Bessler's Wheel - The Solution to the Energy Crisis - Spread the news!

When I first published my biography about Johann Bessler, also known as Orffyreus, I discovered that there was a small but keen group of people eager for information about the inventor, which resulted in a steady stream of orders from all over the world from people who appeared on the surface at least, to believe in the possibility of a perpetual motion machine.

Now I was never happy with that designation and I have tried over the years to differentiate the term 'perpetual motion' from what I believe was what Besslers wheel was. I have argued that since his wheel seemed to have acquired its energy from the force of gravity, and a 'perpetual motion' motion machine was believed to have no access to external energy, it could not be called a 'perpetual motion' machine and that a better description would be a 'gravity wheel' or 'gravitywheel'. I think most of the people who bought my book are well aware of the distinction and fully understand the impossibility of 'perpetual motion' machines when defined as a machine which runs for ever with no addional input of energy.

It doesn't really matter as long as there are a sufficient number of people, who are prepared to be open-minded about Bessler's claims, to carry on and maintain research into his machine with the aim of discovering the secret of its construction, and to my mind the information available in Bessler's books holds the best hope of success. But what is puzzling me is the sudden drop in orders for my books, allied to the apparent decrease in the number of new members of the Besslerwheel forum - and the fall in the number of posts. I'm not concerned at the fall in income from the sale of books, that only ever helped to recoup some of the cost of translations I had had done over the years, plus of course ongoing costs in running the web sites and doing further research. Even if I got no further income from book sales I would continue with my research. But this seems to indicate a fall in interest.

But why is it that the public interest in Bessler's wheel seems to be disappearing? What has changed? If anything I would have thought that there would be renewed interest as well as more newcomers to the subject. There is so much discussion about the need for a new way of generating electricity; so many adverts around the world by governments desperate to solve the problem of escalating oil prices, and reductions in carbon emissions and the lack of any real alternative to be worthy of consideration ... that I cannot understand the sudden flack of interest.

To me the only answer is to try to spread the word about Bessler's wheel as a potential energy generating device, more widely. But I have tried to spread the word for the last few years with little success. I think something more dramatic is neeeded which will grab everyone's attention. Of course the one thing that would do that would be the announcement of a new device based on Bessler's wheel and that is our ultimate aim, but in case that does not happen in the very near future something else is needed, in order to bring more new amateur researchers into this field of research.

The solution may appear next week or not for ten years or longer, so the sooner the public gets involved the better - and the sooner the wheel will appear.

So all suggestions welcomed for discussion here, but try to keep it legal guys! LOL

JC

Words of Encouragement

It seems to me that we who try to solve the mystery of Bessler's wheel, seem to have lost our way a bit, lately. Maybe we should return to what originally attracted our attention and caused us to consider the possibility that a method could be found of driving a revolving wheel by the use of gravity.

Remember that on 6th July 1712, Johann Bessler, also known as Orffyreus, claimed that he had invented a wheel which would turn continuously powered only by gravity. As proof, he exhibited a working model - something none of us has achieved to date.

I have provided as much information as I have been able to find in 30 year's research - the most complete biography of Bessler to date, books by Bessler with English translations, letters by him and about him and to him, drawings by him, descriptions of his encoded clues compete with my interpretations of what he meant. I have done this to draw attention to Bessler's claims and I have updated version of the original book almost ready for publication but I don't want to release it because I feel that the solution is about to appear and I would like to include any new information relating to the new discovery - however......

...it seems as if every year at this time we think, optimistically, that the answer will magically appear next year - but I have seen this written here every year for the last several years - I've posted such optimistic forecasts myself - but so far nothing. I think that there is a desire to believe that, with the 300th anniversary of the first announcement of his discovery looming, the time is ripe for the return of Bessler's wheel, and so it is, but it won't neccessarily happen just because the time is right.

Our thoughts need to return to basics, in my opinion. The more complex the design the more there is to go wrong. Bessler was hugely concerned that people would think his machine too simple to be worth what he was asking for it and argued strongly that despite its simplicity of design it was worth every penny.

So stick to basics, keep it simple and build a working model! Let's make the 300th anniversary a real celebration with a working model! Easy-peasy!

HAPPY CHRISTMAS ALL!

JC

Don't patent Bessler's wheel!

Over the years I have questioned the prudence of patenting an invention such as Bessler's wheel. After much deliberation I eventually came to the conclusion that if I was fortunate enough to succeed in building my own version of the wheel, I wouldn't patent it.

I know the subject has been discussed numerous times on the besslerwheel forum and I'm aware of the current opinions being aired, but I was delighted to receive an email from a regular correspondent who directed my attention to a book called, "DON’T File a Patent!" by John D. Smith (Smith Press, 200 pages, $24.95) . I'm not saying I agree with the bombastic tone of the chapter headings and I haven't even read the book, but the concept struck a chord with me and I was pleased to note that I am not alone in questioning the validity of the argument that the right course is, necessarily, to patent.

Some people have ascribed my decision not to patent, to ethical or moral values, but that is not the whole picture. I do in fact believe that this particular invention, if it were successful, should be freely available and without let or hindrance (by which I mean,without anyone or any organisation, having the right to prevent anyone else from building, using, selling or in any other way benefiting from it, however they wish.)

No, there are other reasons why I am sceptical of patenting. One is that in the first place it is costly - enormously so.  Yes of course I know that the costs of such an invention could be recouped a million times over, but this is a cost that grows with time, as you try to cover international patents and their annual fees.  The sheer amount of paperwork would be more than enough to defeat my enthusiasm.  But it is not the cost alone which causes me concern.

There is the policing of the patent. No patent office bothers to protect your patent, they only issue them. You have to consider whether it is worth taking every infringement to court; such an invention will attract every fly-by-night operator in the world, every far Eastern fabricating engineer trying to make a living; every one, in fact, who is looking for ways and means of feeding his family. Would you wish to act against everyone of them? A patent won't protect you against these. You might decide to just take legal action against the big boys but they will have done their homework and even if you win, you will have spent time and money you'd rather not and maybe you won't win.

But there is one more issue concerning infringement which I believe has not been considered or if it has, it has been ignored, and that is the psychological and physical impact experienced in defending your patent; no one seems to consider patent infrinegements other than as a legal challenge but I know, for myself at least, that it would be very distressing and also alarming and irritating to fight a continual battle against those who would try to circumvent your patent.

But these issues are nothing compared to the distinct possibility that your concerned government might see fit to step in and forbid your patent, and tie you up in legal bonds which would prevent you even talking about your device. Then where would the value of your patent lie? The important thing to consider is this; you apply for a patent to protect your invention, and presumably you do this for one or two reasons. Firstly you want to earn some money to secure you and your family's future; nothing wrong in that. Secondly you wish to preserve some control over how it is used. Again a reasonable intent. But if you lose the patent through governent inteference, where's the security in that? Who would control it then? It seems to me that if there is even the slightest possibility of that happening, then you must forget patenting your invention.

So it's no to patenting Bessler's wheel - what then? You publish the details of how it works through newspapers, TV and of course the intenet. There will be enough interest generated to make many of the world's media companies rush to your door and make attractive financial offers to you for your story. This prospect might not seem desirable but do you think that, even in the case where you did apply for and did receive a patent, and the governments around the world welcomed it with open arms, that the media won't make the same concerted rush for your door? Of course they will.

So if you are lucky enough to have to make a choice, my advice would be to give it away and let market forces do their thing. 

JC

Is this really the only alternative to fossil fuels?

How frustrating it is to come across web sites like the one below!

"Generate your own energy!

Renewable energy technologies like wind turbines, solar panels and biomass heaters offer an alternative to fossil fuels and can help reduce your homes CO2 emissions.

There are financial benefits too. Investing in a renewable energy technology now basically means pre-buying energy at today’s prices for a future where energy may cost a lot more. If fuel prices rise, your pay back would happen even sooner."

The above exhortation comes from http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/, but there are dozens - probably hundreds or even thousands of similar schemes around the world. They urge us to buy into these wonderful-sounding solutions as if they are the answer to the energy crisis - but they aren't - they barely scratch the surface of the problem - but the most frustrating thing about them is that even though there is a real solution - Bessler's gravitywheel - they dismiss it, ignore it or they don't know about it (or they don't want to know about it!).

The world of science has long scoffed at the possibility of running a wheel driven continuously by the force of gravity, and it will take a sea-change in thinking to make someone somewhere sit up and take notice - or a working model!

It's been done before so we know beyond reasonable doubt that gravitywheels are possible. Johann Bessler achieved it and first demonstrated it on 6th July, 1712. In less than two years time it will be the 300th anniversary of that day. I am determined to celebrate the occasion with a complete working reconstruction of the gravitywheel that Johann Bessler invented, if not by me then by someone - anyone!  And.....

...despite temperatures of -8 degrees Celsius (about 17 degrees Fahrenheit) during most of the last two weeks, I have managed to do some work on my current construction of a Bessler wheel model, and regardless of previous experience, I dare say, confidence is high!
JC

Addition to www.theorffyreuscode.com

Following some serendipitous studies I found what I believe is an interesting piece of information regarding MT 137 - but only for those who relish the code-breaking requirements of Bessler's  tortuous coded constructions.  It doesn't shed any more light upon the meaning of MT 137, but for me it confirms what I have always thought - that the drawing is only intended to be another secret pointer to the number 5.

I have added yet another page to the http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/ web site and an extra button MT 137 C!  I have slightly altered MT 137 A, and MT 137 B although I doubt anyone will notice the difference.  I'm not posting anything on BW forum because I don't think anyone is particularly interested.  That's not sour grapes, its just the way it is.  I don't think that repetitive revelations that yet another piece of code appears to suggest the number 5 will light anyone's fire, not even mine, but I do have an interest in all things Bessler and I am constantly intrigued to find new layers of meaning within his writing/drawing.

The only thing I would say is that after all these discoveries relating to the number 5, I must admit that I am perplexed at the ubiquity of it and concerned that something so apparently important to Bessler should be ignored simply because there is so much of it.

JC

Apologia Poetica, Chapter 55. Beginning to decipher the code?

As promised, I have published my ongoing research into deciphering the code in chapter 55 and nyou can read it at http://www.orffyreus.net/. I haven't actually deciphered anything yet although I feel I have made some small progress in untangling the clues. I confess I've reached a dead end at the moment and although I do have some other ideas to explore there is nothing sufficiently convincing for me to think it worth sharing.

Even if the web site inspires someone to have a go at following my lead and succeeds where I have failed, then it has to be worth it.

Good luck!

JC

Update on wheel progress and decoding chapter 55

Just to update folks who are interested. After my last effort to persuade people that I knew the principle behind Bessler's wheel and the fiasco that resulted, I swore to myself that I would keep my mouth shut in future. The trouble with making such claims is that, understandably, people demand proof - and without a working model no such proof is available. Unfortunately I succumbed to the requests to share my ideas and in effect shot myself in the foot. However,  (didn't you just know that there would be a 'however'!) my recent experiments have revived my optimism that I shall succeed eventually and I simply have to share it (my optimism not the design!)  But don't worry , I shall keep my ideas to myself until such a time as I can reveal a working model. I won't even hint at my design so then I won't be tempted to share it until I can prove it.

So why am I bothering to say this? Well I have just been counting up how many emails I have received since my premature crowing, several months ago now, (just the ones which simply asking me how things are going) and I counted 67! This particular blog was prompted by getting five in one day earlier this week, so this is just to update those kind people who I consider my friends and who seem supportive of my attempts to publish what I know (or what I think know!).

As those who read this blog may remember, I am preparing to post some stuff about my attempts to decipher chapter 55 which I believe holds an encoded message. I was going to hold off until I had included everything about my work on this material, however recent posts on the besslerwheel forum about chapter 55 have encouragedd me to publish what I have done so far, in the next few hours. I'm sure I shall receive the usual dose of criticism mitigated by supportive emails, but if my efforts help someone else towards deciphering the code then it will have been worth it.

I hope that the web site at http://www.orffyreus.net/ is not too long and the evidence not too badly argued. I have found it quite difficult to explain without getting into too much detail and yet not omitting important points.

JC

Bessler's "Connectedness Principle".

A couple of weeks ago I received an email asking me what I understood by Besslers "connectedness principle". I answered to the best of my ability at the time, but I have had further thoughts about it which I thought I'd put down here.

In his Maschinen Tractate number 9, Bessler says:-

"Because experience shows us that the ball-driven wheels like those seen in the present figure and diagrams were of no avail, people speculated on another principle, namely on weights. To be sure in all the weight drawings that I have found, these weights appear simple and are not connected together with belts and chains, even in Leupold, but nothing can be accomplished with any device unless unless it responds due to my connectedness principle..."

In my original version I changed the phrase "connectedness principle", to something I thought was more accurate, but since then I have been persuaded that the above phrase is probably closer to the original intention.

So what did he mean? The word "connectedness" doesn't even appear in some dictionaries and is probably more akin to the literal translation of Bessler's language than an apposite English word.  It is a noun and is defined as "a relation between things or events http://www.thefreedictionary.com/connectedness - or a "state of being attached, ability to be connected". http://dictionary.babylon.com/connectedness/.

I don't feel that these get to the actual meaning intended by Bessler. For clarification I looked up some synonyms for 'connected' and found :- "linked, joined, united, coupled, associated, combined,engaged", and there are several more.

"Connectedness" conjures up the idea of things being joined together or united, but in my opinion it also suggests the amount or intensity of a connection which may vary in some way. The coupling of two objects may well be described as connected but their connectedness might be less than or equal to a theoretical maximum. How can we determine what was meant?

One could argue that two things are either connected or not, but it depends; it might be a loose connection in the same way that a nut might be loose on a bolt and therefore it can allow some movement in the connection - or the nut is tight and there is no movement; or it might describe a man on a length of elastic doing a bungee jump - he can stretch the connection and be pulled back to a degree; or a dog which is connected by its lead to its owner - he can pull the dog or prevent it running away but he cannot push with the lead because it's a made of a chain or a length of leather and therefore one might describe it as connected but the connectedness is not as complete as it could be with say a metal rod which is inflexible.

It may be a two-way connection but one way is rigid and the other is flexible. The connection may be, to a certain degree, more or less flexible than it could potentially be.

Bessler must have intended something other than a rigid connection otherwise there was no point in establishing the idea of a "connectedness principle". He implied that his wheel required his connectedness principle in order to function, therefore we might assume that the connection in question was not rigid and unyielding but that the two connected objects were capable of some movement which was independant from each other at some point. For instance if a weight fell and in doing so moved another weight, that would require some connection even if it was only a brief collision with the other, either by direct impact or by means of a rope or chain. Subsquently the fallen weight would have to return to its former position in order to fall again but would perhaps be able to do so without pulling the other weight with it.

Such a "connectedness principle" might also permit delay in certain movements of weights which would be advantageous in some designs.

I don't know what the answer is, but I thought I'd pass on my musings as food for thought. In the mean time I have a theory and I am testing it. I don't know if it will help but given the variety of possible connections outlined above it will probably take me some time to work my way through them. The only thing I do know is that in my design a connectedness principle as described above is a vital ingrediant.

JC

Curious Coincidence or Spurious Inference?

Following my blog entitled "Decoding Chapter 55 of Bessler's Apologia Poetica",in which I mentioned the large number of clues from Bessler which signified the number 55, it was mentioned that an interview I gave to "Infinite Energy" magazine way back 1998 was printed on page 55! At that time I knew nothing of the apparent importance to Bessler of that number. This was an interesting coincidence and added to the fact that the other person involved happened to look at that page on the same day that I posted my blog almost convinced me of some implied causality! I was discussing the matter with my wife and she pointed out that my birthday is on February 5th - another 5 and a 2. I then observed that 5 x 2 = 10 and added to my year of birth, 1945, added up to 55. It shows how easy it is to be lulled into seeing meaning in something which is perhaps mildly serendipitous - a nice coincidence, but nothing more.

The brain tends to identify patterns and sometimes it gets fooled. I remember after 911, the spate of seemingly meaningful number coincidences that related to that event that appeared on the internet. This feature of the way the brain works is useful but can lead one up a blind alley. Clouds sometimes form shapes which some people see as recognisable faces but there is probably more meaning in the patterns seen in the rorschach inkblot test. Nevertheless one cannot always ignore them and Orffyreana are a ripe area for the appearance of such curious coincidences - or are they spurious inferences?

One well-known coincidence is the fact that Bessler included 141 bible references in "Apologia Poetica", in the section headed "Orffyrean Declaration of Faith". Apart from the fact that there are so many, on their own there is nothing to wonder at, however in his "Maschinen Tractate" (MT) he destroyed or hid some of its drawings at the time of his arrest and replaced others to make 141. The last one which I call "The Toys" drawing has five numbers appended to the bottom of it to bring the total to the desired 141. Why did he want to have 141? Are we to draw a connection between the two books? I don't know. Coincidence or design? And Why does MT47 have a ghostly mirror image of the number 47 attached to it, and does it matter that 47 goes into 141 just three times. Coincidence? Probably, but should we ignore it?

I have a reputation for seeing meaning in everything Bessler wrote or drew, and I know that some think my imagination is leading me astray, but in fact I do study each 'clue' with a highly critical eye. Sometimes if I am unsure about its validity, I publish details about it and hope to draw comment which might enable me to confirm it as a real clue or discard it completely. With regard to Chapter 55, I have found much of the route to deciphering the coded parts but there is some ambiguity about where to go next and that is why I intend to publish what I know.

JC