Big Ben's pendulum and an old English penny - variable parameters - the key to Bessler's wheel.

I have long held the belief that the principle which drives Bessler's wheel will prove to derive from the action of parametric oscillation.  The swing, otherwise known as a pendulum, is an extremely sensitive device and perhaps the following facts will demonstrate its power and inspire a solution?

Consider the following.  The clock tower soon to be known as the Elizabeth Tower in a tribute to Queen Elizabeth in her Diamond Jubilee year, but currently known as 'Big Ben' after the bell which sounds the hours, is 316 feet tall.  It holds the largest four-faced chiming clock in the world and is the third-tallest free-standing clock tower.

The four clock dials are 180 feet above ground and each is 23 feet in diameter.

The hour hands each weigh 661 pounds are almost nine feet long and the minute hands are 14 feet long, but they weigh only 220 pounds, being made of a lighter material.  

The clock is regulated by a pendulum which is 13 feet long, weighs 660 pounds (over a third of a ton) and beats every 2 seconds.

On top of the pendulum bob is a small stack of old penny coins; these are to adjust the time of the clock. Adding just one coin has the effect of minutely lifting the position of the pendulum's centre of mass, reducing the effective length of the pendulum rod and hence increasing the rate at which the pendulum swings. Adding or removing a penny from the bob will change the clock's speed by 0.4 seconds per day.

Adding and then removing the penny daily would not result in any discernable continuous motion but in Bessler's wheel however such variation applied on a larger scale to a pendulum - as happenes in a swing by a child swinging its legs and upper body to increase oscillation - or in 'kiiking' - will generate rotation. 

If such a mighty piece of machinery can be affected by the removal or replacement of one penny, surely we can come up with some visionary means of achieving success with Bessler's wheel.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Did Bessler leave clues to the wheel to obtain post humous recognition?

Although I was unable to comment from Spain, I read all your posts and it seemed to me that there is some uncertainty about whether or not Bessler intended to leave clues for us after his death, in case he was unable to sell his wheel.

The following quote seems to imply that there is information in Apologia Poetica which answers certain questions the reader may have.  It also says that the answers will not be revealed soon:-

"Those who are keen to ask questions should ask them of this little book. My work will not be revealed prematurely." (Chapter XLVI page 295 Apologia Poetica) 

Also there is the comment on the front of his Maschinen Tractate, "I burned and buried all papers that prove the possibility. However, I have left all demonstrations and experiments since it would be difficult for anybody to see or learn anything about a perpetual motion from them or to decide whether there was any truth in them because no illustration by itself contains a description of the motion; however, taking various illustrations together and combining them with a discerning mind, it will indeed be possible to look for a movement and, finally to find one in them." (Front page of Maschinen Tractate).

That also supports the idea that he intended that people should learn how his machine worked. 

Elsewhere he bemoaned the fact that no one took his claims seriously and if he failed to find a purchaser for his machine then he would be content with post humous recognition. One can infer from this that he had left some means of showing us how his wheel worked.

There is of course, my own work on decoding what seem to me to be obviously clues, and I don't think there can be any doubt that that is what they are meant to be.  But I understand that many will feel that those that I have published may seem of little help, but there is a much more to come which reveal a lot more information.  Having said that, I am unaware of anything in Bessler's portraits other than what I have posted on my web site at www.theorffyreuscode.com and I shall be very interested to learn what it is that TG believes he has discovered within them.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Away again - and another clue!

I'll be away for a few days so, as usual I might close the comments facility, although I'm not decided yet - sorry guys.  If I do close the comments it will happen on Friday evening about seven o'clock GMT (plus 1).  But I'll be back quite soon - and no, I haven't succeeded in rebuilding Bessler's wheel yet!

I'm in two minds about providing this clue as it may lead to someone deciphering my coded anagram and thus the priniple used in Bessler's wheel.  In fact, instead of giving you the clue, I will simply say that if you go to my website at http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/index.html and study the pages, there are two of the pages which contain vital clues, but you must pick two items and draw intellectual connections between the facts described and then apply one fact from one item to the other one.  Not much of a clue I know but it will become clear when I explain what I mean.

So I'll be in Spain on Saturday and I'll try to keep an eye on things to make sure the comment facility is ok.  I think I can close it from there if I have to but I prefer not to.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Bessler's wheel was just a scientific toy to Karl.

When he asked his minister to approach Bessler and find out if he was genuine, I thought Karl, the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel, was considering the possibility of employing Bessler's wheel to pump water to the top of a new ornamental cascade he had built in his Castle gardens. However there was always going to be the problem of how he could actually pump the water.  An archimedes screw couldn't do it and there was no system available at that time that could raise the water more than a few feet.  

So, I wondered, why did Karl go ahead and build the cascade if he had no way of pumping the water up to the top once it had fallen?  The answer is simple and I saw it in action when I visited the famous Chatsworth House in Derbyshire, England where they have an almost identical cascade.

Chatsworth's cascade, built at exactly the same time as the Kassel cascade is set in the 105-acre garden of Chatsworth House, Derbyshire, the Duke of Devonshire's family home.  The cascade, finally completed in 1701, is fed by four man-made lakes.  The Cascade drops down over 200 vertical feet. All the waterworks in the garden are gravity-fed, with water piped from the lakes which are 400 feet higher than the house.  The water flows down over the cascade to an ornamental lake where it powers a fountain with a jet of water approaching 300 feet in height! 

Work on the Hesse-Kassel cascade began in 1701, inspired by Landgrave Karl's visit to a Villa in Italy. Just as at Chatsworth, the water runs down the cascades, a fall of about 300 feet, before pouring into a lake by the castle, to feed another fountain about 150 feet in height. This whole system is fed from reservoirs of rainwater and relies on gravity. Both these systems have been in place for more than 300 years.

So the reason for Karl's interest in Bessler's wheel was simply personal curiosity, just as he enjoyed Denis Papin's experiments on the lake near his castle in earlier times. In 1705 Papin developed a second steam engine with the help of Gottfried Leibniz, based on an invention by Thomas Savery, but this used steam pressure rather than atmospheric pressure. Details of the engine were published in 1707.  During his stay in Kassel in Hesse, in 1704, he constructed a ship powered by his steam engine, mechanically linked to paddles. This made him the first to construct a steam-powered boat (or vehicle of any kind).  [Thanks to wikipedia and others]

I think that Karl thought that, with Papin gone, similar scientific experiments might be made using Bessler's wheel.  It also explains why Karl was not interested in buying the wheel - he had no use for it.  He was well-known for his interest and understanding of the latest scientific theories and experiments.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

What do you do when you've done it?

On the assumption that I think I will succeed in this venture and finally make  a gravity-enabled wheel turn continuously, what then?

I don't mean, do I patent it, release a video of it on youtube or sell it on ebay!  No, I mean what is the actual next step?  I wouldn't want to immediately announce it on besslerwheel forum or stick a video of it on youtube; no, the question is hard to answer until you are in that actual position (I'm not, yet.)

I have a rough plan which involves telling a few highly respected guys I have known for many years, simply that I have done it - no details at that time.  

The next thing is to consider discussing it with two other guys who I'm equally certain I can trust; one is a film producer and the other... well I mustn't give too much away or he'll recognise himself.

Professor Hal Puthoff was very supportive of myself and my book for many years, and offered to bring wealthy philanthropic investment to assist in the development of the machine once it was proved.  I could contact him to see what his response was.  But there are suspicions about his responsibilities - US Government energy advisor, ex-CIA.  Seriously, I doubt there is a problem but one should weight up each case and only decide after a careful assessment of the pros and cons. 

At this point I look at my hopelessly cobbled-together machine and think to myself, 'do I really want the world to see this monstrosity as the first of its kind since Bessler's? No I answer, I must make a new model with nice shiny parts and some fancy paintwork - and none of the thousand or so unused holes!'

Now this all takes some time to deal with, and so I guess that if I were the lucky one, I might just go silent for a week or two in order to try get everything in order before the s*/!/t hits the fan.  Maybe it would take a month who knows? Should I remain silent or just keep rabbiting on about life and the wheel .... and say nothing to anyone?  I really don't know and perhaps I won't need to if some else gets there before me.

Of course if I do go quiet, I doesn't necessarily mean I've found it - it means I can't think of anything sensible to say - like today!

  

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Did Bessler invent two different designs for his gravity-wheels?

In the middle of the night before last, I awoke and had a revelation or perhaps a sudden inspiration. I had thought of a way to drive a gravity-wheel using a different design concept.  I studied it in my mind, turning it this way and that, and I thought it looked liked it would go and was a winner... and then I fell asleep.  Of course in the cold light of dawn I recalled it and thought how silly, this won't work at all!  The idea that came to me was a completely different way of making Bessler's wheel work.  My secret principle was irrelevant to the working of this new design and the whole thing appeared to be an utterly different configuration to the one I've been working on for the last eighteen months.  But I dismissed it as unworkable, although the odd thing was that all of Bessler's clues still fitted perfectly!

Now at this point I was going to use this so-called revelation to demonstrate how easy it is to fit Bessler's clues to our preconceived ideas, misleading us and taking us up the garden path on the trail of red herring and sending us on a slow boat to China (I love mixing my metaphors!).  BUT....this morning I was considering for the umpteenth time, Bessler's (and mine) obsession with the number 5 and suddenly a thought occurred to me why he felt it was so important.

This thought suddenly brought back into focus my dream from the previous night and with five mechanisms I could see how it might work after all.  I need to do some tests to confirm that my idea is either useless or the key to an alternative version of his wheel - and perhaps prove a theory that crops up from time to time, that the clues that we all study, refer to two different concepts and that is why we have failed so far - but I will post more details soon.  

The version I have been working on all this time has yet to prove to my satisfaction that there has to be five mechanisms, but I can see immediately why this latest concept needs five, and I will just say that this one is so simple, anyone could make it, even me!

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Newton's gravity shield and the potential for inertial thrust in Bessler's Wheel

People may recall that in my biography of Johann Bessler, "Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?", I described a paper from Sir Isaac Newton's notebook in which he 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'.  I included this information in support of my argument that gravity could ultimately be used as a source of energy - if it was good enough for Newton then it was good enough for me.

"The term gravitational shielding refers to a hypothetical process of shielding an object from the influence of a gravitational field. Such processes, if they existed, would have the effect of reducing the weight of an object.  However experimental evidence to date indicates that no such effect exists. Gravitational shielding is considered to be a violation of the equivalence principle and therefore inconsistent with both Newtonian theory and general relativity."  Thanks to wikipedia again.

There is an irony in the last sentence of the above paragrah, 'gravitational shielding ....... is inconsistent with both Newtonian theory and general relativity,' seeing that Newton himself suggested that gravity shielding might be possible.

I was suprised to discover that research into this concept continues. The consensus view of the scientific community is that gravitational shielding does not exist, but there have been occasional investigations into this topic, such as those funded in 1999 by NASA.  Scientists Ning Li and D.G. Torr at the University of Alabama, Huntsville, wrote several papers in major journals on the relationship between superconductors and gravitation. And there are the "gravity shielding” experiments at Tampere University in Finland carried out by Dr. Podkletnov.

This of course has nothing to do with my own suggestion that a successful Bessler's wheel might be adapted and driven to provide directional, or inertial thrust ...sideways and upwards!

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

The Perpetual Motionists are not the same as we Bessler-wheelers.

An article in support of we perpetual motionists was brought to my attention by my good friend James, at an extremely apposite moment as I had already written this short piece for my next blog.  The article was entitled, "Why do They Ridicule Perpetual Motion and Hate the Perpetual Motionists?”

I enjoyed the article even if I did not completely accept his many arguments in support of us.  But his use of the word perpetual motioionists was what I objected to and which prompted me to write about the use of this term.

It has been a a matter of mild concern for me for a number of years, this habit of calling us perpetual motionists.  Such labels do us no favours in my opinion, because the very term, perpetual motion, suggests a degree of naivety in us, which is untrue; most of us are experienced and knowledgeable about the world of physics and in particular mechanics.  Perpetual motion means literally, continuous motion or activity, which of itself is quite accurate.  The problem lies in people's associations of the term Perpetual Motionists with Creationists,  Flat Earthers and other pseudosciences  which then attracts the unwelcome attention of the sceptics, the scornful and their derisory comments.  But there are reasons for their contempt for our work.

Perpetual motion implies self-perpetuating motion  which in its turn, suggests that the motion is derived from some inexaustable inner energy source, which is factually and theoretically impossible. The energy has to come from somewhere and since it's impossible to store unlimited energy within a confined space, it must come from outside.  But because so little was known about gravity (and still is) no-one could offer an explanation which would show how it might assist in this continuous motion.

Because continuous motion has to have an external supply of energy, such a term could also imply that combustion engines which require an external continuous supply of energy in the form of petroleum are also perpetual motion machines; and electric motors too, as long as they are supplied with electricity; and steam engines as long as they have steam.  They are all perpetual motion machines apparently, all moving continuously as long as they have the fuel necessary to their action.

We usually call engines by a name which includes their energy source, so we have steam engines, petrol engines, diesel engines, electric motors etc.  We could call Bessler's wheel a gravity engine or motor, or a gravity wheel, but then we come up against those who say that, unlike, petrol, diesel and electricity, gravity is not an energy source. In fact those so-called energy sources I mentioned, steam, petrol, diesel and electricity are not by themselves energy sources.  They each require a combination of effects to occur at the right moment to generate the power associated with them, and the same applies to gravity.  Without those other energy sources working together with other combinations they wouldn't provide energy either and without gravity, Bessler's wheel would not work.  We need gravity to enable the weights to fall, and it is then up to us to find a way to generate continuous rotation from that initial fall.

BUT.... there is one major difference between the ones I mentioned above and gravity.  They are each fed into their specific machine via pipe or cable; gravity, on the other hand, is present everywhere both inside and outside the gravity wheel. Why do I think it iks still possible to make use of gravity to drive a gravity wheel? The answer as always, lies in analogy.  I have from time to time likened the action of gravity to the force of the wind.  Wind is also everywhere about the windmill and it is the blades of the windmill which are moved by the wind and so it is with gravity, the weighst are moved by its force.   

So deride perpetual motionists if you wish but don't lump us Bessler-wheelers together with them.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

July 2012 Update

The hot weather has arrived at last, just in time for the Olympics, but sunshine means I have some catching up to do in the garden, however at least the rain gave me an opportunity to do some work on my wheel.  

The last piece of the jigsaw dropped into place a few weeks ago and I am confident that this model will work. Oddly enough it was the failure of the mechanism to act as I wanted it to do, that led me to the final piece of the puzzle - and to the revelation of one of Bessler's clues that has somewhat mystified me over a considerable length of time.  I should know by now that Bessler habitually used his clues to either contain two ways to access them, or two different clues.  I am make an adjustment to the design which will create the movement I've been seeking.  I don't know how long it will take to complete, but not long.

There is a slight variation to the parts used compared to the last time I described them, but the basic concept remains the same, plus of course the secret principle which I'm not ready to share yet. 

So there are five mechanisms operating according to the way a swing works or 'kiiking' or parametric oscillation, if you prefer.  As I've mentioned before, this concept of using the mechanics of the swing was suggested  to me by professor Hal Puthoff as a way forward, some years ago and I subsequently found the idea introduced on the Besslerwheel forum by Scott Ellis way back in 2002, and if I'm proved right, due credit should go to them.  

The swing mechanics are only part of the solution and in addition to what I have called the secret principle there is also one more ingredient which is the one I have added in the last couple of months. So the mechanisms are almost all complete and testing should begin within a couple of weeks and any delay is down to getting the final adjustment right. Bessler himself commented that when he 'constructed my greatwork, the 6-ell diameter wheel (the Merseberg wheel). It revolved in either direction, but caused me a few headaches before I got the mechanism properly adjusted.'

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.