6th June 1712 to 6th June 2012 300 years or 109,573 days.

Someone has pointed out that the Gregorian Calendar was adopted in Germany in or around Bessler's time and can we accept the date of the 6th June as applicable today?

As we know, the 6th June 2012, will be the 300th anniversary of Bessler's first exhibition of his so-called Perpetual motion machine in Gera, Germany. Some of Bessler's accounts seem to suggest that he first set the wheel in motion on the 6th June 1712,as in his Apologia Poetica, "For, in 1712, during his stay at Gera in the Voigtland, he hit upon the genuine Prepondium, and so it was that on 6th June of that year he set in motion the first model of his Perpetual or self-moving Mobile, three and a half Leipzig Ell in diameter and four inches in thickness, for the very first time."

Whether that was the date of his first exhibition or the day he actually discovered the secret and set the wheel in motion for the first time doesn't really matter as we only have the date of the 6th June 1712 available. What might be important in determining the correct date for our anniverary is to discover whether this date incorporates the so-called 'New Style' dating or the 'Old style' dating. In England, dates in the Julian calendar that occur before the introduction of the Gregorian calendar in 1752 are termed Old Style. The initials 'O.S.' appearing after a date indicate it is in the Julian calendar. The initials 'N.S.' or the phrase 'Stylo novo', indicate the Gregorian calendar.

The Gregorian calendar,  is the internationally accepted civil calendar.It was introduced by Pope Gregory XIII, after whom the calendar was named, by a decree signed on 24 February 1582. Although it was slow to be taken up even by Catholic countries, it eventually spread across the world, the last European country to adopt it was Greece in 1923.

The motivation for the Gregorian reform was that the Julian calendar assumes that the time between vernal equinoxes is 365.25 days, when in fact it is presently almost exactly 11 minutes shorter.The error between these values accumulated at the rate of about three days every four centuries. This is the basis for the use of the leap year. Every year that is exactly divisible by four is a leap year, except for years that are exactly divisible by 100; the centurial years that are exactly divisible by 400 are still leap years. For example, the year 1900 was not a leap year; the year 2000 was a leap year.

Because of the Protestant Reformation, however, many Western European countries did not initially follow the Gregorian reform, and maintained their old-style systems. Eventually other countries followed the reform for the sake of consistency. So despite the prudence of Pope Gregory's correction, many Protestant countries, including England, ignored the papal bull. In the Protestant states of Germany it was officially adopted in 1700 and the day following 18 February 1700, became 1st March 1700. So despite the factthat Britain did not adopt the new calendar until 1752, it is clear that we can accept the date of 6th June as according with the new style calendar.

I note that there are 172 days left between today and the 6th June next year -  or 5 months and 20 days.

There have been since 6th June 1712, 299 years, 6 months, and 11 days - or 109,401 days.  (thanks to http://www.convertunits.com/dates/)

JC

Bessler's simple wheel bearings

I think that discussions about the bearings on the forum have become too convoluted. There is nothing complex about them, in my opinion. If you have a load-bearing shaft rotating in a bearing shell, you have two components. The journal which is the end of the shaft, made of steel, iron or brass - and it rests in a bearing shell of a similar metal which, in Bessler's day, was filled with a thick grease, pig or goose fat or even bear grease. It is usually covered by the other half of the shell to protect it from ingress of dirt, which if it wasn't included, might add friction and thus wear to the moving parts. Bessler routinely removed the upper shell so that the spectators could examine and see that there was no possible external connection. The bearings (journals) were slightly tapered to control the axle's lateral movement and keep it centred within the shell.

This, from an account of the history of watermills. "Watermills utilised wooden axles and these generally had metal gudgeons held in place on the ends of the shafts using wedges and steel hoops, which allowed the wood axle to have a small metal tip on the end. These metal tips or 'journals' would then ride on an iron half-shell liberally greased with animal fat."

Finally this from wikipedia, "A plain bearing, or a friction bearing is the simplest type of bearing, comprising just a bearing surface and no rolling elements. Therefore the journal (i.e., the part of the shaft in contact with the bearing) slides over the bearing surface. The simplest example of a plain bearing is a shaft rotating in a hole."

There is only one place where the so-called 'curved' pieces which were said to extend outwards from the bearings on the end of the axle, are reported,and at is in Das Triumphirende - as per Stewart's translation which follows, 'They rest in their motion on two almost 1 inch thick, {am Ort} somewhat tapered steel pivots horizontal in the two sockets or bearings, [the pivots are] equipped with two curves, about which the rotary motion of the whole vertically suspended wheel can be somewhat modified by applying pendula on both sides, as the attached figures at the end of this treatise clearly show'. In other words there are no witness descriptions of these strange curved pieces because they never existed outside Bessler's imagination. He introduced them into Das Triumphirende for good reasons that I shall explain at a later date.

JC

The Orffyreus documentary

I returned from Rome on Thursday night having been invited to take part in an Italian documentary for RAI 2, a part of the government television network. The documentary is about Orffyreus or Bessler as we tend to refer to him. They have already filmed actors in period costume telling the basic story of Bessler and they wish to end it with an interview about him. The director had sent me a series of topics which they would ask me to comment on.

Bear in mind the questions were translated from Italian, so the phrasing is a little awkward.

The topics included:-

What is the perpetual motion?

Can you describe the character traits of Orffyreus?

Can you describe the first Orffyreus’s wheel?

Can you give us an overview of the writings of Bessler? What do they contain? Are they logical and comprehensible to the eyes of whoever? What messages have you succeeded in deciphering? Describe how the name Orffyreus is fruit of a manipulation.

Which rivalries did Orffyreus’s increasing reputation raise up? And Who were the most persistent opponents of Orffyreus and what actions did they put into practice?

Can you tell us what happened in Merseburg?

Which tests were done on the wheel exhibited in Kassel after the 54 days of isolation?

Who was interested in the Orffyreus’s discovery following the exhibition in Kassel?

We would like also for you to comment on the following: many people are wondering how the world would be today, if the professor Gravesande had not yielded to the temptation to spy on the secret mechanism of the wheel of Orffyreus. Already, because this gesture, which proved inadequate to understand the essence of the mechanism of the wheel, determined the end of every possibility that the secret of the invention was finally released. Orffyreus, in fact, cannot tolerate such an insult. Went rapturously, and in a gesture of baleful wrath destroyed violently also his last creation under the bewildered eyes of those present.

The Royal Society dropped each contact believing that they were dealing with a madman and the Landgrave quickly found an excuse to remove that visitor now deemed unpredictable and dangerous.

Not difficult subjects for me to comment on and yet, sat in front of a two cameras, the director, a sound man, two cameramen, an interpreter and the director's assistant plus the two owners of the house where it was filmed.... I froze! I got it together on the third or fourth take for the first question though! They will send me a copy of the finished product when it's ready and it is budgeted to be finished by December 31st!

I added some additional information concerning the coded material but I don't know how much, if any, they will include as it wasn't in the original specification.

I've included some pictures for your amusement!

JC

Why gravity is a source of energy for continuous motion.

Following some comments on my last blog, I thought I'd make my case again here rather than adding to the 60 or so comments already in.

I realise that the vast majority do not accept the possibility that a gravity-wheel can be driven continuously just by the force of gravity alone as, I believe, Bessler's was. But if I state my case often enough, maybe enough people, cleverer than I, will take it on board and devise a better explanation. Until then...

My analogy that the force of gravity was similar in its action to the wind or a current of water, and it was therefore perfectly reasonable to believe one could use it as a source of energy, is routinely scorned by most people. They have taken exception to the above analogy, ignoring the fact that is just an analogy. An analogy is an inference based on the idea that if two different things show a similarity in one sense, it may be possible to draw conclusions about other aspects of the thing. It is a way of looking at something differently to try to understand it. I was not suggesting that gravity was in fact either a 'wind' or a 'stream'.

The argument against, goes something like this. Air is a collection of gases, flowing molecules - and water is similar - and when they impact on certain surfaces we can make use of them to drive machinery - but, on the other hand, because gravity is an attraction between two masses, and there are no physical particles available (such as molecules of gas) to impact on the machinery in a way we can use, it is said that it is not capable of supplying energy in the way that Bessler seems to have done. But Bessler did not know about molecules or the laws affecting gravity; he could only observe and experiment. His empirical evidence gave him the answer, and as he said, "these weights are themselves the PM device, the 'essential constituent parts' which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force derived from the PM principle) indefinitely - so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity."

How anyone can read that sentence and not understand that it means he used gravity, is beyond me.  But of course as some have suggested he might have been lying or incorporating hidden meaning within the text -  or he didn't mean gravity alone.  But for me it is plain and simple and he used gravity alone to drive his machine.

What gravity is, and what air and water are, is not relevant to my argument; the only thing that matters is that wind can move objects of mass, a current of water can move objects of mass and gravity can move objects of mass. It doesn't matter how they do it, just that they do.

One of the arguments used against the possibility of gravity as an energy source is that gravity represents potential energy. It's there if you've already put in the work. There's potential energy in a book on a shelf because you've lifted it and placed it there. Once you use that energy, when the book falls to the floor, it's gone until you lift it back up again. This is true - and it also applies to wind and water currents. Again, the work has to be put in first to gain the energy output. Release a balloon in the wind and watch it get carried along by the wind, and then grab it and take it back to the starting point (upwind) to release it again. Or put a toy boat in a stream and the same thing applies. It will float downstream and you can pick it up and take it back upstream again.  Just because we have found a way of obtaining work from wind and water streams that converts the force of wind and water to rotational energy output, does not necessarily rule out the same potential conversion of the gravitational force.

And that defines a conservative force. Since the work done by wind and water currents can be reversed, i.e. the object moved can be taken back upstream, or upwind, to be released and able to be moved again, they are conservative forces, as is gravity.  Notice the word up in upwind and upstream, its a clue.

I might not be able to add any comments for a day or two next week as I'm off to Rome on Tuesday and I'm busy writing some notes for the interview.  I'll post a blog when I get back and tell you about it.

JC

Bessler's Gravitywheel, the Bessler-Collins Project, an Italian Documentary and the five mechanisms discovery.

Now that I've got the alternative theories about Bessler's wheel out of the way, we can return to my own theory that it was driven solely by gravity and that this does not violate any laws of physics. I know that not all of my readers agree totally with me but I'm certain that I will prove to be correct.

I'm writing a lengthy document, called the 'Bessler-Collins Project' which sets out my case and I will publish it when I'm happy with it. It incorporates all the clues, both graphic and textual, as well as the work I've done so far. I'm doing this just in case I drop off my perch prematurely!

I'm pleased to say that the Italian documentary is still on, and I'm just waiting on a date to travel to Rome.

I am back in the workshop and in the process of building the mechanism again and still making further discoveries in Bessler's papers - I've found further verification that he used five mechanisms and I know in this instance it does not refer to codes.

This implies that there is a sound reason for needing five mechanisms and I think I know why. Many people have suggested that one mechanisms would suffice to prove the wheel and I agree that it should certainly be able to initiate some rotation, but in my opinion it will be shown that it can only rotate the wheel so far and regardless of being in balance elsewhere it will not rotate further. I know why - or at least I think I do, but I prefer to keep quiet about that for now.

JC

The Leiden Jar, static electricity, a solenoid and some springs!

This is in response to a long email I received about the Leyden (Leiden jar). It is not my opinion, in fact I don't think it has anything to do with Bessler, but in case I'm wrong I thought I'd air the views of another, no matter how wacky -  he's aware of my opinion of his ideas.

I mentioned in my biography on Bessler, the coincidence of Pieter van Musschenbroek, a professor of physics at Leiden University, inventing the Leiden jar, an early method of storing static electricity, in 1745 - the year Bessler died, (it was also discovered by Ewald Georg von Kleist in Germany the previous year). I had previously examined the remote possibility that Bessler used static electricity in some way to provide the additional force often suggested as necessary, to make a gravity-driven wheel complete a full rotation, and recently the idea has reappeared in a couple of emails.

The story of the first test of the Leiden jar and its effect on van Musschenbroek's student helper, Andreas Cunaeus, is well reported in wikipedia. He was virtually knocked out by the strength of the electric shock he received and was unwell for two days following. Van Musschenbroek went on to arrange some spectacular demonstrations of the power of the device, and after having experienced the shock himself he wrote, in a letter to his French colleague Réaumur, that the whole kingdom of France could not compel him to repeat the experience. The French priest Jean Antoine Nollet, a great popularizer of electrical phenomena, learned of the Leiden experiments via this letter and lost no time in contriving even more spectacular demonstrations. They culminated in one involving 700 monks joined in a circle to a Leiden jar!

It was suggested that if 's Gravesande, being a close friend and colleague of Musschenbroek, was so intently examining Bessler's wheel perhaps it was because he suspected some electric component at work within the wheel.

The static electricity stored in the Leiden jar was generated in the first place by transforming mechanical work into electric energy, usually by means of friction against a glass. Jan Ingenhousz invented an electrostatic machine made of plate glass - in 1746.

It will be recalled that Pieter van Musschenbroek, was the guy who was contacted by Daniel Schumacher, Peter the Great's librarian, charged with buying experimental equipment for his universities and of course it was Schumacher who negotiated with Bessler to buy his wheel for Peter.

My correspondent wondered if, perhaps Bessler had already discovered how to generate and store static electricity in a capacitor, or something akin to the Leiden jar. This he might achieve by including glass plates within his wheel, as per Jan Ingenhousz's method. The capacitor would have to be fully charged before he began. However I have questioned whether it is possible to temporarily power a magnet by discharging a capacitor suddenly. I suspect that the resistance in the magnet's coils might be too high for the sudden discharge of static electricity to overcome, but I'm not knowledgeable about this.

He went on to suggest that if it were possible then it might lead one to suspect that Bessler had designed an electromagnet or even a simple solenoid, powered by sudden discharges of static electricity which could be used to deflect weights on springs, thus overcoming the wheel's reluctance to continue to turn. Bessler, you will recall, said that he used springs but not in the way you think.

I know - it's crazy, but I like it!

JC

Update - and the Conversion of Centrifugal Force Into Linear Force and Motion

Well it seems to me that the Italian interview has gone the way of previous offers from the media. I had an email a couple of weeks ago saying that they were unable to obtain permission to film within the Trivulziana library at Castello Sforzesco, which doesn't surprise me, so an alternative date has been promised for an interview in Rome. I won't be holding my breath in anticipation, but if something concrete does materialise I'll let you know.

My own efforts to reconstruct Bessler's wheel progress at a snail's pace because of frequent calls on my time from other commitments. I'm busy trying to make my garden (yard?) fox-proof at the present. We have a problem with urban foxes and they seem to be living next door - you should see the holes leading to their dens! Now back to matters Bessler.

Some years ago David E. Cowlishaw produced an invention he called a Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster, this was a way of the mechanically generating a unidirectional force, with which it was hoped one could direct a vehicle or a boat, in any direction, or indeed drive a space ship. It would replace gear trains, propellers and jets, as a device for generating thrust

It was said that this device was a consequence of the variable inertia property of matter. I would suggest that it was an example of parametric oscillation.

If Bessler's wheel is successfully built, it too will rely on parametric oscillation, (see my article on 'kiiking') and might show the way to a successful inertial propulsion engine - providing the correct configuration is used, to swing weights around, in such a way that the circular movement ends up producing a unidirectional thrust. In much the same way that an electric motor reversed becomes an electricity generator, so Bessler's wheel reversed, or driven, could be designed to produce a unidirectional force from weights rotating about the wheel axle.

There have been a number of claims to have successfully built an inertial thrust engine but I am not aware of any reliable examples - although someone may correct this impression. The point I am making here is that, just as in theory one could reverse the direction of energy in Bessler's wheel to produce linear force and motion and this would prove that inertial propulsion engines were a valid area of research, so on the other hand would the successful construction of an inertial propulsion engine also prove that Bessler's wheel was a valid area for research.

JC

There would be enough energy output from Bessler's wheel to power every home in the world.

Sorry to bang on about this but it is important in my opinin. There's been some discussions on the forum about how much power Bessler's wheel could generate and it has been argued that Bessler's wheel will never be of any practical use. I quoted some of Bessler's words and one particular sentence that struck me afresh was, "If I were to place, next to a 12-Ell wheel, one of 6-Ells, then, if I wanted to, I could cause the smaller one to revolve with more force and useful power than the large one. I can, in fact, make 2, or 3, or even more, wheels all revolving on the same axis."

I know there are many, both here and on the forum, who are sceptical about the amount of power which would be available from a modern gravity wheel. I have a sanguine disregard for this scepticism and ask you to consider this.

There are two conclusions to be drawn from the above quote; firstly that the inventor could make his wheels more or less powerful, regardless of the apparent external dimensions; and secondly by placing more wheels on the same axle he could increase the power output.

The Kassel wheel was able to lift a chest of stones weighting 70 pounds on the end of a rope, but I have argued that it was designed to turn more slowly to increase its chances of surviving the longevity test. Now picture two or more Kassel wheels, both mounted on the same axle. Together, they should be able to lift 140 pounds or more, depending how many are added. Applying the first conclusion from the above quote means that the 140 pounds lifted could be increased - elsewhere he claims a fourfold increase. So possibly, the 140 pounds lifted could be increased to 560 pounds, or a quarter of a ton. Given due consideration, I am sure that there is enough potential to run a home electricity generator, and overcome the maximum possible load, as long as there are enough wheels of the optimum configuration on each axle.

By 'optimum configuration', I mean a wheel which can only turn one way. Two-way wheels were balanced and needed a push to start them, therefore I do not subscribe to the idea that the mechanisms could turn the wheel in either direction. My idea of mirror image mechanisms is more logical to my mind, in which case removing the reverse-turning mechanisms would reduce an unnecessary additional load imposed on them, and remove their extra weight. This configuration would be less complicated, less likely to suffer problems and probably have more power available.

So I am confident that when it is finally built, Bessler's wheel will provide electrcity for every house - everywhere.

JC

Why the Kassel wheel turned so slowly and what this could mean for us today.

I posted this thought on the Bessler forum but I think the message got lost in the argument I was trying to make, so I repeat the point here.

If Bessler was able to make his first three wheels turn at 50 RPM regardless of whether they were one or two-way wheels, why would he make his final and most robustly built one, only able to turn at about half the speed of the others?

My suggestion was that it was done in anticipation of the the long endurance test, so he could be sure that it would suffer less wear and tear because it would only have to to turn half the number of times, compared to the Merseberg wheel.

We know he claimed to be able to make wheels that could turn slowly or faster, so the slow rotation inherent in the Kassel wheel was deliberate. But there was a disadvantage to this decision, the slower RPM was less powerful, in my opinion, so he added extra weights on either side of the existing ones to give the wheel a little more power, and that is why the Kassel wheel was thicker than the Merseberg one, which was the same diameter, but only two-thirds the depth.  It seems to me that a slower turning wheel might produce less power than a faster turning one? If so that would explain the extra depth to his wheel when compared to the Merseberg one - he needed to add some extra weights.

On the above understanding I suggest that it would be possible to produce a much faster turning wheel complete with extra weights that could generate the kind of power we seek for our modern electrical requirements.

JC