Bessler's wheel as an electricity generator

This can be no more than speculation until we know what kind of potential output Bessler's wheel might generate, but when his wheel is proven and accepted, I think there will be many versions appearing, offering home electricity generators.  I don't know how large a wheel will have to be constructed but I guess that something powerful enough to provide all domestic requirements will have to be quite big.  Bessler's wheels were built very narrow but he did say they could be built with more than one on an axle, so we can imagine something with a lot more width on a single axle. The question then is what size of generator would be required to fulfil all of one household's demands, then we might have some idea of the size of wheel needed?

I found it difficult to discover  on the internet, how much electricity a home needs.  I realize of course that there are many variations in how much we use so some kind of working average would suffice.  I note that to calculate it you need the total square footage of living space, disregarding open porches, garages, and basements or attics, plus you  must list all electric appliances, including any AC, or heating, and the voltage and load of each in amperes or wattage.  As a short cut I looked at standby electrical generators suitable for home use.

For about £24000 you can get a unit which will power a complete house of 4000 plus square feet, weighing about 8141 pounds and providing 200 kVA.  I'm sure there are smaller cheaper units available but that is one I found.  Its length is 11 feet, width four feet, and height about seven feet, a pretty big beast. We don't know how much a suitable Bessler wheel would weigh but its cost could be lower due to the simplicity of its design, compared to a diesel engine.  On the other hand its size could be equally daunting and weight probably similar to traditional generators.

I know that some disagree with me, but let's consider what we think we know.  The only weight described was one from the Merseberg wheel which was estimated to weigh about four pounds. That wheel turned in either direction and I remain convinced that it had duplicate mechanisms, one for each direction.  In which case we can discard half the width and half the number of weights.  Against public opinion I am also satisfied that there were five mechanisms and Bessler said the weights worked in pairs, so lets assume five pairs of weights at four pounds each.  

We are left with a twelve foot wheel of six inches diameter, and ten weights of four pounds each, totalling 40 pounds, capable of turning at 50 RPM.  To bring the total weight/power ratio up we can increase the width but we don't know if it is possible to increase the mass of the individual weights.  We could extend the width of the wheel to say five feet, so multiplying the six inch width by ten and increasing the number of weights by ten gives us a total weight of 400 pounds rotating at 50 RPM.  In the traditional example quoted above, it includes the alternator so we'd have add that to the wheel which would make the comparative sizes roughly the same, although the weight could be less.  Even so I think the comparison works quite well and I think a wheel turning at that speed with that amount of weight would be more than capable of producing enough electricity for our individual needs.

I have deliberately ignored any flywheel effect possibly inherent in Bessler's two-way wheels as we know too little to form any judgement on the likely outcome. 

JC     

The answer lies in Gravity, a source of energy that's free.

Bessler stated that the 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".

I don't see how anyone can deny the obvious truth here, that the machine required only the presence of gravity to operate continuously. I have spent many years researching the facts about gravity and I remain utterly convinced that, despite the strongest remonstrations from scientists, teachers and other experts, not forgetting most Bessler fans, there is no reason for thinking otherwise.  I have read all the arguments,and I understand the reasoning and I still disagree with their findings in this regard.  There is a way to use gravity alone - no other force being required - and I know what it is.

It seems strange that gravity is dismissed in this way.  Historically mankind has instinctively known that gravity could provide the answer and yet science has outlawed it as a potential energy enabler.  I have offered numerous analogies to explain why it is a possible and they have been disregarded.  No-one seems to get it, that an analogy is an alternative way of explaining something which is not clear. You don't actually apply a microscopic analysis to an analogy, you just get the general picture. Professor Eric Laithwaite, who I once had the honour to meet, suggested that analogies were the the best form of explanation.  He  loved to use the art of analogy to explain awkward scientific concepts.

A simple example of an analogy is to liken the heart to a pump, or plumbing to electricity - every one understands that when we say electricity running through wires is like water running through pipes, it is an analogy and not to be taken literally.  So when I say that gravity is like a current of water or wind, carrying everything along with it that isn't fixed, there is no point in directing my attention to the fact that wind is generated by pressure changes in the atmosphere, or that flowing water originated from the sun's action causing evaporation, condensation, rain etc.  These things are irrelevant to the analogy.   

As many will know, I have been claiming for a long time that I know the secret of Bessler's wheel and I will share the information as soon as I have tested it out on a prototype  - before the 6th June this year.  I will publish the details, even if I can't make it work for me, because I know without a doubt that I have the secret and if I can't prove it with a working model, then perhaps my efforts will result in someone else succeeding and that people will recognise my original input. But even more I hope my prototype works.  The design of the mechanism is drawn from Bessler's text and images.  In my forthcoming publications, website and video, I will explain everything, where the clues came from and what they mean and why I am so certain that I'm right.

I do not know what will happen when I publish the details but I am content to await the outcome, whatever it may be, after thee hundred years it's time.

JC     

I wouldn't patent Besslers wheel if I had the chance.

There are many who will strongly disagree but.....

I've discussed the issue of patenting Bessler's wheel before, both here on my blog as well as on the besslerwheel forum, but since the question has arisen again I have decided to restate my own view.

I know and agree with all the arguments for patenting the device, but there is one overwhelming reason why it shouldn't be patented.  Any government that sees this device as harming tax revenues from the sale of oil will be tempted to bury it under a secrecy order.  Have no doubt, it will affect them in time and maybe sooner.  

It will also have an impact on all the alterntive energies being so expensively researched.  The solar panels so assiduously promoted even in our own fog-bound island will suffer a sudden decline in sales, possibly throwing people out of work and closing firms down.  Plenty of temptation and plenty of excuses for a government to kill it quickly.

And don't even apply for a patent even if you intend sharing it freely afterwards, because a patent application can lead to a subsequent secrecy order.

OK, so what do we do?  As others have advised, share it freely across the world by internet, video and other public media.

How to get remuneration?  The media will come knocking at your door offering wads of cash for your story - take it or leave it, the choice will be yours and even if you do take it, it will still be a seven day wonder and then they'll forget you.

Don't patent, the risk it too great that it will be taken and buried.

JC

Farm Studio's Italian documentary about 'Orffyreus' on youtube gets almost as many hits in one week as my seven websites get in a month!

I was pleased to be contacted by one of the three other people interviewed on the Italian documentary about Orffyreus.  I look forward to some exchanges of views, and my recent experience in Rome has shown me  what friendly, open-minded people the Italians are.  In fact I have seen a distinct swing towards Italians buying copies of my books since the documentary aired on RAI 2 on Monday 12th March, and it certainly shows that the film has attracted more attention in one week than all my years of publishing information about Johann Bessler (Orffyreus) on a number of web sites, radio interviews and magazine articles.

Some years ago a radio interviewer described my efforts as like 'a voice crying in the wilderness', and went on to compare my attempts to persuade the world that Bessler was genuine, to Galileo, because when he stated that the sun was the centre of the solar system, he too, was a voice crying in the wilderness. Most people thought he was crazy or evil, or possibly both. I hasten to add that I am not to be compared in any way with Galileo nor the original subject of the quote - and I don't think I'm crazy or evil.....I admit I have sometimes felt as though I was banging my head against a wall but I never considered giving up.  

But it does go to show the advantages of putting the subject out on TV, the potential audience is vast and if they decide to produce the same film with English and other language subtitles the whole world will come to learn about Bessler and his gravity wheel.  In my opinion the more who know about Bessler, the better the chances are that someone will succeed in reproducing Bessler's wheel and everyone will benefit.

JC

Sir Isaac Newton misrepresented by the false Frank Edwards attribution.

A lot of people have repeated what they believe to be a famous Newton quote, "Sir Isac Newton once observed that the seekers after perpetual motion are trying to get something from nothing."  Now I have always been suspicious of the authenticity of this attribution for three reasons, firstly, it doesn't fit with Newton's early notes about the potential for a gravity-enabled perpetual motion machine, see my blog on Monday, 12 March 2012.  I spent a lifetime researching documents relating to Bessler and in particular, anything connected with professor Gravesande's letter to Newton on the subject of Bessler's wheel.  In all the years I looked I found just one reference to perpetual motion as a potential machine and I have commented on that in the above blog.  There is absolutely no documentary evidence that Newton said anything else about the subject either in writing or as a reported conversation.

Secondly the language is completely un-Newtonesqe.  By that I mean the language phrasing and style is entirely unlike anthing that Newton is quoted as saying elsewhere.  Here are some well-known examples of his words:-

"I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."

"If I have seen further than certain other men it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants."

"I keep the subject of my inquiry constantly before me, and wait till the first dawning opens gradually, by little and little, into a full and clear light."

"If I have ever made any valuable discoveries, it has been owing more to patient attention, than to any other talent."

There are dozens of websites providing examples of Newtons words, and these prove the point.

Thirdly, the first time I came across the quote was in Frank Edward's book, "Strangest of All", in which he recounts the legend of Bessler's wheel, with one or two additional inventions of his own.  Because recently this quote has resurfaced I decided once and for all to either verify it as genuine or prove that it is nothing more than a piece of artistic license - Artistic licence is a colloquial term, sometimes euphemism, used to denote the distortion of fact, alteration of the conventions of grammar or language, or rewording of pre-existing text made by an artist to improve a piece of art. [thanks to wikipedia]. 

We already know that Frank Edwards invented the story about Karl seeing pegs in Bessler's wheel and rushing away to write down a description of what he saw, so it is perfectly reasonable to attribute the quote he ascribes to Newton as in fact another of his own creations.

In order to check out my theory I have searched through many, many web sites looking for every Newton quote available, and there is nothing remotely similar to the one being discussed.  I have also sought other sources for the quote but everyone is almost word for word the same as the one in Frank Edward's book and none of the ones I have seen pre-date Edward's - in most cases the quotation is prefixed with the words, 'Sir Isaac Newton once observed....' a perfect match to Edward's words -  or 'Newton is reputed to have said...'

There is no such quotation mentioned in the earlier book on Bessler, R.T.Gould's book, 'Oddities', yet this compendium of legends is replicated in its entirety in Frank Edward's version, and obviously formed the basis for his book.

It seems that before there was Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell and George Noory, there was Frank Edwards of the Mutual Network, with one of the earliest late night national radio talk shows exploring mysterious topics. He called his program, "Stranger than Science," and covered everything from Bigfoot to UFOs. If the story lacked impact then I guess a little poetic license could  spice it up.

I was fascinated to discover how widespread this quotation has become, thanks largely to the internet.  Even the arch-critic of perpetual motionists, Donald Simanek, [see http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/home.htm] uses it.  

If you put the whole sentence, "Sir Isaac Newton once observed that the seekers after perpetual motion are trying to get something from nothing." in inverted commas into google you get nothing, if you remove the words (or the quote marks) Sir Isaac Newton once observed that, you get about 217 pages, but if you put Sir Isaac Newton's quotes you get 223,000 pages!  The 217 are merely copies which originated in Frank Edwards book.

It may be that Edward's was confusing Leonardo da Vinci's comment, "Oh, ye seekers after perpetual motion, how many vain chimeras have you pursued? Go and take your place with the alchemists!", but it is not the same thing at all and hardly of equal literary value.

JC

Sir Isaac Newton's Perpetual Motion machine.

This is in the interests of trying to correct misleading information relating to Bessler/Orffyreus

Since posting information about Floriano's website at www.orffyreus.it, I've received a number of emails questioning the sketch which, according to him, was done by professor Willem 's Gravesande, and sent to Sir Isaac Newton.  This sketch was actually drawn by Sir Isaac himself. about 24 years before Gravesande was born!  In my first book about Bessler (Perpetual Motion, An Ancient Mystery Solved?) I included the drawing, shown below, because it indicated that Newton considered that a perpetual motion machine could be possible when interacting with gravity.

I wrote that, 'It is a little known fact that in his early notebooks under the heading "Quaestiones"[sic] Newton speculates that gravity (heaviness) is caused by the descent of a subtle matter which strikes all bodies and carries them down. "Whither ye rays of gravity may bee stopped by reflecting or refracting ye, if so a perpetual motion may bee made one of these two ways." Adjacent to these words, Newton added two sketches of perpetual motion powered by the "flux of the gravitational stream".

In full he wrote,

"Try whither the weight of a body may be altered by heate or cold, by dilatation or condensition, beating , poudering, transfering to severall places or severall heights or placing a hot or heavy body over it or under it or by magnetisme whither leade or its dust spread abroade, whither a plate flat ways or edg ways in heaviest, whither the rays of gravity may bee stopped by refecting or refracting them, if so a perpetuall motion may bee made one of these two ways.

The gravity of bodys is as their solidity, because all body{s} descend equall spaces in equal {times} consideration being had to the Resistance of the aire &c"

Now people may well have come to the conclusion that such machines are impossible but it seemed to me then and I remain convinced of it,  that if Newton himself considered it possible and actually drew his  ideas on paper why should subsequent thinkers dismiss it?

In the lower half of the above drawing, Newton also shows his thoughts on using magnets too.

 "Atraction Magneticall

1 The motion of any magneticall ray may bee knowne by attracting a needle in a corke on water.

2 Whither a magneticall pendulum is perpendicular to the Horizon or not, & whither iron is heaviest when impregnated, or when the north pole or southpole is upmost. Coroll. A perpetuall motion .

3 Whither magneticall rays will blow a candle move a red hot copper or iron needle, or passe through a red hot plate of copper or iron

4 A perpetuall motion .

5 Whither a loadestone will not turne around a red hot iron fashioned like wind mill sailes as the wind doth them. Perhaps cold iron may reflect the magn: rays with that pole which shuns the lodestone."

He never published an opinion later on whether he believed such devices were possible or not.

For the modern rendering of Newton's Quaestions" notebook see  http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00092

JC

More Orffyrean related websites

I often get sent ideas and details of other websites which might be of interest to me and recently I received two more.

This email came from a long time correspondent in Italy, who incidentally gave my name to the Italian documentary makers, so thanks for that Floriano, and he has just published a website with his own take on Bessler's wheel.  In it he says that he has decided not to go for a long explanation but preferred to keep it simple to gain and keep people's attention.  This seems to me to a good idea, as I am currently writing an explanation of how I believe Bessler's wheel worked and had intended to publish it either on the occasion of the 300th year since Bessler's first exhibition, or when and if someone else published definitive proof that their wheel works.

I now think I might publish a shorter version at the same time.

Floriano has a web site at www.orffyreus.it and it has some interesting ideas, none of which I must hastily admit, bear any resemblance to mine.  Take a look and see what you think.

On the subject of other websites with an Orffyrean connection, there is also one at www.oldrichnos.com which contains some of the most beautiful drawings on it, other than yours John Worton!  The website has been around a while but is till worth a look and is often added to.

JC

If not gravity-driven then what else drove Bessler's wheel?

I'm continually surprised that Bessler's wheel is still regarded as a fraud.  52 years ago (approximately) I read the maid's account of how she supposedly turned the wheel and I immediately knew it was wrong.  How could a piece of mechanism turn the twelve foot wheel through the bearings?  How could it reach a top speed 26 RPM in just three turns?  How was such a mechanisms hidden in open bearings? How was it hidden during the change over from one set of bearings to another? If it was a fraud and the maid was simply mistaken or fooled into thinking that was how it was done , how else could it have been done?

Which leads us to pondering what force was accessable internally which could be used to turn the wheel?  I have seen the suggestions of ambient temperature changes and I dismiss it with the same gut feeling I originally had when reading about the maid's version of events. Later consideration only added weight to my original conviction that it would not do. I am convinced, satisfied and know that it could only have been gravity supplying the weights with the necessary force and therefore energy.

Instead of shooting us gravity-driven wheel proponents down, I wish the shooters would offer alternative theories which were at leastt as acceptable as the gravity-only ones.  We need theories which offer the same quick response, allowing speedy acceleration of the wheel.  My personal belief is that there isn't one, but if people wish to dismiss gravity-driven wheels and yet find no fault in my argument that the wheel was not fraudulent, then they must offer some kind of suggestion of what force would suffice.  It's no good saying that the wheel was genuine but gravity cannot be used in this way but they can't think of anything else.

It's as clear as daylight to me that gravity provided the energy source, Bessler said so too, and there is no alternative anyway.

JC

Don't assume everything on the internet is correct - it ain't!

The internet is a wonderful source of information but the problem with it is that incorrect information can be spread as easily as the correct stuff.  My work on writing the new book on Bessler is proceeding well and I have tried to ensure that all the information in it is correct, however in the course of double-checking everything some inaccuracies are inevitably found.

In my first version of Bessler's biography I wrote during my research, I had come across no less than three accounts written over a period of some fifty years or more, which all use the same argument in support of their author's contention that Orffyreus was a fraud. They explain away Professor 'sGravesande's belief in the wheel in the following manner. I will quote from the latest account which uses very similar words to the two previous ones. Arthur W.J.G. Ord-Hume's book is called "Perpetual Motion - The History of an Obsession". After describing the examination of the wheel at Kassel by 'sGravesande, the author remarks;

'The Professor certainly seems to have had some measure of faith in the wheel and the demonstration of its ability to turn without apparent external force. We ought not to forget, though, that it may have proved easy to dupe an honest old man whose confidence in humanity was probably unbounded . . . .It is not recorded whether the aging academician ever received a reply to his letter to Sir Isaac Newton.'

As this argument attempted to cast doubt on the professor's competence to decide whether the machine was valid or not, it was important to check his age. If he was elderly, then his capacity as a valuable witness was potentially impaired. In fact, this 'honest old man', this 'aging academician' was born on the 26th September 1688, which means that at the time of the Kassel examination he had reached the grand old age of thirty-three! He lived for over another twenty years, dying in 1742. In 1730 he was described as one of the great luminaries of scientific experimentation at Leiden University, possibly the foremost University of the age. His lectures drew the biggest crowds of students. This does not sound like a man of failing intellectual powers, and he was certainly one who could form an opinion based on the evidence in front of him, which others could rely on as accurate. He would not have upset Orffyreus so much if he had not had the courage to ask the most searching questions concerning the Kassel wheel. The argument that he was old and gullible is invalidated.

It has also been pointed out that I did not include anything about Frank Edwards, "Bessler's Wonderful Wheel", 1956, in which he gives an account of Bessler's wheel.  I omitted it because it contains information which is just plain wrong.  One could kindly call it Poetic Licence, but it is misleading.  According to Edwards,  "When the oiled cloth was stripped away, said Count Karl, he found himself gazing upon a very simple arrangement of weights and levers. Orffyreus explained that he had conceived a system whereby the weights one side of the wheel were farther from the axle than the weights on the other side of the wheel, creating an imbalance which caused the wheel to move. The secret, if there was a secret, lay in the ingenious manner in which the weights on the ascending side of the wheel were prevented from following their normal path next to the rim. Count Karl said that these weights were blocked by small pegs which swung back out of the way as the weight passed the zenith."  There is no documentary evidence to support this account and anyway it does not fit with Karl's recorded actions - it is wrong and that is why I originally left it out, however  have included it in the new book if only to correct the information being published.  Edwards includes a numerous other mistakes such as Christian Wagner being called Claus Wagner for example

But there are still factual errors being posted on the interner and copied and pasted on other websites.  For example in the Gera certificate one of the signees is called Christian Lange and on one website it states that he was Bessler's cousin.  This is not true, Bessler's cousin was Detter Langer, but obviously this was due to a simple misreading of the text, but it has been copied to two other web sites to my certain knowledge. In addition this same website has stated that another signee, Johann Georg Pertsch is described as a professor at University of Helmstedt, however he didn't graduate until 1716 and was only 18 in 1712.  The correct man was his father of the same name and was never a professor and he did not attend University of Helmstedt.  An easy mistake to make but it could lead to confusion.

There are numerous errors on the internet and I have tried to right those relating to Bessler and I hope that when my new book does finally appear it will be error free.  But these little mischiefs do creep in and along with typos and spelling mistakes, are the author's bête noire.

My granddaughter wants me to include this clever little trinket, 

"Don't let 'assume' make an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me'".

JC