Breaking Out of the Box

It has often been said that we should think outside the box,  Excellent advice and we all probably know what is meant and we all think, yes that's what I must do!  But although we have the best of intentions, we continue on our way without really applying the advice, why?  Because we don't know how.  So I thought I'd post some suggestions culled from various sources on the internet.

This problem we have taken on, which requires us to either reproduce Bessler's wheel or find an alternative method of causing a wheel to spin continuously, is proving harder to solve than many of us thought, in our hearts.  We all dreamed of being the one who succeeded.  One of the problems which besets us is that we are all a prisoner of our own paradigm.  I mean that the belief structure within which we think and act is difficult, if not impossible to break out of.  We all know and are encouraged to think outside the box and though we all support this notion, how do we go about it?  Our current paradigms produce tunnel vision and affect our creativity; a paradigm shift would require us to change our belief structure and our perspective so we could see things differently and creatively.

The solution requires us to think about new ideas without assessing their worth and significance before we have both physically and mentally tested them.  It is very easy to consider a mechanical arrangement and 'know' how it will act, because our experience and prejudices tells us the answer.  Our assessment relies on our old ideas and knowledge - our current paradigms. To escape old ideas and prejudices, we must remain non-evaluative and allow bizarre new paradigms and ideas to survive so they can trigger quality ideas.

We have a profound knowledge of the problem which means that we have a lifetime's images in our mind that get in the way of new thinking. The best way to avoid these pictures is to work on the problem indirectly. Start with the 'essence' of the problem, the action verb that captures the main activity. We might for instance encapsulate the problem as looking for something which spins, turns revolves etc.  We might think of sycamore seeds spinning as they fall to earth, or the way water swirls down the drain hole.  These different aspects might lead to a new idea not directly connected with our search.

We often read about reverse engineering, well a similar thought involves turning the problem on its head looking for answers and subsequently turning it right side up produces a solution.  We could for instance study how to keep a wheel from turning despite any forces applied to it; or try to stop it from overbalancing; or get the weights to rise instead of falling.

Another method is to try see the problem from another pair of eyes; a child trying to spin a hoop, or a dog chasing its tail.

You could write down in a sentence exactly what the wheel should do, and then reverse or change the meaning of the verb.

Finally use the following words frequently during your brainstorming sessions -  

    Why?
    Who?
    What?
    Where?
    When?
    With whom?
    And again, why?

I don't know if this helps but give it a try, you never know, you might be the one!

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’

Helmholtz's Assumption about Perpetual Motion is due for correction.

After more than 300 years of trying and failing, one might be forgiven for thinking that we who believe in Bessler must be mistaken.  But for myself I have doubt whatsoever that he did what he said he did and that is that he built a wheel which rotated continuously powered by the force of gravity.

I'm not alone; there are hundreds of people around the world who believe the legend and many of whom continue to experiment with different mechanical configurations each designed to induce a continuous overbalancing which will cause the wheel to rotate for as long as it remains within the field/force of gravity.

Consider if this was a court of law.  There is an abundance of circumstantial evidence supporting the contention that Bessler told the truth - that his wheel was genuine.  In addition we have the evidence of an eyewitness to the internal workings of the wheel, who verified Bessler's claims; a witness of unimpeachable reputation moreover.  Not a single shred of evidence that he was a fake, other than the lies of a servant who had already served two prison sentences for telling lies about a previous employer and was about to be dismissed from her current employment.  A jury would, at the very least, come to the conclusion that the charge was unproven and he would have been released without further charge.

If you seek an explanation for the continued assertion that his wheel was impossible, then you need look no further than the work of  Hermann von Helmholtz (1821–1894).  Having graduated as a Doctor of Medicine, this 26 year old youth with no training or experience in either physics or, for that matter, little in medicine either, conjured up his famous conjecture which has formed the corner stone of  scientific belief with regard to the Law of Conservation of energy ever since.  As is common today his paper was reviewed by his peers - and rejected for being too speculative!  Disregarding this setback, Helmholtz turned instead to a fringe meeting of the Berlin Physical Society where he delivered his paper as a speech in 1847.

His fundamental explanation for the impossibility of perpetual motion machines went something like this;  'no-one has ever built a perpetual motion machine, therefore there must be a law of conservation of energy that forbids such machines. If an inventor comes along claiming to have constructed such a machine, he must be mistaken and can safely be ignored because the law of conservation of energy shows them to be impossible!'  But if such a machine were to materialise it would invalidate his argument.

 Helmholtz's circular reasoning defies logic and should have been dismissed as nothing but hot air 300 years ago and yet we are still hidebound by a tradition of fear of peer pressure where the peer group encourages those who might disagree to change their views to become members of the group, and nothing has changed .

Such a paper would not even be accepted for review in today's competitive world and yet here we are striving to prove Bessler's wheel did work and we are stymied by the existence of a nonsensical argument made by a young man barely out of medical school three hundred years ago. (Thanks to Scott Ellis of besslerwheel forum for above information)

I think that Helmholtz's paper on PM was initially disregarded as the work of an enthusiastic amateur with little experience in the world of science, however this view was probably rectified by his subsequent work in medicine.  Here is a quote from a paper by Gerald Westheimer of  the Division of Neurobiology at University of California:- 'No single person, before or since, contributed more to the knowledge of the human sensory apparatus than Hermann Helmholtz, and throughout his career he kept concerning himself with questions of the origin of our visual experiences. He first broached the subject in an 1854 lecture, as a 34-year-old beginning professor of physiology in Konigsberg, and returned to it in a variety of settings till almost the last essay he wroteduring the year of his death in 1894.'  

This blind acceptance of everything an accredited scientists pontificates upon is a common occurrence today.  Often, despite his claim to fame having been given a rapturous reception the frequent subsequent discovery that some of his work was wrong, inaccurate or an example of self-aggrandizement happens often enough to make us cautious about such claims.  This is often regarded as a necessary step in the evolution of scientific discovery, when corrections are continually applied to our knowledge of the world.  In this case the corrections is taking far longer than usual.

Just because we have not succeeded yet does not preclude the possibility that one or more of us will do so soon. More progress has been achieved in the last five years than in the previous 300 and I am confident that the breakthrough is just around the corner.

 JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’

Did Bessler leave any information to help us reconstruct his wheel?

This question is frequently addressed to me and I am  always amazed at it. I have no doubt that he intended to leave to posterity,  certain information about his wheel.  Let us look at the facts.

Bessler first became associated with the name Orffyreus, back in 1712, when letters mistakenly referred to him as Orpheus, the legendary musician.  This seems to me to indicate that Bessler had already adopted that pseudonym right from the beginning but only verbally, not in writing, hence the error of thinking he said Orpheus rather than Orffyreus.  We know that the word Orffyreus was derived from his surname, Bessler via the simple code system used by the Biblical scribes of the Old Testament, known as the atbash cipher.  This was originally used with the Hebrew alphabet, but modified to work with the English alphabet.

There seems little reason for Bessler to have required such a device unless he planned to use it to encode something.  But this simple code would have been useless because everyone at that time was familiar with it, so I think his intention was to place on record his use of the code as a pointer to other more elaborate ciphers.


In his Apologia Poetica he comments thus: Those who are keen to ask questions should ask them of this little book. My work will not be revealed prematurely. Here and elsewhere there are subtle hints that there is more to his books than meets the casual eye.

Also in Apologia Poetica he addresses his enemies; You'd like me to reveal the secret to you for nothing, wouldn't you? For nothing - as free as the air - an outright present with not a penny paid! What a miserly wretch you would then become, provoking God Himself to anger! No, no - that wouldn't be the way to do things; we must think of better arrangements. If I'm not granted a buyer, I shall be content in the grace of Our Lord.  This comment and another one suggests that if he doesn't sell his machine he will accept it and get on with his life.

Knowing how we modern day researchers guard our work (and I include myself) and yet wish to receive due acknowledgement should we succeed, I find it impossible to believe that Bessler would have neglected to leave some information about how his wheel worked, even if this were to be discovered subsequent to his death.  In support of this conjecture see the vast amount of encoded clues, some of which are described on my website www.theorffyreuscode.com

This subject of leaving our discoveries behind us for future researchers, should our earlier than expected demise arrive suddenly, has been discussed on the forum and it seems clear that we are mostly in agreement that some way must be found that allows any of us who so desires, to place on record somewhere all that each of us knows, or think we know, about this subject which might at a later date lead to a solution.  For this to work it is important that some means be used which would protect such information until either the author dies or he decides to release it for public consumption.

Bessler tried, but so far his clues have proved too difficult to solve, what is perhaps needed is a professional highly experienced cryptologist to work on the clues I have offered both on the above link and this one http://www.orffyreus.net/

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’

Procrastination can still lead to Success.

I sometimes wonder what effect solving the question of Bessler's wheel would have on me.  Whether I found the solution or someone else did, a large part of my mental activity would be no longer be required and I would probably set off on some other quest just to occupy my inner self. The reason seems to be related to the pleasure we get from successfully solving a problem, whether it be playing computer games, or playing patience or doing crosswords.  The act of solving the problem is more enjoyable than simply being given the answer.

As an example consider this riddle:-

A prisoner is put in a room with 2 doors. 1 door leads to freedom, the other to exececution.

Next to the doors are 2 guards. One of the guards always lies, the other always tells the truth. The prisoner is allowed to ask one of the guards one question to figure out what door leads where. What does he ask?

Everyone wants to work out the answer themselves and are reluctant to give up until frustration overwhelms them and they have to ask for the answer.  In our case, of course we can't ask anyone for the solution until someone solves it first - or one of us does.  The answer to the above riddle is logical and can be arrived at with some simple trial and error, but sometimes it bursts upon you as insight, and you don't even know how you got it so quickly.  That kind of revelation is a familiar experience to all of us who seek the solution to Bessler's wheel.  (I'll give the answer to the riddle lower down.)

Unfortunately many of these revelations crumble to dust in the cold light of day, but the whole project is a learning process and even though we seem to be stuck in a kind of writer's block and we have run out of ideas, we can still triumph incrementally as we proceed.  So each time our designs fail it is something additional that we learned about the problem and it can be regarded as a triumph no matter how small and it is a tiny step towards the solution.  Of course it helps if you are an incurable optimist and enjoy the search for a unique design.

My own experience has been a mixture of frustration and excitement with the occasional disappointment.  But I also tend to procrastinate and that is an annoyance that appears easy to solve.  But to the millions of people who experience chronic procrastination, it can be discouraging when they are told, consciously or subconsciously:

1. It's their fault.

2. They need to stop complaining and "Just do it."

3. They are lazy or immature.

For the vast majority of chronic procrastinators, these statements are simply untrue. Almost all who suffer from this condition wish that they were productive. They have dreams and aspirations, goals and ambitions, that are destroyed by a force that is out of their control. Telling them to "just do it" or that they are lazy or undisciplined does not help.

Procrastination of this kind is a disorder, similar to obsessive compulsive disorder or a distortion of body image. Just as you cannot "blame" a person with OCD for their obsessive behavior, and tell them just to "cut it out," most techniques of curing procrastination do not work, since they amount to nothing more than simple advice: prioritize, then do it.

I find that if I need to make a simple choice such as 'shall I mow the lawn, or work on my wheel', the temptation is to go for the more rewarding choice.  So mowing the lawn is something that needs doing and provides an immediate reward, whereas working on the wheel, although capable of producing a huge reward won't be doing that so quickly.  There is also an element of psychology involved which suggests to your subconscious that leaving the wheel for another day, might delay the disappointment you may get from another failure!

So, the majority of procrastinators have these factors in common:

1. Fear of failure.

2. Frequent and temporary repression of their responsibilities, allowing them to focus instead on tasks which do not make them afraid, i.e mowing the lawn!
3. Self-conflict. Procrastinators have the belief, common in childhood, that all pleasure comes from leisure, from these "lack of responsibility tasks," while at the same time believing that it would be best if they produced and achieved at their highest standard.

With thanks to various web sites and in particular http://chronicprocrastination.org/

And the answer is, "If you were the other guard, which door would you say leads to freedom?"

They will both point towards the door that leads to an execution, so you pick the other one.

How?

The guard that always tells the truth, will be truthful/honest and say what the guard that always lies would have said, so he will point towards the execution door (that would be the answer of the "dishonest" guard).

The guard that always lies, will lie this time as well, and won't answer what the other guard would answer, so he would also point towards the execution door (that wouldn't be the answer of the "honest" guard, and hence a lie).

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’

The Legend of Bessler's Wheel.

The legend of Bessler’s wheel began on 6th June 1712, when Johann Bessler announced that he had invented a perpetual motion machine and he would be exhibiting it in the town square in Gera, Germany, on June 6^th of that year.  Everyone was free to come and see the machine running.  It took the form of a wheel mounted between two pillars and could run continuously until it was stopped or its parts wore out. The machine attracted huge crowds.  Although they were allowed to examine its external appearance thoroughly, they could not view the interior, because the inventor wished to sell the secret of its construction for the sum of 10,000 pounds – a sum equal to several millions today.

News of the invention reached the ears of high ranking men, scientists, politicians and members of the aristocracy.  They came and examined the machine, subjected it to numerous tests and concluded that it was genuine. Only one other man, Karl, the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel, was allowed to view the interior and he testified that the machine was genuine.

There were several attempts to buy the wheel, but negotiations always failed when they reached an impasse – the buyer wished to examine the interior before parting with the money, and the inventor fearing that once the secret was known the buyer would simply leave without paying and make his own perpetual motion machine, would not permit it.  Sadly the machine was lost to us when the inventor fell to his death during construction of another of his inventions, a vertical axle windmill. 

However, the discovery of a series of encoded clues has led many to the opinion that the inventor left instructions for reconstructing his wheel, long after his death.  The clues were discovered during the process of investigating the official reports of the time which seemed to rule out any chance of fraud, hence the  interest in discovering the truth about the legend of Bessler’s wheel. 

My own interest was sparked by the realisation that an earlier highly critical account by Bessler's maid-servant, which explained how the wheel was fraudulently driven, was so obviously flawed and a lie, that I was immediately attracted to do further research. In time I learned that there was no fraud involved, which left me with the only other possible explanation, the wheel was genuine and the claims of the inventor genuine

The tests involved lifting heavy weights from the castle yard to the roof, driving an Archimedes water pump and an endurance test lasting 56 days under lock and key and armed guard.  Bessler also organised demonstrations involving running the wheel on one set of bearings opened for inspection – and then transferring the device to a second set of open bearings, both sets having been examined to everyone’s satisfaction, both before, after and during the examination.


So the only problem is that modern science denies that Bessler's wheel was possible, but my own research has shows what might be called a loop-hole, a work-around that avoids conflict with the laws of physics.

I have produced copies of all Bessler's publications, with English translations.  They can be obtained by clicking on the appropriate links on the right.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

The building of Bessler's Wheel

I've often wondered how Johann Bessler built his wheel, by that I mean what order did assembly take place and what problems did he encounter in the process.  I simply build onto a wooden disc but if I wanted to hide the interior I'd use a second disc to cover the open side.  When all is assembled I mount it onto an axle and place it in the bearings which are fitted on a stand.

Bessler was dealing with a much larger wheel and considerably more, and heavier, weights.  I think he would start by mounting the chosen axle onto a supporting structure, possibly one which he could move easily.  But would he then mount a twelve foot disc for one side onto the axle?  No, I think he would begin with a much smaller disc of about half size, say six feet diameter. giving him three feet depth to access the interior.  He probably made the mechanisms, or at least as much of it as he could, before attaching it to the the cross bars.  I assume that holes would be cut through both discs for the crossbars and fixed both  inside and outside to each disc.

Having the wheel diameter much shorter would allow access for fitting the mechanisms to the cross bars.  Without the second disc already in place there would be too little support for the mechanisms.  Once the initial assembly had been completed in the smaller wheel he could add the rest and proceed to fit the remaining portions of the wheel. I have reason to think this method was used because of a piece of description of the wheel found in Bessler's Das Triumphirende.  He describes the wheel as being in the form of a drum, twelve feet wide, with a thickness varying from fifteen to eighteen inches.  Curiously nobody has ever recorded this variation in thickness, as far as I'm aware, but it seems safe to assume it was there.

I think 'sGravesande measured the thickness at the rim and got 18 inches, which suggest that the 15 inch thickness was further in towards the axle.  If this is the case then the wheel was built in two sections as I described above, and the other part added once the mechanism was securely fixed inside.  This later addition would have been attached to the outside of the first part thus giving and extra inch and a half to to each side of the wheel.  

This is a copy of a drawing I included in my book about Johann Bessler, Perpetual motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?  It shows the two thicknesses I have described above :-

I suppose the canvas covering which would also have covered the positions of the cross-bars also disguised the varying thickness present.

I have considered other reasons for having varying thicknesses but this seems to me the most likely.  It's possible that a section, or sections, of wheel might have been removable from under the canvas which could provide access to the weights to remove them when required.  I can see how this might be achieved through several pieces being removable to allow access all the way around the wheel.  Because that is another detail often overlooked; how did he access all the weights from around the whel through one aperture?  He couldn't so there were either several, which would require several holes in the 'disc' under the canvas, or he simply removed sections from some area a certain distance from the axle, presumably near to the rim.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Connections and Coincidences.

In 1960, (or thereabouts) I wandered into the school library and, by chance, selected a book entitled 'Oddities', by Rupert T. Gould.  It was an anthology of real life mysteries and it included the story of the legend of Bessler's wheel; it was this account that set me on a path that has continued to this day.  I was set on the path by the fact that I knew right away that the legend included what must have been a lie, not by Gould, but by a witness's account.

I subsequently learned that Gould had spent many years in restoring the marine chronometers invented by John Harrison and for which he, John Harrison, was ultimately rewarded with the £20,000 promised by the British Board of longitude for finding a means to accurately establish a ship's position at sea. This offer was published in 17I4 and I had already decided that Bessler's decision to ask for £20,000, also in 1714, an identical sum of money, for the secret of his wheel, had been motivated by seeing a similar sum being offered as a reward, and clearly believed that his invention was at least as valuable.

Even though I could see that there were grounds for suspecting there was a connection between Gould's inclusion of the story of Bessler's wheel in his book, and his work on Harrison's chronometer, I didn't know what it was. Yes, the sums of money were the same, but that fact alone would not have pointed Gould towards Bessler, there had to be some other connection and there was.

In order to thoroughly acquaint himself with the workings of the marine chronometer, Harrison spent weeks studying each part before even beginning to disassemble any of it.  He also studied numerous treatises on the subject including works by Huygens and interestingly, John Harris, whose 'Lexicon Technicum or Universal English Dictionary of Arts and Sciences',was published in two volumes in 1704 and 1708. Both volumes included very favourable comments about John Rowley, Master of Mechanics to the King. It is believed that Rowley made a number of the parts required for Harrison's' timepieces, and therefore he was a worthy subject for research by Gould. It would soon have caught Gould's attention that Rowley had become convinced that Bessler's wheel was genuine, since he had visited Kassel and examined the wheel at the time. Knowing of the high esteem Rowley was held in by his peers, Gould would have wanted to research this story for further information either for the clocks he was working on to discover how Bessler did it.  He never found out and sadly commented that 'we must assume an imposition'.  But that seems to have been the connection between Gould and Bessler's life.  Gould published the results of his research in 'Oddities'.

We tend to dismiss the beliefs of experts from another age, and yet John Rowley himself showed great technical expertise with the amazing variety of instruments he manufactured to order.  After having seen Bessler's wheel for himself, he spent the rest of his life seeking the solution for his own satisfaction.  Rupert Gould was another, and although he assumed the wheel must have been a fake, it was not for want of trying to prove it was genuine, his own mechanical skills were beyond question  Christian Wolf, Gottfried Leibniz, Willem 's Gravesande and many of the witnesses to the wheel's performance were highly articulate men with some of the most brilliant minds of their day and they too became convinced that Bessler's wheel was genuine - it is so easy for us to dismiss their opinions some 300 years after the event, assuming that they lacked our sophistication and ability to see through frauds.  The fact is that they were just the same as we are with equal ability to test for themselves the authenticity of Bessler's claims.  e should accept their view that the wheel was genuine and get on with seeking the solution. There is no reason why we cannot solve this mystery with some original thinking and Bessler himself said that we all tend to go over the same ground over and over in our attempts to do what he did.

And on a completely different matter - this for amusement only and I am not suggesting any of it is fact.  Reading a text from a member of my family I was struck by an interesting coincidence.  In the message the writer had used a familiar abbreviation for the word 'waiting'.  He put W8ing.  I was thinking about this when I realised that, according to my personal belief, as Bessler's wheel was driven by a certain configuration of weights and therefore relied exclusively on gravity for its energy, the word 'weight', could also be abbreviated to W8.  This, on its own, is not a new concept but what was interesting to me was the fact that, according to von Erlach, 'about eight weights were heard landing on the side towards which the wheel turned', thus providing the connection to the number of weights thought to be working within the wheel - eight. But there's more.

The infinity symbol (sometimes called the lemniscate) is a mathematical symbol representing the concept of infinity, it looks like the figure eight lying on its side and thus forms another connection with the concept of perpetual motion, non-stop or perpetual or infinite.

As if that were not enough, Bessler's fascination with the number 5 and 55, as evidenced in numerous instances throughout his published and unpublished works, is often shown encoded as a 'W', which he explains is made up of two letter 'V's, or the Roman numeral 5.

 

You can find a number of fascinating coincidences in Bessler's works - don't be misled by them!


JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

How to make money from Bessler's wheel without filing for a patent!

This matter of earning money from Bessler's invention, has been skirted around on the forum, as if it would somehow be unworthy to try to earn money from it;  but, as Tevye from 'Fiddler on the Roof' asked  '... it's no shame to be poor... but it's no great honor either. So what would be so terrible... if I had a small fortune?'  It should be remembered that Bessler's chief goal in researching and building his gravity wheel was to raise funds, ostensibly for the foundation of a school offering apprenticeships in numerous crafts.  He asked for twenty thousand Pounds - a lot of money then and equal to three or more million Dollars today. I say ostensibly because although that may have been his honest intention, he was surrounded a small group of relatives who applied considerable pressure to subvert his position as Councillor of Commerce and divert funds to his greedy, criminal, in-laws.

I have maintained the view for many years that patenting this invention is the wrong way to go, and a phrase from the above quote reminded me that most of the poor on this planet could not afford to buy a patented invention, although they might well get together to build their own, possibly infringing a patent.  How much better to offer it freely to anyone, anywhere.

I don't intend to rehearse my reasons for rejecting the patent route, suffice to say - government interference either by taxing to the hilt or burying it; upfront cost of world wide patent - and don't tell me that it will all come back in revenue; it might not for many reasons; and action from competitive resources; any way I'm nearly 70 and I need my small fortune now. How much better to get some financial reward within weeks of successfully building your working model than to have to wait two or three years, after you've mortgaged yourself to the max to pay for it.

So how can you make a small amount of money to help you live comfortable and perhaps help your children and grandchildren?  The first thing to note is that when you announce your success, you have have everything already organised and ready to go.  The first thing the world should know about your work is after you have completed the following tasks. First record your device on video, preferably include some slow-motion and some stills of it in various positions.  Then write down in detail exactly how and why it works.  Explain everything, leave nothing in doubt.  Add numerous diagrams to illustrate any points which might be misconstrued  Read it it over and over, and check it for errors.  Get someone else you trust to read it if possible, to make sure you haven't left anything out.

You need to use the the video and the text to complete a video which will go viral within days of your announcement. This video, if monetized, will bring you substantial payments. By the way, I have had three offers to do any animations I might need and that would be of great benefit in making your video more transparent, so if you can do your own or you know someone who can then include animations if possible.

It is possible that you could provide an app for building a Bessler wheel and that is an area with which I'm not so familiar but obviously worth looking into.  Lastly I have a friend who is an accomplished film director and producer and he is keen to make a documentary on the whole subject and if you (or I) are successful he would jump at the chance to make one.  He has already made me an offer which included Associate Producer with a large down-payment on commencement of the filming, and a share in the proceeds.

Obviously this takes time and therefore somehow you will have to hold your tongue and tell no one until you are ready to tell the world!  Then stand by for the onslaught of TV companies wanting to film an interview.  At this point, or preferably before, you might consider getting someone to manage you?  They can arrange the interviews, fees, film rights, book rights, promotions etc. 

All of this without spending a penny, or filing a patent.  I should add one consideration, which I am undecided about.  Is it worth patenting the design in order to own it and give it away?  I don't know.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

When the impossible becomes possible.

I don't know how many people who chance upon this blog, have actually heard of Johann Bessler and his claims to have built several perpetual motion machines, but of one thing I'm certain - the vast majority will have learned that such a thing is impossible and would utterly confound the laws of science if such a device were ever able to see the light of day and work.  

The history of science is littered with the corpses of those knowledgeable people who delivered their prognostications after much observation, experimentation and deliberation.  There is a veritable cornucopia of websites listing these sad, deluded experts who knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that some things were impossible, only to be proven wrong within a surprisingly short time.  There is therefore no need for me to detail any, but I found an interesting trend noted in a magazine of no lesser standing than the International Business Times and I have provided a brief extract which seems to support my contention that, like the advice, 'don't believe everything you read in the papers', you should not believe everything the scientists tell us:-

"A rise in the number of studies published in scientific journals has been accompanied by a surge in retraction notices, casting into doubt findings that influence everything from government grants to prescriptions written for patients, a Wall Street Journal analysis found.

Citing data compiled by Thomson Reuters, the Journal found a steep rise in retraction notices in peer-reviewed research journals, from just 22 in 2001 to 339 last year. The number of papers published in such journals rose 44 percent in the same time frame. The article pointed to other studies finding that fraud and misconduct were becoming increasingly prevalent.

The article noted that new scientific studies look to past research for guidance, so that a flawed study can cause a cascade of faulty or fruitless research: for example, when the renowned Mayo Clinic had found that data about using the immune system to fight cancer had been fabricated, seventeen scholarly papers published in nine research journals had to be retracted.

In addition, doctors rely on research to prescribe the most effective treatment. An ultimately discredited study suggesting that two high blood pressure drugs worked better in concert led doctors to put more than 100,000 patients on a treatment schedule that may offer no benefits and dangerous side effects.

Part of the problem is that scientists are locked in competition for the prestige and money that flows from being published in a recognized journal.

"The stakes are so high," said the Lancet's editor, Richard Horton. "A single paper in Lancet and you get your chair and you get your money. It's your passport to success."

This report concerns us today but why should it not apply to the last three hundred years too?  There is plenty of evidence out there proving that many established beliefs are later found to be wrong.  I underlined one particularly damming point, 'new scientific studies look to past research for guidance, so that a flawed study can cause a cascade of faulty or fruitless research'.  Isn't that exactly the problem we face here.  Previous conclusions about the viability of Bessler's wheel have effectively wiped out any sensible consideration of its potential as an alternative means of generating electricity?

I have found so much circumstantial evidence that Bessler's wheel really worked, that I am certain that this legend is going to prove possible and that a large quantity of egg is going to appear on many a professional scientist....and I can't wait!

JC

 10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’