say that the publication of the solution to Bessler’s wheel will result in a paradigm shift in what we know about gravity. Is gravity a conservative force? Yes of course it is, but that isn’t actually relevant. Gravity makes things fall, but it can’t make them rise again, it’s a one way force. Work done by gravity depends on the initial and final positions, regardless of the path taken. If the starting and ending positions are the same, as in a circular path, the net work done is zero.

Obviously Johann Bessler told the truth when he said that the weights were literally the actual PM which caused the wheel to turn, but if gravity is conservative, how is this possible?  It isn’t gravity that makes the wheel turn, it’s the weights.  Gravity enables the wheel to turn but it is the action of the falling weights which makes it turn.  Bessler provided the information that the weights were the PM,  but it was dismissed or ignored, but actually what he said was correct.

This whole view of gravity-enabled non-stop rotation was ignored, sidelined or scorned just because no one had ever managed to design a mechanism which could do what Bessler’s did.  It was never impossible, just never achieved, no proof of either outcome before Bessler. But the fact that no one had ever produced a working PM wheel in the whole of the history of mankind, was sufficient evidence, so it was believed, to assume it was indeed impossible.

But look at the evidence; Bessler’s wheel passed every test designed to prove or disprove the inventor’s claims.  A man of unimpeachable reputation validated it. Bessler was never found to be cheating and died still maintaining his claim to have built not one, but several PM machines.  So there is no evidence that it is impossible, just faith in the ‘scientists’ who repeat by rote, ‘it is impossible because gravity is a conservative force’.

It’s been said many times but it is nevertheless true - science is the new religion.

JC

Bessler’s Pentagon Rotated.

The pentagon shown in the previous blogs is inverted and concerns have been raised about the evil connotations associated with this figure, so you will doubtless be pleased to discover that perhaps Bessler was also concerned, because he left information about how to rotate it to a more virtuous position, although not necessarily for reasons connected with his soul. 

I’m jumping the gun a bit here but to calm those God fearing souls who are worried about my publishing an inverted pentagram, I am posting some information earlier than I originally intended to.

The Merseburg illustration contains a list of numbered parts. The numbers run from 1 to 24, as was used in the original version of the illustration printed in his first publication Gruendlicher Bericht (GB), but in his later version, the padlock which should be numbered 24 seems to have got its numbers the wrong way round, it reads 42.

For those who think it’s a typo, rest assured, it isn’t. Apart from the fact that printing from a wood block, or woodcut, requires skill and patience and the result is checked throughout to ensure accuracy, the numbers in both illustrations add up to 660 for reasons to be explained shortly, which means that he must have removed a number 18 in the second version to retain the same total, and that is what he did. See the illustration below to see how and why, 

The red line shows the path of the rope as it passes behind the wheel, and also indicates the starting place to obtain the pentagon.  The green line runs from the point on the padlock up to the point where the  top end of the red line crosses the edge of the wheel. The numbers on the padlock need to be rotated to read 24 and the green line should also be rotated 180 degrees.  This rotates the pentagon too.

In the illustration the inverted pentagon is shown in yellow, and the upright one is shown in blue. Notice that it is still slightly tilted to the left, for reasons which will become clear later.

Sorry this is a short blog, but I’m very busy working to finish my wheel.,

NB.  I'm adding a brief explanation of the number anomalies found in the drawings in GB and DT because I did not explain my reasoning in the above blog due to lack of time

Bear in mind that Bessler wanted to provide clues but we have to work at explaining some of them, and he also usually provided more than one way of discovering his intentions.  So here goes:-

In GB the items are numbered from 1 to 24, in DT they are also numbered 1 to 24, plus the lone
number 42. This looks like a simple printing error but of course I have always maintained that
Bessler deliberately introduced such anomalies as clues. I’ll discuss this one later, first we need to
look at some of the features apparent in the numbering.

It becomes quite clear that some of the items are ‘over-numbered’. By that I mean that Bessler
seems to have labelled the parts with a particular number more often than one might think was
necessary. For example the main pillar supporting the wheel is numbered 4, four times. The
slimmer pillars are numbered 12, and two of them to the left are numbered twice each, yet the
other two are only numbered once each. Some numbers appear more often than others and not
just because they are attached to more similar pieces. After number 18 the rest of the numbers are
lone examples. I speculated that this was done to achieve a certain total, and having identified each
part once with its number, he then sought to add to the total by labelling the same parts more than
once. Obviously the higher numbers would make the jumps toward his desired total too big so he
started at the lower end of the range and gradually added numbers until he had achieved his
desired end.

The numbers in GB total 649 and those in DT 633 - not apparently significant, but let’s look more
closely.

In GB there are two number 18’s yet one has been omitted in DT. In GB the number 5 is barely
visible in the box at the bottom of the sideways-on wheel, yet it has clearly been omitted in DT. In
GB the weights at the ends of the pendulums are numbered 11, there are eight of them, yet in DT
one of them has been omitted. Finally in GB there are two number 24’s attached to the padlocks,
yet in DT one of them has been reversed to become 42. Its almost impossible to see but in the first
drawing, GB, the second number 18 is almost invisible, having been squeezed into the small hole
through which the rope is supposed to pass. It is undoubtedly not there in DT. How can we explain
all these anomalies?

The omission of 5 and 18 in DT is explained by the fact that 5 is the most important number to
Bessler because of its connection with the pentagram, and 18 degrees is the basic angle of the
pentagram. Changing the number 24 to 42 can be explained by the omission of 18, because 42 - 24
= 18. He might have done this because of the difficulty of identifying both the the 5 and the second
18 in GB, and this lends credence to the idea that the numbers must add up to something
significant. Of course I have offered an explanation for the reversed numberr 24 in my blog above.

Bessler ensured we got this information by altering the second drawing. First he removed the 5
altogether plus he omitted one of the 11s, and 5 x 11=55. Then he assumed that we would
compare the two drawings and realize that the second one not only omitted these two numbers, but
also when totalled, the numbers add up to 633, and 633 from 649, the total of the numbers in GB,
equalled 16 (or 5 + 11).  As we know, 55 figures abundantly through out Bessler's works.

So, in the first drawing (GB) the numbers, composed from 59 numbers, add up to 649, which is,
interestingly, equal to 59 x 11 (both prime numbers). In the second drawing (DT) the numbers add
up to 633, which is 16 short of the 649. In the second drawing the numbers 5 and one of the 11s
has been omitted, which is why the second drawing does not match the 649 of the first drawing. In
both drawings the picture cuts off the left hand end of the drawing and in the process cuts off one
of the number 11 weights. If, in the first drawing, this is added to the 649 of the first drawing it
produces the number 660, and because we then have 60 numbers, 660 divided by 60 equals 11,
but more interestingly, 660 divided by 12 equals 55! How do we know that he intended us to figure
this out? Because in both drawings there is an additional geometric feature which confirms it. The clock  I described in my blog in 3 September 2016

I had noticed early on that the perspectives used in both drawings ran through the centre of the
main wheel, and I just assumed that this was done from an artistic viewpoint. However I had
already drawn all these lines in by extending them from one side to the other, in the process of
which I noticed that there were twelve lines, marking out the face of a clock. I had wondered if this
was deliberate but now I knew why it had been done. Twelve to six, three to nine, one to seven,
eleven to five and ten to four all followed lines of perspective.

To cinch the argument, the only one that did not, was two to eight o’clock, but interestingly the line
exactly lined up the number eights attached to the weights, and there were two of them. That line
defined the eight o’clock line.

So extending all the perspective lines available to us, which cross in the centre of the wheel,
provides us with a clock face. Using this we can divide up the picture and therefore the numbers by
twelve. To recap, in the first drawing,649 = 59 x 11; add the missing 11, making 660 (60 x 11) the
clock hints at 12, and 660/12=55! In the second drawing we can do the same - 633 + the missing
5 and the 11, plus the other 11 from the left side of the picture = 660. 660 divided by the twelve

equals 55.

I hope this clears up any confusion?

I’ve just added a clearer picture if the GB wheel.




JC

Copyright © 2020 John Collins

The Merseburg Wheel illustration

This is the third decipher blog published early to correct an error in the previous one

In my last blog we looked at the illustration from DT, which I maintain, held a hidden pentagram.  There have been doubts expressed about the figure. Some think it is just a coincidence and any geometric figure could be found, other believe it is badly formed and has unequal chords.

I have placed a corrected pentagram below. Notice where the red line first crosses the lower left rim of the wheel.  Follow the yellow hatching line which begins where the red line first crosses the rim of the wheel, to the right side of the bottom of the main supporting pillar. Next, mark the exact middle of the red line within the circle, and draw a perpendicular line (green) from the centre of rotation upwards through the mark, to the period or full stop on the title line above the drawing.  

The blue line which I included in the previous blog is an error for which apologise.  The illustration I used is just one among many I have, and I used the wrong one!  The pendulum still has its upper almost horizontal chord in the same place and the reason for that will become clear, yes it is deliberate.

In the above illustration the three main columns are numbered 4, but the four supporting ones are numbered 12.  They are of differing heights. The number 12s have two dimensional caps but the 4s have three dimensional ones.  The 12s are designed to act as datum points for an enlarged circle.  See illustration below.

The red circled caps provide reference points for an outer circles which includes the left weight in the main T shaped pendulum, the triangular padlock and part of the chest of stones.  The green circles also provide reference points for an additional confirmation to be described later.  The blue circled caps are not datum points.

Using a set of compasses, place the point on the centre of rotation and set the pencil on the top of one of the two number 12s.  There is room for variation but the important detail is to include the number 11 weight on the left end of the cross bar on the pendulum, and the point on the padlock. The reasons for this will be explained in a later blog.

I will also explain the meaning of the other two (green circled) number 12s in my next blog.

JC

Copyright © 2020 John Collins