Planes that go bump in the night - when skimming a hurrican.

Three weeks away in sunny Florida and no access to my workshop - and my wheel! But now I'm back and eager to bring a fresh approach to the task thanks to some imaginitive thinking while away.

Although I love roller coaster rides I suffer from a fear of heights, motion sickness and a compressed disc which gives me pins and needles in my left leg, so by the time we had come to the end of our stay I had had a surfeit of thrill rides, so when we discovered that hurrican Irene was bearing down on us just as we were due to board our aircrafte, my wife and daughter expressed their doubts at the wisdom of flying through the middle of a hurrican, in rather colorful language actually!

We were assured by the aircrew that we would be flying around Irene and not through her and there were, therefore, no grounds for concern - huh!!! A sudden drop of 200 feet without warning, may not seem much, but when you add in the air speed of over 500 miles an hour it acquires considerable significance - my head bears the bruises to show for it, as I had just risen from seat in my usual gentlemanly fashion to allow my wife to partake of the facilities provided by means of a restroom. That was just the beginning and we suffered about an hour and half of something not so different, I should imagine, from trying to stay on board a bucking bronco!

Tough devices these modern aircraft! Despite the wings flapping like a demented duck landing on a pond, we all arrived safely if somewhat bruised and were politely informed that we had made up some time despite taking a longer course due to the sling-shot effect engendered by skimming the edge of hurrican Irene! Hhhhmmmm - as my seven year old grandaughter is wont to say, "I smell a porky, grandad!"

Actually the sling-shot idea came up in conversation aboard the bronco and we thought it had merit, but then we had taken a few medicinal drinks to calm my wife's shattered nerves - not mine of course you understand.

Open for comments again and hopefully I shall have some interesting information to share with you all that miiiiiiiiight just lead to a break through - unless you prove me wrong of course.

JC

Gravity-alone is all that is required for Bessler's wheel

This isjust a parting shot as I'm going away for a couple of weeks and all comments will be hidden until I return.

The source of energy for Bessler's wheel has to be gravity and nothing else, for some pretty obvious reasons.  Bessler certainly implied that it needed only gravity, but even if you  stick to the physics we have been taught, that such a device is impossible, and that Bessler was toying with us, then you need an additional force to assist the wheel to complete one rotation.   So what forces are available to us?

Ambient temperature changes might have been used to make changes in the weight positions - too slow to react in my opinion and perhaps not enough of a movement to generate overbalance.  Centrifugal force is another posited force but it would be difficult to regulate when to apply its theoretical movement.  Magnets?  Too weak and too difficult to switch on and off.  Compressed air?  It has to be compressed first and that would use up precious energy before it can apply itself to moving a weight.  Springs?  These are delayed reactions created by compressing them a some other stage in a rotation thus using up energy again.  Electrostatic forces? The Leiden Jar was invented in 1745 by Dutch scientist Pieter van Musschenbroek of Leiden, who some will remember featured in my book, "Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?"  Again too weak a force and it would take too long to build up sufficient force to move a weight in several rotations let alone a single one.

There are others which are even weaker than those described briefly above and not readily adapted to quick or sudden requirement.  In my opinion gravity-only offers the only solution and I know why it works and why it isn't impossible and why it won't make the slightest difference to the laws of physics and all of the ramifications connected to that statement. 

All will be revealed upon my return  - I hope  ;-)

JC

Bessler's wheel must have been driven by gravity alone.

Someone posted a link on the bessler forum, in support of their view saying "all forces in closed systems are conserved. It's widely available knowledge."  The implication seemed to be that because of this fact we were all wasting our time trying to duplicate Bessler's wheel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservation_law

The first line of the link says "In physics, a conservation law states that a particular measurable property of an isolated physical system does not change as the system evolves."

You can't argue with this - it is demonstrably true. However it doesn't apply to Bessler's wheel. Isolated systems are, as the definition suggests, closed sytems without any access to external sources of energy.

But in a gravitywheel such as I maintain, Bessler's was, if you take away the gravitational force the wheel will remain stationary, therefore it cannot possibly be described as an isolated system. Gravity is external to the wheel.

So although the law of Conservation is correct the particular ramifications alluded to, do not apply in this case.

It is frequently argued that Bessler did not state in precise language that his wheel depended entirely on gravity and therefore it must have required some additional force to operate. I don't think anyone has come up with a creditable alternative force and in my opinion there isn't one - there is only gravity and there is no physical reason why it should not do.

So Bessler may have only said that - "these weights are themselves the PM device, the essential constituent parts which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the perpetual motion principle) indefinitely - so long as they keep away from the cemntre of gravity." - but that is as close to saying it was driven by gravity as you can get without actually saying so!

I have argued this point since I first expressed it in my book, "Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?" in 1997 and I see no reason to change it.

JC

Why the number 5? What does it mean?

In a recent comment, Andre reminded me of something I have become so used to that I had forgotten how extraordinary it is. He said; It's monumentally obvious that the number 5 had a very special and important meaning to Bessler. It pops up everywhere."

I think this is something that people forget or are unaware of or disregard - and yet Johann Bessler was so preoccupied with the number five that he inserted it or hid it,in every single document he published as well as many that never saw the light of day, until recently.

Everyone is familiar with the pentagram and its association with the number five, and Bessler certainly was, because it too, appears, or should I say, is hidden within, many of his drawings. Hidden it may be, but it is easily found once you are aware of his fondness for it. Space prevents me from detailing all the many coded references to the pentagram and the number 5, but you can see some of the evidence at my website http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/

So the question is; why did Bessler include so many references to the number 5?

I suggested that it was to tell us that a gravity-driven wheel, capable of driving another device, has to have five mechanisms to accomplish the task. I also considered it likely that it was intended as a pointer to the most comprehensively encoded text of all of Bessler's publications, chapter 55 of his "Poetica Apologia".

Bessler became known as 'Orffyreus' at about the same time he first exhibited his wheel, a single-direction one, in 1712. So at that time he must have already decided on a simple code, alphabetic substitution, to use as a pseudonym for Bessler, probably designed to suggest that at least he had an interest or was knowledgeable about such things. In addition he added two more forenames to his given one, which was "Elias". The names, "Johann Ernst", do not appear on his birth registration documents but a glance through my website at http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/ shows how he also introduced the same 'number five' theme into his pseudonym at or before the time he first exhibited his wheel.

It seems to me that he must have already decided to encode information about his wheel so that, at some point in future, he would be able to show that he was the original inventor, long before he was successful - and to me that is a likely scenario as I have been guilty of the same!

So does the number five relate to the wheel or the code or something else? The problem is that the number five and the pentagram have several connotations. In fact they hold so many commonly understood, subjective cultural and emotional associations, in addition to their explicit or literal meaning, that the potential for misinterpretations are boundless. Connections include,the golden section, Mary Magdalen, the planet Venus and Freemasonry, to mention just some  the morer diverse ones.

I think that Bessler found the best way to produce a gravitywheel which was suffiently powerful to be able to drive an additional piece of machinery, such as a water pump. This design required five mechanisms for reasons which I will discuss in a later blog. Five then formed the core of his subsequent code. He built a large dual direction wheel at Kassel, which required two lots of five mechanisms - one for each direction - hence the ubiquity of the two number fives i.e."5,5". What better use of "5,5" than to write his autobiography "Apologia Poetica", incorporating his code into Chapter 55 and inserting numerous pentagrams into the drawings in other documents.

How delightful to fill the ensuing book and all his drawings with veiled references to the his mysterious number 5s - and sit back and watch as others pored over the clues and tried to make sense of them!

JC

Maybe Karl described the simplicity of the concept, and not the wheel itself.

I suppose I should mention this on the Besslerwheel form but it doesn't seem to warrant a new thread; it's just my musings again.

When Karl's emissary, Nathaniel von Stapff, first approached Bessler with a view to checking out his claims, he must have made it clear to Bessler that in order to take advantage of the Landgrave's patronage, he would be required to reveal the secret, under an oath of silence of course, of the wheel's construction. Clearly this was a highly contentious issue for Bessler and yet he was persuaded to accept, the issue molified to some extent by the promise of 4000 thalers for the privilege.

So before Karl could even consider such a proposal he had to verify to his own satisfaction that Bessler's wheel actually worked, and since the Kassel wheel would not be finished for several months, and the previous, Merseberg wheel, had been destroyed, the wheel Karl saw must have been the small model mentioned two or three times elsewhere.

This small model may have been Bessler's first fully working model or even one which showed some rotation without providing enough to drive another device and it could only turn one way. It may have been the same one that was found in pieces after his death, and the same one that Jean-Pierre de Crousaz wrote somewaht sarcastically about. So when Karl described its simplicity he was probably describing the basic concept and not the interior of the Kassel wheel.

It is evident that Karl was heavily involved with matters of State and probably never took time to view the interior of the larger wheel, so one might conclude that although the concept appeared extremely simple to Karl, as he examined the model wheel - and that idea was born out by Bessler's own fears that any potential buyer might think he deserved his money back once he knew the secret, in fact the actual working model might have been considerably more complicated.

By complicated I mean that, whereas I have always maintained that Bessler indicated that five mechanisms were necessary to a fully functioning wheel, there might have been as few as two in his model version - a very simple concept and an ideal method of constructing a proof of principle version.

JC

Principle of connectedness, and is five necessary?

Interpreting Bessler's principle of connectedness is a bit like knitting smoke. You can see it but you can't seem to grasp it. I thought I'd got it before, but now I think I really have! But have I? I think so but who knows at this point.

You can read the words 'principle of connectedness' and surmise that it refers to a degree of connection. Is it a vaccilating connection, sometimes fast and sometimes loose? Is it a flexible connection only capable of connection in one direction? Might be. There are several possibilities, but I think I understand what he was referring to now and if I'm right it doesn't in fact refer to the way the actual connections are made, in my opinion refer it refers to something else. I once thought I had found a feature of gravitywheels which no-one else was aware of. Then I met a guy who had come from Australia and had dropped into meet me and we discovered we were both aware of this oddity. I have seen comments which come close to what I'm thinking of but no one seems to have accurately described it. Of course it might not be as mysterious as I'm thinking, but I'm going to write something on the subject and post if for comment.

The other thing that concerns me - am I right in thinking that Bessler was indicating five mechanisms? I still think so, but testing five mechanisms on a wheel takes so much longer because I have to build each of them and attach them, whereas if I just wanted to test the hypothesis with two it would be so much quicker. But Bessler said "If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in the machine it revolves very slowly...", so will my two produce enough mechanical advantage to at least provide proof of the principle? Another rhetorical question for which the answer must be, try it and see.

JC

When Bessler's wheel is reconstructed it will match his design exactly.

Recently, a blog or so back, I mentioned that I had found additional confirmation that my design was correct, in one of Bessler's clues. This led me to consider my other interpreted codes and I found further examples which consolidated my view that I was on the right track. Ruminating on this while on holiday I was struck by the curious lack of interest in Bessler's codes, and I realised that as far as I can tell, there are few who support my work on this subject.

I know that the interpretation of these kinds of codes is highly subjective and prone to being influenced by personal prejudices. In other words, I may appear to be guilty of interpreting the facts to fit the theory, or finding what I'm looking for by ignoring equally valid alternatives. Where I have thought that this was possible in some of the interpretations I have posted at http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/, I have admitted that this might be the case, and have said that the results are more speculative. In other cases I have had no doubts and have said so too.

In which case I am surprised to see comments from time to time, on the besslerwheel forum posing possible solutions to apparent codes for which I have already offered my own interpretations and which I am satisfied are correct. Of course they may simply disagree with my views, but sometimes it seems as though other people are unaware of my work in this area and perhaps I should be doing more to broadcast it. Those who follow my progress (or lack of it!) in reconstructing Bessler's wheel might think that I should get on with finishing it, rather than encouraging people to read my decoding efforts just in case they get there first. But I am trying to cover all outcomes including one where I am stuck, or unable to finish the wheel for some reason beyond my control.

I have another website at http://www.orffyreus.net/, where I have published everything I have found which may lead to the decoding of Chapter 55 in Bessler's 'Apologia Poetica'. It seems to me that my descriptions of my work in deciphering that extraordinary document are certainly a step towards full decipherment, yet no one has commented on it and as far as I know, no work is being done on it.

The methodology needed to recognise and decipher these numerous clues is straight forward. It should be obvious by now that I have deciphered far more than the limited amount I have revealed on my websites so I can say with a considerable degree of confidence that what is there is genuine, unless I have said that it is speculative. When I have more up-to-date information that requires additions or amendments to what is there I have added it.

I am writing a long document detailing the additional information concerning both the concept and the design revealed in Bessler's clues, and it will be published once I have succeeded in reconstructing Bessler's wheel. This will prove to those who say that we shall never know whether any new design is in any way similar to Bessler's, that they are wrong and that my design configuration is exactly the same as Bessler's.  I am confident that the design will match Bessler's because of the information I already have. 

JC