Divided Opinions

Great comments guys, on the clues and which are the best and which aren't really clues and the various interpretations of each.  I may not comment much myself, but I love reading them, so thanks and keep it up!

Ever since I became acquainted with the legend of Bessler's wheel, I have been aware that opinion is divided into those who believe Bessler's claims that he had invented a perpetual motion machine, and those who reject them utterly. The latter group is vastly larger than the former.

As time has passed I have become increasingly surprised that there aren't more people, other than we few, who have looked at the evidence and concluded that there must be something in his claims.  But of course the reason is clear, science states that such machine are impossible, and so well-entrenched in our minds is this view that nothing but the clearest evidence of their own eyes would convince those sceptics that such a machine is possible.

I know that on our side of the chasm there is a subdivision; those who believe Bessler's claims but still reject the gravity-only thesis.  This is actually an encouraging fact.  I say this because obviously the evidence which most of the world ignores has convinced some people, despite the apparent impossibility of the claims, that Bessler did not lie.  Those people seek an alternative hypothesis and some suggest the presence of an additional force which assists gravity to complete the closed circle.

It seems to me that if the evidence that Bessler' wheel really worked is strong enough to convince such people, then it should be strong enough to convince more people and maybe some within the scientific community.  Part of the problem may be that there has been no theory published which might plausibly explain how such a device could overturn the entrenched view.  I have a theory in mind and it is instantly understandable once it is described and it requires no working model to prove it.  But it is one thing to know why it is possible but another to construct something which uses that information effectively.  I'm confident that I'm right but of course only a working model will prove it.

My own construction is mostly complete, although I'm only working with one mechanism at the moment.  This is because I have to get this one right before I adjust the others.  The action is almost there but I'm not happy with its range and I shall continue to adjust it until it performs as expected.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Did Bessler's wheel arrive too late or too early?

The timing of Bessler's discovery, after some ten years research, was unfortunate - 6th June 1712.

Denis Papin's experimental steam cylinder and piston was published in 1690 and he finally left Kassel in 1707.  After more than ten years his research culminated in 1704, with a ship powered by his steam engine, mechanically linked to paddles.  He died in London in 1712.

In 1698 Thomas Savery patented a steam-powered pump.  It was not as powerful as the Newcomen engine.

In 1712 Thomas Newcomen built the first successful steam engine in the world which was used for pumping water from coal mines. Savery's original patent of July 1698 gave 14 years' protection; the next year, 1699, an Act of Parliament was passed which extended his protection for a further 21 years.

Savery's patent covered all engines that raised water by fire and Newcomen was forced to go into partnership with Savery. By 1712, arrangements had been made with Newcomen to develop Newcomen's more advanced design of steam engine, which was marketed under Savery's patent. Newcomen's engine used the piston concept invented in 1690 by the Frenchman Denis Papin to produce the first steam engine capable of raising water from deep mines.

Unfortunately for him, the work of these men accidentally conspired to rob Bessler of his rightful place among the engine pioneers of .the 18th Century.  Their machines were designed and built by creditable 'gentlemen' and backed by establishment and  members of the Royal Society in London..

I often wonder what might have happened if the others had not been there when Bessler exhibited his machine - and if he had sold it!

Some people have speculated that it was because we experienced the steam age which, via the internal combustion engine, led to the petroleum age and hence the discovery of the many other benefits from the expansion of research into crude oil, and that we might have omitted that era if we had taken hold of Bessler's wheel and thus side-stepped much that we take for granted?  My personal opinion is that combustion engines would still have prevailed.

Even as far back as 1673, Huygens carried out experiments with a basic form of internal combustion engine, fuelled by gunpowder, and although he never succeeded in building one that worked, his attempts were helpful to those that were successful.  It seems to me perfectly reasonable to think that all the same engines and their fuels would have been developed in more or less the same time period as happened, with or without Bessler's wheel. 

JC

Bessler's double portrait - what was the purpose?

Recent comments about Bessler's two portraits caused me to review my thoughts about them.  The second portrait appears to show someone in front of an organ along with a number of instruments which could belong to the organ-building industry or an alchemist or heaven knows what else.  The reason why I tend to favour the organ-builder as the intended subject is because Bessler built organs and attributed much of his success to his knowledge of their construction.

What ever the intention, it is clear that the hole which has been cut so precisely in the second portrait to permit his face in the first portrait to show through with such startling accuracy, seems to me at least to indicate two things.  Firstly the second portait already existed, or was commissioned by him; and secondly the first portrait was deliberately designed and executed to allow the precise positioning of his face to match that of the second portrait.

[EDIT  - I forgot to say that I think the second portrait was not comissioned by Bessler because it has some text underneath it which has been carefully altered to convey a different meaning.  So in my opinion the picture had already been produced some while before Bessler decided to use it.]

There are only six examples of the double portraits known to date and they are all produced with the same precision.  This suggests that both portraits were designed to appear together and the first one was deliberately drawn with the subject's head an exact match to both size and position of that in the second one. Presumably Bessler wished to present himself in two lights, firstly as the persona in the first portrait and then as an alternative one in the second.  The two personas (or personae if you prefer) being different ones. 

Now I have commented before on the slightly odd look to Bessler's left arm and hand in the first portrait; it appears to be almost a disembodied part of Bessler himself.  Also there is the impression that the arm originally was intended to come down from his left shoulder at a higher angle, meeting near to his right hand at approximately the same level.  Bessler's coat or cloak shows slight rumpling along the higher line as if it originally contained the arm.  

In my opinion the arm was later corrected to its current lower position to allow the inclusion of the alignment with the pentagram as shown in my web site at http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/html/bessler_s_portrait.html

There are further speculations about the portrait at http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/html/2nd_portrait.html which may be of interest in considering the meaning of the symbols in the first portrait.

The main question in my mind is this; what information do people think the symbols in the first portrait are intended to convey?  A jar or gourd, a skull and a book.  Any suggestions?

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

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,’.