Update on wheel, moving house, clues etc.

I really enjoyed the contributions to this blog and the previous posting, so feel free to continue on this one. 

It has been suggested that perhaps my wheel is already running and that I'm holding back the secret for some nefarious purpose, but the truth is so much more mundane. I recently put my house up for sale and as anyone who has done this knows, the place must be kept immaculate at all times for any potential purchasers to view it at its best.  Consequentially my workshop has been tidied and my wheel hidden - I don't want any snoopers to see what I've been working on!

After a week the house was sold and I assumed that after eight weeks or so we would move out - wrong, the buyer changed his mind and backed out!  I had just got the wheel back out, but now its back in hiding again and the house is back on the market and we await another series of house viewings.  Until it is sold we cannot move to Spain.

In addition my beloved mother-in-law is having to sell her little bungalow to fund her remaining days in a nursing home.  She's 93 and can't do it herself so guess who's getting her house ready for sale?  Yes it's me again, getting two houses ready for sale and  hoping to buy two more, one here and one in Spain!

So any revelations about my wheel actually working will be on hold until I can get to work on it again, but I am continuing to write up the details and will publish as soon as I have finally tested this wheel.

In the previous comment section it was suggested that we would not know if we had actually discovered the secret of Bessler's wheel rather than an alternative method of  achieving the same result as he did.  I have said this many times now but in response I will just say that my proof that I have discovered his secret relies totally on his clues, and they are not mere interpretations but a series of physical undeniable pieces of evidence.  The proof is not dissimilar to a series of logical argument put forward by a lawyer in a  court of law - or the chain of evidence published in support of a medical conclusion.  We will know if we have Bessler's secret.

Also my claims that the number 5 is an important part of the Bessler wheel is routinely dismissed but I can assure you that is it a vital ingredient.

Finally I fear that I sound just like Ken and Oystein, and yet I have little or no knowledge of their clues any more than they know of mine, can all three of us be right?  My feeling is that Oystein has genuine knowledge although whether it refers to the wheel's structure or relates to some other matter, I have no idea.  For me Ken's code is harder to see, impossible in fact, for me.  I placed what potential encoding I could find in the portraits on my website at http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/html/part_2_portrait.html and also at the other portrait link on the same web site, it was not helpful in my opinion, but we are each convinced of the efficacy of our own pet theories and maybe we will each turn out right, after a fashion.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Perhaps the mechanism is not so simple.

Karl the Landgrave is on record as saying that the secret of the wheel was so simple a carpenter's apprentice could make one, if he was allowed a little time to study it.

In the eighteenth century skilled  craftsmen traditionally employed children from a young age, 12 or 13 usually, but sometimes as young as 7.  They were indentured in a legal document  which bound the child to the master for seven years or more.  He provided board and lodging in return for free labour and also provided skill training which would ultimately permit the apprentice, upon leaving his master's employment, to set up on his own in a similar craft. So in Germany at that time the freed apprentice would usually have acquired all the necessary skills to operate successfully, by the age of about 21.

I think that Karl's words might have given the impression that the skill required to reproduce Bessler's wheel was scarcely higher than that possessed by the ordinary person in the street.  He was a ruler, a statesman and a politician and therefore commented in front of others of a similar standing, and chose his words carefully, knowing they would probably be reported by visiting dignitaries. 

I think he would have responded to questions about Bessler's wheel as noncommittally as possible and when asked how complicated the wheel was, would have considered his response in his customarily careful manner.  So, he chose to use an apprentice as an example, that being of less experience than a freed carpenter; less experience but still with four or five years expertise to back him in his  in attempt to copy the wheel.

I saw a documentary on child labour recently, and the skill demonstrated by kids as young as nine or ten in assembling electrical items, polishing gems, extracting precious metals from scrap electronics was eye-opening.  I see no reason to support the notion that, just because Karl appeared to be slightly denigrating about how simple the mechanisms were, should not fool us into thinking the secret to assembling Bessler's wheel would be easy and not involved complex configurations.

I mention this again, because my problem in assembling the parts I've made for Bessler's wheel are difficult to arrange without accidental clashes between different components.  But gradually by rearranging them over and over, I am getting there.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Law, Theory, Hypothesis or simply a Fact - which is it?

I thought I'd post this but I may still return to the previous blog afte a few days, unless something else occurs to me.

A brief aside in one of the posts on the besslerwheel forum, gave me pause for thought.  When someone comes to a reasoned explanation for Bessler's wheel, without having actually made a working model, that explanation might be termed a hypothesis, however the three terms, hypothesis, law and theory have similarities and may overlap in places.

I found the critical feature that enables gravity to work on weights so that they cause the wheel to rotate. I called my discovery about why Bessler's wheel did not break any physical laws, a principle or an observation.  I read that a hypothesis is an educated guess based on an observation. So it might be a hypothesis, but apparently a hypothesis can be disproved, but not proven to be true.  I can prove my hypothesis is correct so it can't be a hypothesis.

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it. Therefore, theories can be disproved.  So my discovery can't be a theory because it can be proved and it can't be disproved.

A law generalizes a body of observations. At the time it is made, no exceptions have been found to a law.   As my Bessler-Collins principle lies within the scope of an existing set of laws it is already covered and cannot be a law on its own.

So my problem is this; I have reasoned an explanation for why Bessler's wheel worked and how.  The principle which I have called the Bessler-Collins principle still escapes a valid definition.  I can prove it works both by describing it with illustrations, and by physically making a testing model which performs as predicted.

Fact: In science, an observation that has been repeatedly confirmed and for all practical purposes is accepted as “true.”  So it is just a fact, an observation or a description of something that is well-known but has so far escaped everyone's noticed, or as I think Bessler put it, 'I found it where everyone else had looked'.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Update here and on www.gravitywheel.com

This blog will temporarily cease to post blogs.  The reason is that I am currently extremely busy and trying to get my wheel finished, my new website finished and a new publication finished.  All of these things will be published in the next few weeks but for now I am removing the comments feature because I am not posting blogs so there is nothing really to comment on. 

My house in the UK is for sale too, and once it's sold we intend to buy a small villa in Spain and also a small house here so that we have a bolt-hole here in the UK for when we return which we shall do every few weeks.  The house and garden are too big for us, there's only my wife and I here, so something smaller and easier to manage will be good.

I will update this blog from time to time but the comments part is closed for now.  I have also put a notice on a temporary website at www.gravitywheel.com and that too will be updated occasionally.  So for now I shall repost the basic story of Bessler and hope that I do not lose any of my friends who have kindly come with me on the journey so far. I will be back soon!

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,’.

An Update and a Window on my Intentions..

I have been asked many times, "where is the wheel we were promised?" for, goodness knows, how many years now.  Well I think (hope) the answer is close.  As all of us who build wheels have experienced that, we know feeling, the solution is 'in sight' and 'confidence is high', only to find that we were wrong and success is as far away as ever.  So, as I have said many times during the last three years, and have even encoded a brief summary of it at the foot of each blog, I do know the secret to Bessler's wheel and I have been trying to design it into a working wheel.  I have finally decided to publish everything and to time it with the finishing of the wheel. My wheel is almost finished.

At the same time I have completed a detailed description of the basic principle, as a PDF file, and included some of the many clues which support the Bessler/Collins principle. A full description of the design is also included with numerous illustrations showing how I used many of Bessler's clues. I have also almost finished my new website which also provides some of the same clue details as are shown in the PDF file, however there are too many to include all of them on my web site.

I have not used, nor am I even aware of the many clues apparently encoded in Bessler's two portraits which apparently hold information on the construction of the wheel.  No, my clues lie elsewhere and will be accepted immediately they are linked to the Bessler/Collins principle.

My plan is to try to finish the wheel in the next three to four weeks, and then dependant on whether or not it works, I shall publish the web site with or without a video showing the wheel spinning. I know that the video on its own will be insufficient for those who cannot be bothered to read the explanation which will be available both as a digital document, and on the websites, so I shall have to leave it to others to check my work. Without the video an animation would be preferable. to nothing.

Of course, in a perfect world I would like to present a finished and working wheel, but although the concept is simple enough,  I have found it quite difficult to build it on a flat disk. With hindsight I would have been wise to build it three-dimensionally if you see what I mean. The levers swivel on thin bolts and because of their (the bolts not the levers!) limited length this means there is a very shallow depth for all the parts to move through without interfering with each other. The bolts are not connected at their other ends to another disc so the whole structure is liable to flex and this causes many problems. Still, with a little finesse (such as bending any levers whose action might be obstructed by another part!) I think I can complete the wheel and have it working. Of course another solution would be to find a skilled engineer who would be prepared to build it for me according to my design, while keeping absolutely silent about it. It would also be good to find a skilled animator who could make an animation showing exactly how everything works, alas I know of no such people.

It is true that I have had offers in the past and they are prepared to make such an animation but then it turns out that they are not really the professional or skilled amateur that I seek, but rather people with the best of intentions with some limited skill and experience but not enough for my needs.  I have seen animations that look so real they could be simply a video recording,   Also there have been offers to build my design for me, but in this case I need someone who lives close by and with whom I can visit and work with, but again these kind offers have come from other countries and such long distance communications do not appeal to me.

So I think peraps it is nearly time to publish all of it and sit back and wait for the reactions. 

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

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,’.