Johann Bessler and a Few Coincidences?

There seem to be some related features within Bessler’s documents which may be coincidental, or not - so I have tried to draw conclusions from them by assuming that they are deliberate.  I’m sure some will disagree but I think it worth pointing them out, just in case they were intended to catch our eye for some reason.

It’s sometimes easy to see things as coincidences rather than intentional occurrences.  For instance I like the fact that Bessler stresses the importance of the number 5, and 55.  My birthday is on the 5th day of month 2, obviously a coincidence, how could it be otherwise?  I was born in 1945, Bessler died in 1745 just another coincidence.  There is one more example which I’ll mention later. 

The document I have always referred to as the “Toys” page is numbered MT 138, 139, 140 and 141.  This is logical as it follows MT 137. There are actually five drawings on the page lettered A B C D and E plus what appears to be a late addition of a hand drawn figure with the number 5 adjacent. So we appear to have four pages, apparently with five drawings labelled with letters plus one more number 5.

At first sight I believed the intention was to show that this page was intended to replace four others, destroyed or buried, after his arrest.  But this assumes that either he was charged but not imprisoned otherwise he might not have had time to prepare for searches or confiscation of his documents, so the charges he was accused of made him hurry to take precautions against such actions against him.  This is possible, but why would he need to remind himself of four pages buried or destroyed?

The total of 141 is interesting.  It seems as though he wanted to get to that number and not beyond, but numbering the ‘Toys’ page 138 would seem to have been good enough.  141 is not a prime number and it’s only factors are 3 times 47.  If we turn to MT 47 we discover that inserted within  the drawing which is numbered 47, another number 47, twice in fact because one is the mirror image of the other so there are three number 47s present on the page. Is this a pointer to the number 141 or the reverse or is it just a coincidence?

Bessler’s ‘Declaration of Faith’ which appears in his “Apologia Poetica” chapter 55, contains numerous Bible references, 141 to be precise.  So if we assume the same link as before, what is the relevance of the number 47?  The first thing which occurred to me was Euclid’s 47th proposition. Was Bessler drawing attention to it for some reason.

“In any right triangle, the sum of the squares of the two sides is equal to the square of the hypotenuse.” It’s also a 3, 4, 5 triangle, see below.  I’m sure I needn’t go into any detail about this, but the figure also relates to the Freemasons symbol as you can see further below. Maybe this was the connection he sought to hint at.

There other pointers to the Freemasons and I guess it’s up to people if they think the above is relevant.  But most likely, in my opinion it points to Pythagoras who is believed to be the originator of much of Euclid’s Propositions, and thus to geometry, which ties in with Bessler’s second portrait in his Das Triumphirende book (DT)

One other coincidence for now, which I wrote about in 2019.  I wrote “I have a copy of a document, a panegyric addressed to Karl annually, but it has something unique.  As many will know, Bessler was very fond of chronograms, which is a phrase or inscription in which letters such as M, D, C, X, L, I, W and V can be read as Roman numerals giving a date. He provides dozens and dozens of them in some of his documents and curious as they are, they don’t appear to hold any coded information.

This particular one includes the year.........2019! He also wrote them for 1519, 1619, 1719, 1819 and 1919.  But why 2019 and why did he stop,there? It could have been the year his solution was discovered - what a coincidence that would have been.  If it had, everyone would have believed that Bessler had somehow predicted the future, but it didn’t happen, and if it had, it would still be just a coincidence.

In my experience I find that Bessler added more clues, hints and implications as and when they occurred to him, consequently one often comes across new and exciting ‘coincidences’ seemingly added almost as an afterthought.

Of course the following is just  a happy coincidence, my new house which I hope to move into before the end of this month is numbered 47.  No!  I wouldn’t buy a house because I liked its number!  And I’m not into the Freemasonry.

JC

Some Thoughts Worth Considering in Designing a Gravity Wheel

I used the term ‘Gravity Wheel’ in the title of this blog in place of ‘Bessler’s Wheel’ to show that gravity wheels might have different configurations to Bessler’s Wheels, although from what I know I don’t think the basics will differ very much.

Fletcher made a comment in my last blog which touched upon a point which most of us will be aware of but which maybe some people missed the potential beneficial consequences of including its actions in our designs. I know its action is used in Bessler’s wheel.

fletch wrote, “ By my reasoning, therefore, for a Bessler wheel to gain in Angular Momentum and be everlasting in motion etc, then some part of the local available Angular Momentum pool must be compensatorily depleted to give the runner Rotational Kinetic Energy.”

A couple of years ago I realised the importance of something connected with gravity wheels which I had been aware of all my life but never considered it’s potential as a source of free energy, additional to that which we already know about, i.e, gravity enabled falling weights.

We design weights to be able to move around with the intention of causing the wheel to overbalance. We can calculate the work done by gravity in making the weights fall, but of course the path of the falling weight is not needed because we only need the perpendicular height of the fall. But if the weight is required to do work as it falls, and still overbalance the wheel, the extra time which the weight takes to fall because it’s doing work, does not affect the calculation, because in the simplest terms, time is not a necessary ingredient. 

Therefore if we simply configure the mechanism to react to the position change of the wheel and use gravity to make a weight move into position which overbalances the wheel, we miss the opportunity to use the weight’s action or motion under the force of gravity, to do some work during its fall. 

If the weight is in free-fall, it has no potential energy to unleash as kinetic energy, until it lands, but if it does work as it falls then it is using kinetic energy as it does so and it can still cause the desired overbalance by its eventual completion of its fall. The argument is similar that used in describing the friction generated in a brick sliding down a slope but in this case the work/friction could be used to help lift a fallen weight. This action may explain von Erlach’s description of each weight “landing gently on the side towards which the wheel turned”. There was little or no padding because the weights were slowed down by doing work, and made reduced noise as they landed. 

This idea I believe might correspond to fletch’s comment that “….some part of the local available Angular Momentum pool must be compensatorily depleted to give the runner Rotational Kinetic Energy.”

JC

My Way Works for Me, I Hope! Maybe It Will Work for You?

 I’ve mentioned this before, but anyway here I go again!  

There is so much talk about doing the maths, vector dynamics, velocity and acceleration analysis, gravitation and orbital mechanics, geometry etc (apologies to Tim for borrowing his words, but it supported my point perfectly).  Surely you can work out if it might have potential by sketching it out on paper, draw in the various weight positions, and if it still looks possible do what I suggest next. There is too much speculation about the maths in my opinion.  I can visualise a mechanism and watch it turn, and I’m sure lots of people in this field can do so too.

Surely anyone can test a theoretical design with cheap materials.  Cardboard, card, lolly sticks, straws, cotton thread, brass split-pins, fishing weights, washers, nuts and bolts.  Threaded rods or bolts. Old second hand Meccano sets even if they are missing most their original content are still a good source of pulleys etc.  These are the things I use and have done so for many years, much of it recycled from one design to another.  I used to make my prototypes out of good quality materials, but subsequently, I always kept in mind that this first model was for my eyes only, just to prove the design to myself.  A more attractive construction would follow my first successful build.

There are some people who are so focussed on reducing friction to a minimum that I think they’ve for gotten that Bessler’s wheel did work, lifting 70 pound chests, turning an Archimedes pump, not to mention running for several weeks.  Why worry about friction at all, if it works, refining everything can be done afterwards when it works.

There are others who spend inordinate amounts of time and money, producing beautiful mechanisms that are a joy to behold, yet still remain as motionless as a statue.  

Many people seek to solve Bessler’s wheel by trying to jump straight to the bi-directional wheel, which Bessler admitted gave him problems initially.  I’ve always concentrated on trying to duplicate the one way wheel first.  It is clearly the simpler of the two options.

Now of course I know that time after time I’ve been told that simulations are the way to go and I’m sure that’s true, but firstly I’m too old to learn how to use this kind of software, but more importantly I enjoy building models.  I find that I can learn more from building than looking at designs, whether on paper or in a video, and a few months ago I learned something I believe to be crucial to Bessler’s design simply because I was holding a piece of mechanism and just handling it, watching it operating my hands.

But I know sims are popular and even though I doubt I can understand it all, and actually I’m so busy that I have little time to learn about them, if I get a working model I have contacts who I’m sure would be happy make a sim of my wheel in action. I’m not convinced of their necessity given the success of a physical build, but I will bow to the consensus opinion, if I’m successful.

JC

Provable Scientific Facts Mean More than Expert Opinions

No matter how famous and celebrated some scientists may be, they are all prone to promoting scientific fallacies. One example everyone is familiar with is Lord Kelvin’s statement in 1895,  that “heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible”, only to be proved definitively wrong just eight years later by the Wright brothers’ flight.  But Kelvin wasn’t alone, the number of scientists and engineers who shared his conviction is too large to count.

Almost every top scientist you can mention made firm comments at some point in their otherwise illustrious careers, about some areas of scientific research which later proved to be wrong. I include Charles Darwin, Fred Hoyle, Linus Pauling, Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan to mention just a few.

“In 1847, a 26-year-old German medical doctor, Hermann Helmholtz, gave a presentation to the Physical Society of Berlin that would change the course of history. He presented the original formulation of what is now known as the First Law of Thermodynamics, beginning with the axiomatic statement that a Perpetual Motion Machine is impossible.

Axiom - A statement or proposition that is accepted as true without proof.

No one had ever succeeded, he wrote, in building a Perpetual Motion Machine that worked. Therefore, such machines must be impossible. If they are impossible it must be because of some natural law preventing their construction. This law, he said, could only be the Conservation of Energy.

But a profound reversal of reasoning has occurred in the last century. Helmholtz originally said "Because a Perpetual Motion Machine is impossible, therefore the First Law of Thermodynamics;" while in any physics text book today one will find the statement that "Because of the First Law of Thermodynamics, a Perpetual Motion Machine is impossible."

Skeptics are quick to cite the Laws of Thermodynamics to disprove Bessler's claims. In fact, the argument is circular. The Laws of Thermodynamics do not prove that Bessler's machine is impossible. On the contrary, they are deduced from the "leap of faith" of first presuming it is impossible.”

So given the doubts about Helmholtz’s axiom and Bessler’s validated claim to have invented such a machine, how can we ignore the potential benefit of a machine which costs nothing in energy to run?

There are many fields occupied by so-called pseudo-scientists and that is one of the more respectable names I’ve been called.  But how much more pseudo-scientific can you get than Helmholtz’s ridiculous axion, especially when Johann Bessler had proved him wrong over 130 years earlier?  It doesn’t matter that he made some significant discoveries in unconnected fields of science, so did the celebrated people I mentioned above, but just because someone excels in a particular field doesn’t necessarily mean that everything they say is correct.

There are surprisingly few proven facts in science. Instead, scientists often talk about how much evidence there is for their theories. The more evidence, the stronger the theory and the more accepted it becomes. 

Scientists are usually very careful to accumulate lots of evidence and test their theories thoroughly. But the history of science has some key, if rare, examples of evidence misleading enough to bring a whole scientific community to believe something later considered to be radically false.

Johann Bessler’s wheel has been ignored or dismissed by the vast, heavyweight scholarship of countless teachers and scientists who have defiantly promoted this paradigm, invented by Helmholtz as if it came directly from God.  It didn’t, it’s misleading and it’s wrong!

Most of the above quotation comes courtesy of the Besslerwheel forum with huge thanks to its moderator.

JC