How many wheels? How long 'til success?

Someone emailed me recently asking how many wheels I had built. This is a hard question to answer, because you must first define what is a new design and what is a modification of a current design.

I've no idea how many wheels I've built over 36 years, but possibly over a hundred. I think I've modified every single one of them, by adjusting the lengths of levers, and increasing or decreasing the numbers of parts and adjusting the weights and altering the fulcrum points etc, etc. However the number of different designs or concepts by which each wheel was originally designed to work, must be fewer. I did sit down and try to draw rough diagrams of all the different designs I had built over the years but I gave up after I had done about 30 because I kept remembering others and some were so similar at first sight that I wasn't sure how or even whether, to define them as different. I guess that were between 80 and 100 completely different designs, but it could be more, I simply don't know.

In the end I came to the conclusion that I have built over a hundred and possibly two hundred wheels, none of which worked. I say none 'worked' and I mean that although some showed promise, none of them turned for more than about a minute.

The evidence that Bessler's wheel was genuine is so firmly established in my mind now that I cannot give up on my attempts to replicate it. It's like a puzzle that you turn over and over in your mind, you cannot solve it and yet you can't leave it alone, because it looks so simple, but must spend your waking hours worrying at it like a dog with a bone. You might think that I'd want to give up building the models by now, but this is unlikely to happen, unless I become incapable of building them. The truth is I feel as if I'm within a hair's breadth of success. This is because my own successes in decoding Bessler's hidden information has given me some very strong insights into the actual design of the mechanism. I have already worked out why it worked without coming up against the problem of the conservative force of gravity and I've given some strong hints at how this can be. I know that no one accepts my theories any more than I accept anyone else's. So...there is everything to play for and I am determined to prove I'm right by building a working wheel.

I know what has to be done to access the energy of gravity and if my latest model doesn't work I know how to adjust it to make it work. The design as it stands, is set to maximise the effect I have found - but within that design there is a negative reaction which may need reducing so that it doesn't overwhelm the excess force generated. I see it as a delicate balancing act to get just sufficient leverage without compromising the effect generated by the leverage.

I am well aware that there are dozens, perhaps, hundreds of others who share my feelings of confidence, so I'll just wish all of us good luck and hope that someone succeeds really soon.

JC

My wheels are too small!

My efforts to replicate Besslers wheel have been delayed over the last couple of weeks by a medical emergency in the family but I'm back on it now. I had got fed up with constantly finding that my mechanisms got entangled with each other because I made them too large and/or placed them too close to each other. This is a problem that has beset me frequently in the past. However, I'm sure that if I place them slightly further out and therefore less close together this will not reduce their effect ... if they work!

To put it another way, if they would have worked where I originally placed them, then in theory they should work in the new position and the worst that might happene is a reduction in power. We'll see!

The reason it has taken me so long to make this change is due to my habit of using and reusing the same pieces of material to make the mechanisms even for different designs,and fixing them to the same size wooden discs. I had a several of these discs all the same size and the pieces of steel I used were also of a certain length and I only altered them reluctantly.

This crazy false economy led to the mechanisms often being just a little too large for the space they occupied, with the result that they frequently got entangled with the adjacent one or locked up. The various pieces are so full of holes anyway, that if I continue to use them, they will just fall apart, and this also applies to the wooden disc that everything is mounted on. I finally accepted that I needed everything on a bigger scale and with more space to operate.

It is probably thought that making the mechanisms the right size from the start is an obvious and simple thing to achieve, but the trouble is that usually I do not know how much leverage it will take to lift a weight for a particular design, until I build it, and then to discover that there is not quite enough room to accomodate the length of lever required, means either redesigning another part of the mechanism to reduce its size, or enlarging the space available by using a larger disc.

I had made a partial move towards new material but using the same sized disc still limited the space. I now have a much larger disc and I'm using some new aluminum and steel for the mechanisms and hoping that this time everything works without locking up. Of course it may not drive the wheel but at least it should operate as I designed it.

JC

More Bessler findings at http://www.mikeyned.com/

I used to be in a small research group called called BORG, which stood Bessler Orffyreus Research Group. We thought we might succeed where others had failed in finding the solution to Bessler's wheel by trying to brain-storm a solution. For a while it was stimulating and exhilarating and we thought we might succeed, but as time went by, one by one, we began to drop out. The enterprise eventually ran out of steam and we went our separate ways. Unfortunately I lost everything to do with that episode due to a computer malfunction

One member of that group was a guy called Mikey Ned who has been a long time researcher into this subject. He has recently updated it at http://www.mikeyned.com/ and it has some interesting things to say about the measurement scales used in Bessler's drawings.

I have always been puzzled that no one appears to take any notice of Bessler's most widely known drawings. I refer to those which appear in Das Triumphirende. Each drawing has a purpose and they are stuffed so full of clues of an obvious kind, that it seems, to me at least, equally obvious that there are other clues of a more subtle kind.

I could mention for instance the presence of the pendulums (or pendula if you want the correct term). No witness ever recorded seeing them although they were mentioned by Bessler. Their presence was explained by a rather weak rationalsation which was really unnecessary. The reason for their presence is obvious to me even if it isn't to others. If you zoom in on a good scan of the drawings it is possible to see the great care taken with every line in each drawing.

It's interesting for me to see what someone else has posted about their own studies into this area of research because I sometimes think I'm the only one who has tried to make sense of the drawings which Bessler clearly laboured over. Those drawing are not just decorative they hold a wealth of clues and if we can only extend our knowledge of what is in them there is just a chance we can solve this puzzle that way instead of trying to do the way Bessler did, through a mixture of intuition and trial and error.

Good job, Mikey!

 

JC

Angular Momentum to Linear Momentum - and back again?

Sometimes when looking for a solution to a mechanical problem it helps to reverse the sequence of events required - or as Professor Eric Laithwaite liked to do, consider an analogy.

What we seek is a way of converting the downward linear force of gravity into rotational motion. As a means of seeking a solution for those of us who believe Bessler's wheel operated purely by gravitational force, perhap it might help to study the work of those whose ambition is to reverse the process. They wish to generate a unidirectional or linear force from a rapidly rotating weighted lever. There are a number of sites devoted to the experiments http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/IPEmain.htm for instance.

Now whether or not you believe it can be achieved, and I do, it is a fact is it not, that if Bessler's wheel is successfully built and is proved to be driven by gravity, and a working model demonstrated, then it follows that an engine that converts angular momentum to linear momentum can also be developed, since the action or process of one must be the reverse of the other.

Such an engine would have its own extraordinary abilities.  It could move over land and water and rise upwards against gravity.  Space drive with no emissions.

JC

Who best to play Bessler?

It has been remarked on more than one occasion that the story of Johann Bessler's life would make an excellent movie. It has already been made into an opera although I have not seen it, and it seems to me that a movie about the inventor would have all the ingredients needed to make a worldwide box office success.

There is lust, greed, jealousy, theft, hatred, love, a hunt for treasure, black magic, murder, corruption in high places and conspiracy - all set against the background of one man's struggle for recognition and a prize worth millions of dollars in today's money - not to mention a solution to today's energy and pollution problems. Need I say more?

And who is to play this tenacious, conceited, highly ingenious, emotional and troubled man? This is something I have pondered on at length for several years. For most of that time I wanted a British actor to play him, because I think they are the best actors, generally speaking. It requires someone who can express ingenuity, determination, obsession, triumph, paranoia and suspicion and blind fury - and yet call for the tenderest outpouring of love on occasion and be motivated by an overwhelming commitment to his religious belief.

That was until the other day when I saw Robert Downey Jr. and recognised his outstanding talent. He seems to have the look of Bessler sometimes. I now have him as my favourite for the part, unless someone else betters him in that unique role. - and someone probably will.

JC

Flights of Fancy - Or the right interpretation?

Over the years I've had a number of thoughts about Bessler's words and what he might have meant. Some of those I have published on my web sites (listed on the lower right). Some of it is speculative but nevertheless I didn't include anything I didn't seriously consider a valid proposal.

But there are other ideas that are more subjective and I won't publish them on my websites in case someone takes them as factual, but here on my blog I see no reason not to engage in what some might call flights of fancy. Therefore I shall post some comments on Bessler's words over the next few weeks. They are still valid interpretations but not certain.

I've no idea if this will generate any comments but this blog format is not ideal for discussion so although I shall read all comments with interest, I think that it will not be possible to respond to each one,  here.  I have considered opening a forum but I do not really have the time to run  it properly so I'll leave it to those who may want more discussion to take it elsewhere.  So, for my first example consider the words by Bessler.

"A great craftsman would be that man who can 'lightly' cause a heavy weight to fly upwards! Who can make a pound-weight rise as 4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall. If he can sort that out, the motion will perpetuate itself. But if he can't, then his hard work shall be all in vain." - page.295 of my book "Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?"

Or as Rainer on the besslerwheel forum wrote, more succinctly, "When 1 pound drops 1/4 , it will (swing,throw?) 4 pounds upwards by 4/4"

or as Stewart, also on the forum, says more precisely,"He will be called a great craftsman, who can easily/lightly throw a heavy thing high, and if one pound falls a quarter, it shoots four pounds four quarters high".

The gist of the comment seems to be that a one pound weight can lift a second one pound weight four times higher than the distance the first weight falls and the lift or thrust upwards is accomplished easily - or even that one pound could lift four pounds four time higher! These suggestions are, on the face of it, ludicrous. Obviously, Bessler cloaked his meaning in apparently meaningless nonsense and yet there is a sense to be obtained from it if we can, so here is my view on the matter.

One pound falls and four pounds rise - four plus one makes five. As has proved the case often, Bessler has hidden more than one layer of meaning in his clue and I think one layer of the phrase was intended to point us to the five mechanisms again.

Secondly, included in the comment is the emphasis on the second weight being lifted or thrown upwards easily. To me this means that if the weight can be lifted easily, it must mean that it is not lifted very high, just a 'kick' upwards. One way to do this is with a long lever with a weight at its end, doing the lifting.. 

Implicit in the comment is a corroboration of another of his clues which suggests that his weights worked in pairs, so that when the first weight in a pair fell, it moved its paired weight into a position from which the wheel was made to rotate. The other four mechanisms then revolved with the wheel and each rose at some point, so one pound falling made each of four pounds rise four times each.

The use of the word 'quarter' confused my translater and he adapted the word to the English system of weight, when actually I think Bessler meant that each lever-and-weight unit rotated a quarter of a turn.  However there is another possibility, and that is that the 'quarter' referred to, simply meant that the falling weight fell the same distance as the rising weight.  The word 'quarter' was used to throw us off the scent.  He might have said that each pound rose half way when the other pound fell half way. - or they rose and fell 15 degrees each.  The important clue was that both weights moved through the same distance.

Well that's my take on this particular comment by Bessler.  More to follow.

JC

Copyright © 2011 John Collins

A gravitywheel will still obey the laws of physics

I know that it is commonly believed by some people that when Bessler's wheel is finally successfully replicated, those who inhabit the higher echlons of science will have to eat humble pie and re-evaluate the laws of physics and a few believe that the laws will actually have to be rewritten.

I have long believed that a successful version of Bessler's wheel cannot require the overturning of well-established physical principles. No matter how it might appear to conflict with the laws of physics, a gravitywheel must adhere to them. In which case when a working model is produced it will not be the laws which are wrong, but our interpretation of them.

It will be more than enough just to produce a working model and there is no need, in my opinion, to invoke some new physical law which so far has been undetected by mankind. For such a law, if it could be established and verified, would surely have been observable in some other context long, long ago. So that simplifies things because we only need to look at the laws we already accept and see how our understanding of them can be modified - without changing the them - to acommodate Bessler's gravitywheel.

I have spent a lifetime looking at these laws and I think I know how Bessler's gravitywheel was able to operate within the confines of the law of conservation of energy. I have alluded to this before, briefly, but reactions have ranged from scorn to apathy. So, as I said recently, I am currently building a model with an accompanying video, with which I intend to demonstrate that, despite the fact that gravity is a conservative force, it does not preclude the possibility of a gravity-driven wheel.

JC

66 and still trying to invent the wheel!

I'm 66 today! They say time travels faster as you age, and my goodness, is it speeding past now! It's been fifty years since I first read about Johann Bessler and even longer since I began designing perpetual motion machines, and I thought I might have solved the problem long before now.

There is a nice succession of links in this story. I first read about Bessler in a book called "Oddities: A Book of Unexplained Facts", by Rupert T. Gould. He was a Lieutenant Commander in the British Royal Navy noted for his contributions to horology and a host of other things and was described as a polymath. He gained permission in 1920 to restore the marine chronometers of John Harrison, and this work was completed in 1933, aided no doubt by his photographic memory. Harrison was the guy who won (eventually) the British Board of Longitude's prize for establishing the longitude of a ship at sea. The prize was £20,000, a fortune in those days, and it was the publication of this prize in 1714, which it is believed was the inspiration for Johann Bessler's decision to ask the same sum for the secret of his own invention, the gravitywheel. (For more on Harrison and to see an animation of the grasshopper escapement see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harrison)

John Rowley, the finest instrument-maker in England at the time, was highly praised by Harrison in each of two volumes he published. The King of England, George l, who had already recognised Rowley's expertise in mechanics, and made him "Master of Mechanics to the King", requested a special sun dial from Rowley as a gift to Karl, the Landgrave of Hesse and Bessler's patron. Rowley took it to Kassel and installed at Karl's castle and during his visit was able to meet Bessler and see a demonstration of his wheel. He came away convinced of Bessler's claims and devoted the remaining years of his life to trying to replicate what Bessler had done.

Briefly, Rowley actually witnessed the wheel, he was a friend and colleague of John Harrison whose clocks were restored by Rupert Gould who also researched and published an account of Bessler, which I subsequently read. One cannot help but speculate that Gould must have had an interest in Bessler's machine and been aware of the connections between those involved.

As someone pointed out recently, mine and Bessler's obsession with the number 55 even includes my birthdate. 5th Feb 1945. There is a five and a two, so writing two fives makes 55 and then 1 and 9 is 10 plus 45 is 55 again! Amazing (not)!

Being the optimist that I am I am still convinced that Bessler's gravitywheel will be replicated and it can't happen a moment too soon. Time is, as I said, whizzing past at great speed and the need for this machine is growing at an alarming rate. Sticking to the 55 theme, I think I should have discovered the secret when I was fifty-five however I didn't and neither did anyone else. Maybe this year as I'm sixty-six and Bessler first exhibited his machine on the 6th June 1712, (six and six) someone will do it then, but of course next year, being the 300th anniversary since then, it would be even better.

No 'wheeling' for me today - just relaxing, being waited on - and the company of my very patient family. (patiently awaiting a working wheel!) But tomorrow I return to the task.

JC

Don't tempt fate with a precipitate announcement ... John

This is merely an observation and not aimed at anyone in particular but I note a common theme in postings both here and in the besslerwheel forum and in other alternative energy forums. Before I go any further let me admit that I recognise exactly the same symptoms to a marked degree in my own actions and therefore I speak with some considerable experience.

Researching Bessler and seeking a solution to perfecting a working gravity wheel is what drives most of us and it is commonly observed that many who are involved in this persuit may on occasion have a sudden spontaneous flash of inspiration and illumination in which the solution to the problem is revealed. Further consideration over a period of time - it might be hours, days or months, it makes no difference - and the details acquired in this sudden attainment of intuitive knowledge are confirmed to the apparent satisfaction of the lucky recipient.

Following on from this exciting news and transported by thoughts of fame and fortune, the beneficiary of this amazing insight will be mentally preparing the details of how he will reveal his knowledge to the world with one or two caveats. He will want to ensure that he receives a just reward for his projected success but he will be concerned that the mysterious MIB do not take remedial action to stop any public announcment - and of course he will consider the advisability of patenting his new invention.

These thoughts are common to most of us and understandable, and I suspect that everyone of us has had a moment when the solution seemed clear but upon further consideration it was decided that the design did not answer the problem. There are times too, when even detailed analysis of the apparent solution seems to indicate that we are on the right path and it is only when we come to actually build a model that the truth becomes cruelly apparent.

This tendency to be utterly convinced that you have hit upon the right design does not always fade with experience - I know this better than most! If you wish to share the design and are not concerned about who gets recognition for it, then go ahead and tell the world, but if you wish to have some kind of recognition - and that is perfectly understandable and acceptable - be warned, "multa cadunt inter calicem supremaque labra", or there's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip. It's best, in my opinion, not to say that you have the solution and you have only to complete construction of the device before revealing it to the world, because experience shows that what was revealed intuitively to you in the wee small hours,sometimes has a habit of tripping you up, by not actually working.

Let me stress that this is not so much a message to others as to myself! To all who would seek the glory of success, contain your excitement; say nothing in public; make a working model first.

JC