Google login now required - sorry anons

Sorry guys, but the comment section has turned into a sordid mess of foul language, tantrums, vicious retorts and tit-for-tat recriminations, which has nothing to do with Bessler or the blog.  Against my wishes,  I must require a log in to at least see who is commenting.  Why people resort to moronic name-calling I don't know; why they consistently refer to slang names for actions and parts of the human reproduction system I don't know either.

It seems to me that the people who are interested in solving Bessler's wheel are intelligent, reasonable and capable, so it cannot be they who persist in demonstrating their inadequacy by resorting to schoolboy taunts more suited to the children's playground than to intellectual persuits such as we enjoy.

The use of swear words is usually done for gratuitous effect and is often associated with stress in an individual, but it also demonstrates a lack of imagination and imagination is one of the chief requirements in Bessler research - and a lack of it is not something you could ever accuse Bessler of..  In his words, "Oh - be gone!, you evil hornets, you prattlers swollen with poison, you envious wretches who have so vilely debased me! Only your lap-dogs will be enticed by your poisonous crumbs!"

JC

Invention suppression or merely paranoia

The suppression of alternative energy inventions has long been a cherished bête noire in this field of research.  I noted some comments on the besslerwheel forum on the subject and because I hadn't looked into it for several years I did a quick survey via google.  I came across the same old stories about various amazing discoveries in the field of energy, the benefits of which we should all be enjoying, but which were apparently suppressed by Federal Government, Big Oil, Big Energy, MIBs or the inventor himself.  The problem I have with this informaton is that it seems to consist of recycled information - and the authors and their subject matter, seem to be the same ones I read about over ten years ago; there's very little that's new.

There are two kinds of suppression described, one is where the invention is taken by guile or force and buried and the inventor dies or disappears in mysterious circumstances; and the other is where the inventor himself is 'bought off', or paid an attractive sum of money or benefit to drop his research and remain silnent to the end of his days.  The latter is hard to prove or disprove since the mechanics of the action would prevent such knowledge being known - other than as hearsay or gossip and that in my opinion probably applies to all of it.

I confess that I find all accounts of suppression of any sort highly suspect but as I suggested, the very nature of the supposed suppression would be tend to create that effect I suppose.

On the other hand I have been in regular contact with professor Hal Puthoff for many years and we have often discussed the perceived problem of 'big brother' control of new energy systems and he has made strongly persuasive arguments against such reported suppressions.  I'm sure that there are some who will say that professor Puthoff would take that point of view and express it forcefully, because he was at one time one of a number of scientific advisors to the US government on energy research.  However given his own work in related fields and his considerable support for other amateur reseachers as well as my own efforts in bringing information about Johann Bessler to public view, I'm satisfied that he would not support any kind of suppression.

Google can produce over one and half million webpages on suppressed inventions and despite looking through dozens of them, I came to the conclusions that what such websites display owes more to paranoia than actual evidence.  Without exception each author modifies his introduction with such words as 'Some examples may be cause for scepticism', and this apologising in advance for the so-called facts which are about to be paraded for our benefit, and which are in the main indigestible, is understandable.  Of course this incredulity which they invoke should not negate their validity but their very ubiquity does raise the suspicion in ones mind that they are all copying each other and perhaps the original source for the information has been forgotten.

Knowing the intense pressure experienced by all commercial interests to find a money-making scheme to increase profits etc, it is scarcly credible that any of them would bury a new idea.  The only area of doubt, it has been suggested, is the government - any government - they, it is claimed, have a vested interest in suppressing anything which might affect their tax revenues accrued from the sale of petroleum products. However, given the rapid depletion of oil reserves and its likely eventual affect on the tax-take anyway, and the fact that they are all actively seeking an alternative to which they can attach another form of tax revenue which could be equally profitable for them and without the concomitant disadvantages of its predecessor, does throw doubt on that assumption as well.

For those who think that the oil companies would like to suppress any new energies, remember the no-doubt apocryphal, comment by one oil CEO, 'Burning gasoline is like keeping warm by burning Rembrants!'  Remember that one 42-gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline. The rest (over half) is used to make over 6000 items and you can see a list of just 144 at http://www.ranken-energy.com/Products%20from%20Petroleum.htm  petroleum is not just used for fuel and the bi-products are of far greater value than gas.

Finally, however effectively the inventions were suppressed in the past, and in my opinion that fact is of doubtful authenticity, it would prove extremely difficult to do so now, with social networking, forums and online document storage and other facilities available via the internet.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’. 

Size need be no object.

I don't know why some people believe that Bessler's wheel would prove to be too weak to produce sufficient energy to be of any practical use.  

Take a look at this project, http://www.rarenergia.com.br/

It is huge!  The two brothers, Ribeiro, from Brazil have been in touch with me from time to time over many years, but when I saw their latest venture I had to rethink my ideas about the size of Bessler's wheel and how big it would have in order to be really useful. I have no idea of the value of their project but seeeing the pictures of it got me thinking and when I considered the sizes of various energy devices throughout history, I realised that Bessler's wheel could be whatever size it needed to be to produce useful electricity.

John Rowley designed and built a new tidal wheel to pump water to Windsor Castle, from the river Thames, nearly three hundred years ago. I quote from the records 'John Rowley, master of mechanicks, for making a dam before and behind the engine, for clearing the old foundation, for setting down a new frame,  for the new wheel of twenty-four foot diameter and twelve foot broad; for the new brass engine with brasses to the crank, forcing rods and a new crank etc' . OK it's just a tidal wheel for pumping water, but the size was not a deterrent, even 300 years ago.

Newcomen's engine had an enormous beam, over 20 foot long in some instances, and capable of pumping hundreds of gallon of water a minute, albeit using an excessive amount of coal,and it was incredibly inefficient.  But making it big enough was not a problem, even three hundred years ago

More recently, Aldo Costa's wheel - about 60 feetr in diameter - is huge and of doubtful use for energy, but the size did not deter him and he wished to build one of over 150 feet in diameter!

My point is this.... if Bessler's wheel produces any energy at all .....then it can be scaled up to produce a useful amount of energy, and if the size of the Kassel wheel could only produce a small amount of electricity then the wheel could be made big enough to do the job required.

Karl the Landgrave wrote that , 'He [Bessler] has no doubt that once the sale of the machine has been accomplished, a much bigger machine can be built provided that more space is made available and more assistants employed.'

Bessler himself suggested that it should be possible to construct a machine over 35-40 feet in diameter and there is no reason why several such machine could not be supported on the same axle.  If size is limitless then so is the potential power it could generate.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Restrain your excitement and your need for approbation, or suffer from premature affirmation!

I've strived to understand how Johann Bessler produced what appeared to be a continuously-turning wheel, sometimes called a Perpetual Motion machine, and in doing so I've suffered from a variety of psychological stresses. Some  don't believe in Bessler's claims but are intrigued to know how he fooled everyone, both then and now.  They make their opinion clear and in turn receive the brickbats from those others equally vociferous in defence of the legendary inventor.  Others such as myself, are firmly of the opinion that his claims were just and honest and I've spent my life seeking the answer to this puzzle but from the stand-point that he knew the real secret to perpetual motion.

As a researcher I spend every hour available for research, striving to be the one who succeeds in the search.  This is not necessarily due to a desire for fame and fortune, though I cannot think that anyone would reject some kind of recogition for success. Neither do I blame anyone for seeking those attractive rewards which should be given to that person who finds success in this rather limited field.

Politicians often fall back on something they refer to as 'received wisdom'. Basically it is the official, stuffy, unimaginative and conventional viewpoint. And it sometimes turns out to be wrong. In this field of endeavour it is the idea that a gravity-enabled wheel that turns continuously is not possible.  Speaking for myself, I am desperate to prove that the received wisdom is wrong and many times in the past I have posted on forums my personal conviction that I am about to prove it, only to find that I was wrong.  Even as far back as 1997 I thought I had solved the mystery and having said so publicly, received many scornful comments and suggestions  that I should either put up or shut up.  These responses hurt at the time but experience teaches us humility and the wisdom to know when to keep silent and let only the successful machine speak for itself.

I am frequently surprised to read so often of others who make the same mistake that I made - and I still do in private conversations!  Why is it so hard to control the exuberance, excitement and utter certainty that I'm on the verge of success?  Why can't I restrain this strange desire to trumpet my news abroad before I have the certainty of a working wheel? It doesn't seeem to occur to me at the time, that everyone feels that they are on the verge of success, or have had a revelation that they believe will lead to success

I confess I don't know, and I have to admit to suffering mild irritation when reading such comments as appeared recently on the besslerwheel forum and from time to time here on this blog.  Let people tell the world after they have the proof, and not before. Without the working wheel there is nothing to shout about.  

If I succeed in building a besslerwheel you will only know of it when it is running, and not before.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Thought for the day - String's the thing!

I have long believed that Johann Bessler used some cord, or string if you prefer, in each of his mechanisms.  I'm sure that this statement will please at least one contributer to this blog, but I insist that there was only one cord per mechanism.  In his Apologia Poetica, XLVI, Bessler included a strange passage which contained the following comment :-

The dog creeps out of his kennel just as far as his chain will stretch.

This has always seemed to me to describe a flexible link from the 'kennel' to the 'dog', and a piece of chain is similar to a length of cord in that you can pull with it but you can't push.  It is a reversable, one-way, force transmitter.which can only pull.  In his Maschinen Tractate No 9, Bessler writes

nothing is to be accomplished with any device unless my principle of connectedness is activated.

I think his  principle of connectedness referred to the cord or chain he described in the first quote above.  As I've said before, the word connectedness implies a  degree of connection and also leads one to conclude that two items are indeed connected, no matter that it is not a rigid connection.  What would be the point of such a connection?

If the 'dog'  'creeps' out of its kennel, it seems like a slow action as if it is dragging a weight. Before this action Bessler writes:-

cat slinks silently along and snatches nice juicy mice

This looks like  a much quicker action and it takes place before the slow action of the dog,  I think the mice refer to weights as do the horses mentioned later in the same passage.  So a quick action followed by a slower one might be the falling of a weight (quick) then the slower replacement of the same weight.

The point of having a flexible connection seems to me to suggest that the weight drives its second weight into the desired position, but gravity is allowed to act in returning it because if the connection is rigid the mechanism will remain balanced.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Bessler's use of the circumpunct in his pseudonym, Orffyreus.

Before you begin, let me say, this is largely speculative!

A circumpunct is a circle with a dot or point in its centre. Bessler used it in place of the letter 'O' in Orffyreus, in almost all of his abbreviated signatures as well as many of his full ones.  The above two are typical examples.  I used to think that it was his own invention and simply represented his wheel, however in the last couple of years I have begun to think there is more to its presence than I had originally thought.  It was, as is the case with every little personal addition of Bessler's, deliberate, planned and with a double meaning. 

The circumpunct symbol has a long history and has represented the sun,  and was the hieroglyphic for the the Egyptian God, Ra.  As a nazar it was believed to protect against the evil eye.  It was the Alchemical symbol for Gold.  Its use dates back to the Hebrews and Egypt and for all I know further back.  It was used by Dan Brown in his book, 'The Lost Symbol', and interestingly has links to Freemasonry, where it was used as the symbol of an Entered Apprentice. This title refers to a junior member of the Freemasons and might apply to Bessler, but for what purpose I do not know. He might have been pointing to some kind of code system used by the Freemasons.  However, I'm not convinced that he was an accredited member, even if he was familiar with much of their history and methods; although he seems to hint at the square and compass in his drawings and of course they are crudely represented on the plaque at Carlshafen, bearing his image. Two of the three famous Rosicrucian Manifestos were published in Kassel and it was always recognised as a centre of Freemasonry and I'm sure that Bessler learned quickly all he could about the subject, given his propensity for doing so in other areas of interest.  I note that in the Masonic Lodge, the emblem is associated with St. John the Baptist and St. John the Evangelist, whose feast days fall on the summer and winter solstices.

In Cabbalistic mysticism, it represented the archangel Michael, - and it is related to the monad, which is a whole new can of worms.

To the Pythagoreans, the point and circle represented eternity, whose “centre is everywhere and the circumference nowhere.” This symbol was used by the Greek philosophers to represent the point of the beginning of creation. From this symbol they evolved towards the additional rules of creation including the Golden Ratio. 

There is one other possible connection and that points straight to Francis Bacon and his bilateral cipher. This alphabet clearly shows the circumpunct and if Bessler was familar with Bacon's work as well as the symbol he would have thought it perfect for use in his signature, both as a link to his wheel but also, possibly, as a link, potentially, to his use of the bilateral code.

I guess it would look something like the above in print:-

and here, just for my own amusement is my name, suitably embellished;

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Update - and musings on the word 'pairs'.

The test rig did not perform as I had hoped.  I completed the construction of the single mechanism and oriented it so that when one weight fell, the other weight was lifted in a certain way, but there was insufficient mechanical advantage available to achieve the full lift.  I would like to show the details so that you can see why I was optimistic that this would work, but I'm not ready to show that yet.  The concept hidden below my initials at the end of each blog, is still the key to success in my opinion, and I have another design to work through before I can discuss this openly.

My theory that parametric oscillation was the key to understanding Bessler's wheel has kind of dropped in importance. I still think it has a part to play, but only in the way that moving weights within the wheel, back and forth, within the period of one rotation, will overbalance the wheel. "A parametric oscillator is a harmonic oscillator whose parameters oscillate in time. For example, a well known parametric oscillator is a child pumping a swing by periodically standing and squatting to increase the size of the swing's oscillation" (from wikipedia).  So the parameters of the weight's positions alter during the time of one rotation.  In other words I have discarded the notion that replicating the actions of a swing might be the answer, but I still believe the correct movement of the weights will lead to success.

One of the strange features of this research is that one can become completely convinced that a particular design concept is the answer. No other method can even be considered - that is, until you have proved to yourself that you were wrong.  Now another plan has slipped into my mind and is supported by another revelation about Bessler's words!  How cunning that man was, to present us with ambiguity upon ambiguity! One of the things I've learned about what Bessler wrote - and I guess it's fairly obvious when you think about it - he describes things in an ambiguous way, yes, and his words are accurate, but only in hindsight.  His intention was, in my opinion, to write comments which could be understood in more than one way, but even the alternative way was not right because only after his wheel had been built and sold could he then point to the many clues he had left and with a certain amount of glee, and say "that is what I meant when I said, blahdeblah!"  The words were written in such a way that no-one could doubt their actual meaning once it was explained.

Take this translation of one famous comment, "He shall be called a great craftsman who can easily/lightly throw up a heavy thing, and when one pound falls a quarter,it shoots up four pounds four quarters. &c." Apologia Poetica

There is an abundance of clues wrapped up in this ironic comment.  I found seven separate pieces of information in it, and the clever thing about it is that if is misinterpreted, or should I say, alternatively interpreted, it reveals another double meaning one of which is also valid. Plus of course it is also tongue-in-cheek by suggesting that it would indeed take a great craftsman to achieve something that appears, on the face of it, to be impossible - when another interpretation reveals what he really meant.

I will discuss the designs I have been working on upon my return from Spain, but for now I shall just comment on the following passage from Apologia Poetica.

" So then, a work of this kind of craftsmanship has, as its basis of motion, many separate pieces of lead . These come in pairs, such that, as one of them takes up an outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axle. Later, they swap places, and so they go on and on changing places all the time."

Later translations suggest that the literal reading of the text goes, "a work of art must be driving many pieces lead; they are now always two and two;"  I did not see this apparent mistranslation when my friend Mike Senior first showed it to me.  Later he admitted that he took the meaning as 'pairs' simply because that is what he thought Bessler meant.  

But the word for pairs is variously, 'PAIRS = paarweise {adv}; in Paaren; PAIR of twins = Zwillingspaare; paar = twos; paarweise = in pairs; in twos; by pairs'.  Why didn't Bessler use that well-known word paars?  I have a theory....

If you had two weights working together as a pair you would use the word 'paar'; but if you had three weights, A B and C, working together, first you might have weight 'A' move weight 'B' and then upon weight 'A's return under gravity, again, it moves weight 'C', 'B' having already returned under gravity.  So out of three weights you are using two and two = AB and AC, alternately.  In confirmation of this possibility  note that there are two drawings in Das Triumphirende, which show wheels with three weights to each mechanism.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

The Legend of Johannn Bessler's Wheel, also known as ORFFYREUS.

This blog is temporarily closed to comments while I take a break and continue with my experiments to reconstruct Bessler's wheel.  My first task is to complete a test rig I'm building to evaluate the design of one mechanism; this is an attempt to try to make it perform in the way I have designed it to.  If this works I shall make several identical mechanisms and attach them to the wheel.  I am undecided as yet, whether I should immediately have five such mechanism on the wheel, or initially test it with fewer.  I have always believed that Bessler recommended five for the working machine, but he seems to suggest that he was able to at least obtain some very slow rotation with just one mechanism. For me the problem is that one mechanisms would require more careful balancing than multiple numbers and therefore something between three and five seems to be the better option if I wish to obtain a proof of principle.

If the test rig fails to deliver - despite any adjustments I might see fit to make - then I shall probably publish my design and explain how I came up with it; if it does work then the final test, which will require that I attach a number of mechanisms to the wheel, will follow and, I hope, prove that their operation is working according to the correct principle.  In this case there will be a further delay before I open my blog for comments again, while I follow a plan I devised should I ever meet with success.

During this period I shall put up a brief account of the Legend of Bessler's Wheel., as follows:-

The Legend of Johannn Bessler's Wheel, also known as ORFFYREUS.

In 1712 Johann Bessler (aka ORFFYREUS) exhibited a machine which he claimed, drew its energy from gravity. Despite nearly twenty years of the most stringent tests, examinations and public trials, not the slightest sign of deception was ever found. Bessler died 33 years later, in poverty, still maintaining that his machine was genuine and there was no convincing evidence to the contrary.He had a number of supporters as well as enemies, and among his champions were some of the most respected men of the day. These men, included Gottfried Leibniz and Christian Wolff, top scientists of the calibre of Newton.

Bessler wanted to sell his machine for the sum of £20,000, a fortune in those days, equivalent to well over a million Pounds today. Despite the apparent stupidity of asking such a large sum of money, it was not unique and in fact Bessler based the sum on the one offered by the British Board of Longitude, which, at the same time, was offering £20,000 to the first person to discover a means of locating the exact position of a ship at sea, longitudinally. John Harrison eventually won the money although it took him and his son many years to get all of it from a reluctant British government.

Bessler failed to sell his machine, not for a lack of customers, but because he refused to allow access to his secret until he had the money in his possession. He offered his head to the axe man if he should be found to have deceived his prospective clients. But his determination not to risk being cheated defeated all negotiations. He died in harrowing circumstances years later, building Europe's first horizontal windmill to his own design of course. In mid-winter, starving, weak and in debt, he fell to his death. The massive base of the mill still stands, decaying, weatherworn and utterly neglected, in a small town in Germany.

A lifetime's research has convinced me, against the traditional teachings of science, that Bessler's wheel really did work and it completely convinced all who examined it.  I first encountered Johann Bessler at the age of fifteen, and I'm now sixty-eight and I have total conviction about his claims to have designed and built and continuously turning wheel.  There has never been a more urgent need for this 300 year old technology to be rediscovered than right now.  If you are only the slightest bit intrigued by this story, please visit the websites linked at the edge of this blog.  

I'll be reporting back as soon as I have something to say.  In the meantime, keep working at the solution guys!

For those who don't know, the odd collection of characters after my name hold the secret principle of Bessler's wheel, encoded for now, and deciphered by myself some three years ago from Bessler's papers, all availbale from my websiteat www.free-energy.co.uk

John Collins  (JC)

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Update and a short hiatus for me.

My work on my own project to reconstruct Bessler's wheel is progressing at last and I plan to complete my single mechanism test rig in the next day or so.  When and if that works as I hope, then I will build some more mechanisms and test the final wheel in the next couple of weeks.  If the test rig experiment doesn't perform as I hope, then apart from seeing if there are any further adjustments I can make which will improve the situation, I'll have to reconsider my options.  I await the results of Øystein's build with great interest, but the two of us seem to be approaching the solution from two different perspectives and who is to say whether either or both, or none of them will prove right or wrong.  There are others out there who also believe that they are on the brink of success, but it would be foolish not to remember that we have been on the brink of success for what...300 years now!

I mentioned above that I intended to add 'more mechanisms', but I did not say anything about adding the ubiquitous five!  The reason for this is that lately I have come to the conclusion (as everyone has been telling me for the last, I don't know how mnay years!) that perhaps having five mechanisms wasn't strictly necessary for a proof of principle wheel.  Bessler said, "If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in the machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself at all, but, on the contrary, when I arrange several bars, pulleys and weights, the machine can revolve much faster..."  If my wheel turned so slowly but still continued to turn without stopping then I should consider that proof enough for me.  Then I could add sufficient to make a clear demonstration of the wheel's power.

I  have written 309 blogs and received 334,815 visitors over that time which works out at just over 1000 per blog, from more than ten countries.  I'm proud of this but it doesn't really compare with other blogs and to tell the truth I'm running out of ideas to write about.  What I thought I'd do is to leave the blog as it is for a few days to guage reaction and then leave it closed for some weeks with just a brief account of Bessler wheel on it until I have something useful to report.  That would either be some more information about my own theory or the revelation that my wheel worked.  If the information related to the latter then there would be some short period of time before I was able to say anything publicly anyway.

So it's time to take a break (not my Spanish break yet!) and see if anyone wishes me to continue writing and perhaps some will offer subjects to comment on.  

In the mean time a big thank you to all who commented, both positively and negatively - you can't have one without the other.

Best wishes to all and good luck.- and keep me informed!

JC