Leibniz's advice to Bessler regarding the Tests.

I'm posting this because I think we have ignored the process which led to the design of the various tests applied to the wheel.  As will be seen, a lot of thought went into working out what possible tests could be undertaken which would eliminate as much as possible any accusations of fraud.  

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz was Germany's leading philosopher, scientist, mathematician, engineer, inventor and historian, and he visited Bessler to examine his wheel around the 9th September 1714 in Draschwitz, scene of the second wheel's examination.

He records that "he allowed me, sometime ago, to carry out some experiments with his machine. It ran continuously for two hours in my presence and demonstrated considerable power." Later he writes, "I advised him to arrange a test in which his machine would be run for several weeks with all possible precautions taken to exclude any suspicion of fraud."

I have mention this because we know that Leibniz was certain that Bessler's wheel was of value and should not be lost to the world.  His advice to arrange a long running test was made during his visit and during the two hours I am sure that other suggestions were discussed.  For instance, building two sets of supporting pillars complete with a pair of bearing on each set, so that during the examinations the bearings could be thoroughly inspected for signs of fraud, both before and after changing the wheels over to a second set.

A demonstration of the lifting power of he wheel would also have been suggested by simply hoisting a heavy weight from the yard to the roof.  I also think the demonstration of an archimedes pump would have been discussed too, because mining was Leibniz's current research and anything which might be used to pump water from the many mines would have been a highly sought-after device.

The Draschwitz wheel measured 9 feet in diameter and turned at 50 RPM unloaded and its size might have been restricted by the ceiling height of the room, but I'm sure that Leibniz would have urged Bessler to build the biggest wheel he could, to generate the most power and that would have necessitated seeking the patronage of a prince such as Karl the Landgrave of Hesse-kassel or his cousin Moritz-Wilhelm, Duke of Zeitz, who had already viewed the machine.  They lived in castles with large rooms which would easily accommodate a larger wheel.

There was one more thing that Leibniz suggested; was there any way that Bessler might design the wheel to turn in either direction?  Such a feature would surely crush any  accusations of fraud.  It was this that occupied Bessler's time after the Draschwitz wheel was destroyed.  As we know he succeeded but even that surprising ability did not convince everyone.

Finally, the ultimate requirement would be to try to obtain the word of a trusted senior member of the ruling elite.  This would require Bessler to drop his obstinate determination to keep the secret of his wheel hidden from everyone and yet this should have answered all criticisms if he could find the will to do it.  In the end he agreed to let Karl the Landgrave into his secret and as history has shown Karl was regarded as a man of tremendous integrity, as incapable of breaking his word as he was of taking part in a fraud, with or without benefit to him of his realm.  Yet even this was insufficient!

One last thing; I mentioned the archimedes pump and certainly that was described on more than one occasion but it is not mentioned as part of the official examinations and the reason is this.  Arranging a large tank of water with the end of the pump submerged was quite achievable, but the archimedes pump is an inefficient device and the loss of water due to leakage would have required a constant procession of people with buckets to keep the tank filled sufficiently and there would have been a lot of water dropped around the device causing the floor to be wet and with so many people present would have led to water being spread to other areas outside the machine room simply by the passage of many feet!  There was enough damp in building of the era without adding to it.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

My current status with regard to Bessler's Wheel

My wheel is approaching a  dénouement; either it works or it doesn't.  If it works then I will publish everything I have on it, including a video of it in action, on one or more of my websites; if it doesn't , the same goes, but without the video.

I'm currently transferring much of the text and drawings I have already completed, onto a website, but this will not go live until it's ready, which may take a while.  However in the mean time I will post on www.gravitywheel.com a message to the same effect and try to update it as things change.

The final publication will reveal details of the principle which provides the means to drive the wheel  through the  gravitational force, and in addition it will have many illustrations and explanations of many of the clues I have managed to discover and decipher, which confirm that the design is right. 

The website will contain the same information as the document I originally planned to publish in PDF format and it is taking me considerable time and difficulty to complete this double project, while also working to finish the wheel.  So I would ask that you please to bear with me as I struggle with the current technology which I use to be familiar with but have partly forgotten, I am 70 after all!  It may be a few weeks before it all comes together but I will post updates as and when I think is worth it.

The fact that I include the possibility that the wheel might not work should not be taken as a presumption that I am not 100 percent certain of the design.  I do acknowledge, however, that there are difficulties for me in manufacturing and assembling the various components in such a way that they work relatively frictionlessly and without interfering with each other unless required by the design to do so.  I know that Karl the Landgrave said it was a simple design and once you understand how it works, the overall concept is simple, but I have yet to see an equally complex design published on the BW forum.

So either way, once the web site is ready I will publish it.  I say this because I think the wheel will have been tested and proven or not, long before the website is finished, but if it is, I may not be able to announce it immediately.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

We Can't All Be Right, Can We!

Just back from an excellent few days in Spain and I was unable to think of a subject to blog about so this is some thoughts I had on catching up with comments here and on the BW forum.

I read with tremendous sympathy and understanding, the numerous expressions of optimism, both here and on the BW forum, of all we glass-half-full researchers, experimenters and builders each on the verge of success and barely able to contain our utter excitement that it is all but in the bag.......only to find some minor problem that we must adjust before success crowns our endeavours! 

In each instance when I read the post I cannot help but think the writer's confidence is misplaced and they are doomed to failure.  That isn't me being mean and nasty, it's just that, as I'm sure is the case with others, I am equally certain that I have the solution and as far as I can see, it is definitely not the same as anyone else's.  There are numerous deliberately vague descriptions and they all look good, but they all have one failing - they don't work.  And anyway, surely we can't all be right can we?

This brings me to another point; I understand exactly how Bessler's wheel worked and why, and yet I sense in many reports that the writers don't actually know how Bessler's wheel worked and are still trying numerous variations all based on the simple OB wheel firmly rejected by Bessler.    I think we can assume after more than three hundred years of failure that that is a proven unworkable configuration.

I'm also surprised that people still design with eight weights and levers, why? We know the two-way wheels emitted the sounds of about eight weights landing on the side towards which the wheel turned. But that proves nothing; there could be double the number of components in those wheels, compared to the earlier one-way versions and why build the more complicated two-way wheel when the simpler one-way version must be easier? Or they might have been padded to reduce some or all of the critical noises that might have given a clue, or had additional sound producers to confuse. In which case I think it's better to try to work out how many you think are needed and ignore the supposed vague clues offered by witnesses.

I see the question of, what might the one word have been that Bessler was afraid might reveal the secret, has resurfaced on the BW forum?  To me it is obviously the number five.  He never revealed it but my goodness, he does show it encoded in so many places you'd have be blind not to see it has great importance.

My own efforts to finish the wheel have been somewhat delayed by my little trip to Spain but now I'm back and eager to get this thing finished.  I have no excuse for not finishing it and I am determined to do so as quickly as I can, subject to my crappy engineering equipment and skills! One problem I am in the middle of resolving concerns  a lever which is not falling quickly enough, but the answer is clear to me and I have to make an adjustment to its task and reduce the load on it by adjusting its gearing. This will have negative consequences, I am sure but I will cross that bridge when and if I get there.

Rereading the above, I can see how similar my expressed confidence in knowing the solution looks just like every other  person's belief in their imminent success.  I'm seriously considering sharing what I know with someone who I feel that I can trust unreservedly, just to get another opinion on my theory.  I have no doubt he will be convinced but then there is always that tiny area of doubt.  Am I deluding myself?  Probably!

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

More Musings

I have always said that Bessler used gravity to drive his wheel, and have been criticised for saying so. In discussions on the forum and here it has been pointed out correctly, that nowhere does Bessler use the word 'gravity'.  My response was to say that Sir Isaac Newton coined the word 'gravity' in his 'Principia', to describe the intrinsic 'heaviness' that everything thing of mass has, and in Bessler's day it had not yet become widely read nor well understood so he wouldn't have used the word anyway as it had not come into common usage.  However, since then I have come to realise that Bessler's description was entirely accurate and mine was technically wrong.

Gravity does not move, but it enables things to move under its influence, therefore it cannot be the driving force itself, but only the enabler.  In the past I have drawn an analogy between gravity and the wind.  But the wind is a force, unlike gravity. Gravity is an enabler as I said, but the wind is more accurately the result of differences in pressure resulting in air flow from high pressure to lower pressure.  The travelling air molecules impact on the windmill blades, and turn it.  Bessler said of his wheel, "these weights are themselves the PM device, the ‘essential constituent parts’ which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the PM principle) indefinitely – so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity". So his weights formed the basic component of the wheel and they are analogous to the air molecules. Gravity which enables motion is analogous to the air pressure differences which are also enablers of motion in air molecules.

If gravity forms 'step one'', and the weights form 'step two', then varying air pressure is 'step one' and the molecules are 'step two'.

In the end it doesn't matter, many modern devices are inaccurately labelled, and no one worries about it.  'Internal combustion' engine is a more accurate term than 'gas' engine because it ascribes the initiating force correctly; 'gravity wheel' is vague but you do get the picture even if it ascribes the initiating force to gravity rather than the fall of a weight, due to gravity.

Currently relaxing in Spain, enjoying sunshine, swimming, walking and of course the odd glass of wine, beer and sangria - but not all at the same time!

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

"The Legend of Bessler's Wheel" - or, "The Wheel of Orffyreus".

I have replaced my usual blog with a brief account of the legend of Bessler's wheel as I will be away for a short period of time.  My apologies to my readers and I promise I will be back here as soon as I can manage it.

JC

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 that day.  Everyone was free to come and see the machine running.  It took the form of a wheel mounted between two pillars and ran 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. He is a man well-known in history as someone of the greatest integrity, and  the negotiations between Bessler and Karl took place against a background in which Karl acted as honest broker between the warring nations of Europe; a situation which required his absolute rectitude both in appearance and in action. 

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, after some thirty years or more, 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 curiosity 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, so the wheel was genuine and the claims of the inventor had to be taken seriously.

The tests which the wheel was subjected to 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 shown that this conclusion is wrong.  There is no need for a change in the laws of physics, as some  have suggested, we simply haven't covered every possible scenario in the evaluating the number of possible configurations. 

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 putt-putt boat

The ideas floated for driving Bessler's wheel, other than using the force of gravity include some other, pretty off-the-wall ideas.

My favourite is the put-put boat.  It is a toy with a very simple steam engine without moving parts, typically powered by a candle or vegetable oil burner. The name comes from the noise made by some versions of the boats.

Technically it is a thermodynamic self-oscillating toy dating at least from the 1880s. The toy was very popular in the early 20th century, but is no longer readily available except on the internet probably because it must be made of metal, while most toys today are plastic.

The putt-putt works by heating (usually with a candle) an internal tank filled with water and   connected to submerged exhausts. It is usually easy to adjust the heat so that the water level will self-oscillate.

As water is alternately blown out and sucked in through the exhausts, the boat moves forward with a

noisy vibration that gives the toy its name.  Below is a typical example, not dissimilar to one I made when I was a kid.

There are no moving parts and only a candle to heat the water; brilliant!

THere are a lot of web sites dealing with the making of such toys among them this one http://www.sciencetoymaker.org/boat/ and of course wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pop_pop_boat

It has been suggested several times to me that Bessler found a way of adapting the technology to drive his wheel, but I came to the conclusion many years ago that it wasn't possible.  The nearest thing to this would be Ovvyus's ambient temperature changes used to drive it, and I remain unconvinced of that too.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Proof that the Experts have got it Wrong Again

While we continue to seek the solution to Bessler's wheel, and hopefully provide a new source of alternative, clean and free energy, the world continues to seek alternative energies too, but elsewhere.

A perusal of the latest news on the alternative energy front, reveals nothing new.  All systems are variations on obtaining energy from the sun, the wind, the tides, waves, low energy nuclear reactions and cold fusion etc..  There are few projects which create renewable energy, but in reality there is nothing new, they are just tinkering with the old favourites.  There are a number of improvements to batteries and an increasing number of hybrid engines that combine different energy sources, but in the end they all depend on the existing technologies.

There is not one credible professional organisation which is prepared to spend tuppence on examining the evidence of Bessler's wheel, and after 25 years of trying I have to accept that without a working wheel there is not a chance that anyone will even give passing consideration to looking at the evidence. It's kind of like a chicken and egg situation, will someone spend some money researching the claims of Johann Bessler and subsequently produce a working prototype; or will the wheel have to come first? Obviously the latter.

Having said that I have sometimes wondered if producing a proof of principle device will be sufficient to ignite development of the new energy source.   I know others have said that but having written it, I am still optimistic that the news of just one wheel turning continuously for a convincing length of time will hit the headlines in screaming letters 36 point high.

It is my belief that the wheel will prove of the greatest use but if I'm wrong, I still think it will be a novelty for years to come if only to prove that the scientists get it wrong more often than they would have us believe.  It will become number one on the list above,  the "bumble bees can't fly" myth, And in this case they've been wrong for more than 300 years!

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

My Progress - an update

My current, and I hope, final attempt to reconstruct Bessler's wheel, continues.......(perpetually?)

The base of the wheel structure is still provided by an MDF disc 2 feet in diameter, to which everything is attached.  It has been divided into five equal segments  This is according to my understanding of the information left to us by Bessler.  I know that many, or most maybe, believe that it makes no difference whether you have four, five or eight segments, but I understand why five is the minimum and why any more need to be odd numbered as far as space permits.

Talking of space, my mechanisms are composed from cannibalised parts from many, many failed previous incarnations, and in an effort to conserve the rapidly diminishing number of available parts of a suitable length, I tend to use the part which is closest to my current requirement.  The result is that the mechanisms on my latest project are a little larger than intended, so that they project beyond the rim of the MDF disc.  This is not a problem from a mechanical point of view although it lacks the finesse apparent in my previous constructions.  It means that I must add a little to the height of the axle supports so that the finished article will be able to spin unencumbered by the floor of the support structure (should it feel inclined to do so!). In order to enclose the enlarged mechanisms the MDF disc would need to be 3 feet in diameter not 2, and if it comes to reproducing a more attractive wheel, that is something I shall take into consideration.

Friction among some of the moving parts has occasionally been a problem, but I resolved it a long time ago by using stiff nuts, washers and bolts, so that I can adjust the tightness to the optimum level, allowing the joints to move freely but not too loosely.  I use small disc lead weights, about the size of an old English penny, which are normally used to make curtains hang properly, and they are ideal for the size of the mechanisms.  I stack them in 5s and sometimes more to provide the necessary weights.

My previous blog about making false assumptions was inspired by my own stupid assumption!  I had designed two alternative mechanical actions, one of which I rejected about three years ago because I thought it wasn't right.  The result was that my chosen action, the other one, did not produce enough lift quickly enough to generate continuous rotation.  At that time I had not discovered what I call the Bessler/Collins principle and even after I had defined it, I ignored the one I had previously dismissed, the rejected alternative, and continued to modify the action I had chosen instead because I thought it held the most promise.  Recently I discovered my error and it prompted me to urge people to be aware of unconscious assumptions which might be in error but not immediately obviously so.

So my mechanisms are almost finished, and there will be one more procedure to accomplish before I can mount the wheel on its bearing supports and then my fingers will be crossed for success (and my eyes and legs).

I would like to explain more about my wheel, but it's difficult to say anything more without risking giving away too much information, but I think that I am close to getting it right - but haven't I; haven't we all, been here so many times before?  Anyway I hope that this will work or that it becomes clear why it won't. Then I must decide whether to publish all yet or keep trying.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Beware of making False Assumptions - and an Update.

Having spent the last 50 years or so, trying to replicate Bessler's wheel, I still occasionally err by making assumptions which turn out to be wrong.   

In the beginning I began by drawing numerous sketches of how I thought Bessler's wheel might have worked.  I assumed, rightly in my opinion, that gravity was the provider of energy. I accept that most people deny that possibility because they assume, rightly in their opinion, that gravity cannot provide the energy for the wheel's continuous rotation.  That is an assumption based on what we have been taught, but I intend to prove it to be a false one.

Having eventually ruled out most of my sketches, I began building models of parts of the various designs to see if they did indeed react as expected, or assumed.  Usually they did respond in the expected way but sometimes they didn't or they could be made to alter the response by subtly varying the angles and lengths of the various levers I employed in my designs. So my original assumptions were again sometimes wrong.  And of course even when they reacted as expected they were no good for purpose!

Clearly, if we believe in Bessler's claims then there is at least one false assumption causing our failure to replicate what Bessler did.  After the model-building had failed to elicit the correct response by my many mechanical configurations, I slowly came to the conclusion that something we ought to know about this subject was missing or had been overlooked.

Eventually I worked out what had been overlooked and immediately found corroboration in one of Bessler's clues.  A short while later I found another clue supporting the same conclusion.  Since then I have found more clues in support of my conclusion.  This is the principle I have encoded at the foot of each blog for some considerable time.

Making the mechanism which takes advantage of the principle has proved very much more difficult than I expected, but I think I have it right now, and I'm going to finish it.  I feel a little like the guy who has stated that his wheel will work within days, for at least the last two years!  I found that I had made an error in reading one of Bessler's clues, not the one concerning the principle, but one that led me up the wrong path in small way.  Correcting this error has produced the results I wanted so I'm completing the model.

The point of this blog is to say, "beware of assuming something, anything, it may not necessarily always be the whole truth".

Bessler was worried that people would think his wheel was too simple and therefore not worth the price.  I guess he was thinking of the principle that allows it to work with gravity. I, too, am amazed that no one appears to have discovered this simple fact.  But although the principle may be simple to understand, the mechanical configuration it requires to operate it, is not so simple, although once seen it will be easy to understand how it works,.  But I still remain convinced that even studying the wheel in action will not necessarily lead to an understand of the principle itself.

One last thought; someone asked me if my so-called Bessler/Collins principle would be automatically detected by simulation software and included in its response and my answer is yes, there is no reason why it shouldn't be.  As long as the required parameters are included it will respond according to the principle. It's more of an observation than a principle, I just don't know what else to call it.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.