My Favourite Bessler Clues

I often get asked which of the many clues that are associated with Bessler are the best in my opinion, and which do I think will lead us to success.

There are textual clues as well as graphic, but I tend to favour the graphic ones, although there are a couple of pieces of text which in my opinion offer the most useful information and could help in our search for success.  But a single clue taken in isolation is hard to fathom and in my opinion is best understood when considered in conjunction with others.  Bessler had no desire to lie, if only because it would reflect badly upon him at a later date, even if the wheel was sold and accepted as a success.  But he could and did write ambiguously.  Much of his text when referring to the wheels, appeared to be either contradictory or even nonsensensical, but a search for anything constructive while attempting to accept the apparent meaning in an experimental way has led me to some interesting understandings.  Here are some of my preferred clues, not in any particular order of merit for me.

For instance Bessler says, "...these weights are themselves the PM device, the 'essential constituent parts' which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity."  This tells me that whatever arrangement is responsible for continuous rotation, it has to be ultimately gravity which enables it.

-and, “Alternately gravitating to the centre and climbing back up again." this seems obvious but is ambiguous, look for an alternative meaning which fits the words.

Or these ones,  “'Lightly' cause a heavy weight to fly upwards!” 

“I don't want to go into the details here of how suddenly the ‘excess’ weight is caused to rise." 

  “The inward structure is so arranged that by disposed weights once in rotation they gain force from their own swinging."

“This pressure of two fingers was applied until the moment when a single one of the weights present inside the body of the device began to fall.”

.

The above four quotes give me a feel for the mechanical action, but no detail.  The next one does give a little detail: "So then, a work of this kind of craftsmanship has, as its basis of motion, many separate pieces of lead. These come in pairs, such that, as one of them takes upan outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axle. Later, they swap places, and so they go on and on changingplaces all the time."  Very informative, and as before, don't take the words at face value, look for alternative ways to understand what he says.

This following text is the most sensible piece of advice given out by Bessler and I think it applies to almost all designs currently being worked on; "Many would-be Mobile-makers think that if they can arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the center than the others, then the thing will surely revolve. I learned all about this the hard way. One has to learn through bitter experience.”  It seems as though the design features he is dismissing are an absolute necessity for a gravity-enabled wheel to revolve continuously, but as it stands, his advice appears to rule it out utterly.  Do not be fooled, he admits elsewhere that his design relies on weights being a little more distant from the center than the others,so how do we explain this?  It's another example of his textual sleight-of-hand; it comes down to working out how you get the weights to be a little more distant from the center than the others.

There are many other clues in the text but the following one is my absolute favourite and one which is a supreme example of Bessler's deviousness, containing ambiguity, apparent nonsense and absolute truth, if you can work it out.  "A great craftsman would be that man who can "lightly" cause a heavy weight to fly upwards! Who can make a pound-weight rise as 4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall".  I understand it completely with the proviso that there are two possible outcomes either of which it can argued, he meant but which hands-on building will resolve.  There are other translations available but I like this one the best and they are each decipherable in the same way.

I'll discuss the graphic clues in my next blog, but I warn you I shan't be giving much away.

JC

Johann Bessler's three possible outcomes.

Johann Bessler spent an intense and lengthy period of time searching for the solution to a perpetual motion machine.  Having suceeded in his self-appointed task he then spent an equal amount of time trying to sell the secret for 100,000 thalers.  His options for obtaining such a large sum were extremely limited; only rulers or princes of kingdoms had the necessary finances.  

He describes early on how he was told that a perpetual motion device was worth its weight in gold, or words to that effect.  Clearly, despite his strong religious convictions he wanted fame and fortune and he went all out to get it, via his chosen route - a perpetual motion machine.

There were three possible outcomes to his search for the solution to perpetual motion.  The first outcome; his search ended in success and he sold the secret for 100,000 Thaler.  That didn't happen. Secondly, he succeeded in finding the secret but failed to sell it.  That is the outcome we all know, and which we hope to correct in order to achieve his desired ending, if post humously.  But the third outcome involves him spending his entire life searching for the elusive secret and never finding it.

What might his life have been like in those circumstances?  Actually he had several options open to him.  Herr Weise, his schoolmaster, had tried to educate many of his pupils for positions within the establishment, and we know that Bessler was a star pupil in which case perhaps his prospects were good for a position at court, or within the maintence of large organisations such as Kassel, as blacksmith, surveyor, armourer or instrument maker - he had the skills. Or he could have continued as an organ maker or a medical man, even if not entitled to call himself a Doctor, or even found work as a watchmaker. His options seem almost limitless compared to most who had his upbringing.  We know he had an entrepreneurial ability, so his chosen course seems almost suicidal given the reception his claims had.

But he never wavered from his determined course, despite numerous setbacks, he seems to have been obsessed with finding the secret. Such a preoccupation or fixation is easily understood by we fellow researchers, but hopefully we do not exclude all external stimuli to the degree he did.  We are required to work, to earn a living and provide for our families to some extent, if possible.  This limits the time we can spend in our chosen field of research, but Bessler states that the chief reason he succeeded when all before had failed, was for the very simple reason that he had no family and no income other than that required to feed, clothe himself and fund his activities.  He was therefore able to devote evey working hour to finding the secret of perpetual motion.

This brings me to another aspect of our research.  Much is made of the marvellous ability of simulation software to permit the testing of various designs.  Yes I agree it can be a great time and expense saver, but only if you have the complete design available to input. One of the greatest benefits for me has been the occasional 'eureka' moment when, in mid-assembly of a particular mechanism, I suddenly see an alternative which looks more hopeful than the current design, and I either complete the assembly I'm working on before returning to the new avenue of promise to test my new revelation, or sometimes I forgo completion of the current assembly and go straight to the modified version.

I'm sure many will say that obviously the new avenue of design did not fulfill its promise and therefore such revelations are not worth exxperiencing, but I disagree.  One of those periodic revelations were exactly what Bessler experienced and many of us who insist that hands-on building is the only way to achieve success know exactly what I mean.

One more thing; producing a sim of a working wheel will have absolutely no benefit in convincing the vast numbers of sceptics in accepting the claim to success.  Neither will producing a video of a working wheel.  The only thing that will convince is the precise description of all the parts with explanations of how and why they work ...plus a full explanation of the actual concept; the reason why it does not conflict with the physical laws.  Once that information is published and enough people test the theory and explanation to prove the claims, then and only then will the concept be accepted and become incorporated in the world of science.

JC

Trading Width and Height, a Curiousity.

This subject regularly pops up on the besslerwheel forum but no progress has been made in finding a way to use the principle to advantage.  A few years ago I found something I thought might have some mileage, but I've never seen it discussed so I decided to offer it here.

In the drawing below, the curved red arrow in fig 1 shows the path of a weight on the end of a lever, starting at the twelve o’clock position it falls to three o’clock.  The green lines show that the width and the height measurements are the same.  The letter 'C' is supposed to represent the centre of a wheel and is therefore at the point of rotation of a proposed wheel upon which the mechanism is mounted

In the second drawing below the upper portion of the red curved line, shows by the green lines that the weighted lever has fallen a shorter distance than it has  moved horizontally.  On the other hand the lower portion of the red curved line shows by means of the blue lines, that the horizontal distance is much shorter than the vertical distance.

Can we use this to design a mechanical advantage? Arranged on a revolving wheel it might perhaps be possible.

I've done some work on this and I thought it might be of interest.  If you use the drawings or discuss it anywhere else I'd appreciate due acknowledgement and a link to this blog.

JC

Errant Assumptions - they are usually at the root of nearly all failures.

There is some muddled thinking going on and I'd like to clarify what I believe are facts.

Firstly Bessler's first two wheels began to spin spontaneously as soon as a brake was released.  For some reason a few people find this fact hard to accept.  For the wheel to do this means that it was in a state of imbalance at all times.  This is not hard to understand, in fact I think that it is a prerequisite for a continually spinning wheel.  The evidence that his wheels did start without a push is well documented and I am puzzled by the seeming scepticism that is engendered in some people's mind.

There is also a tendency to assume that there were eight weights and/or mechanisms in the wheels - why? The only evidence which includes the suggestion that eight weights were in a wheel, is in Fischer Von Erlach's report on his two hour examination of the Kassel wheel. As I've said many times, the Kassel wheel was different to the two earliest wheels because it could turn in either direction, whereas the earliest ones only turned in one direction, plus it needed a gentle push in one direction or the other before it began to accelerate to its maximum speed.  The conclusion is obvious and again is backed up by documentary evidence, the interior design of the Kassel wheel and it's predecessor, the Merseberg wheel were more complex.  So why assume there must have been eight weights inside the first two wheels?  Or, why try to design a more complex wheel before you've managed to build a successful one direction wheel?

Then there are the energy sources sought for the wheels; the minuscule depletion of mass to drive a twelve foot wheel!  Ridiculous!  Gravity enabled but not the direct source? Do we pick and choose which comments Bessler made and discard those we find hard to accept?  If we think Bessler's claims were genuine then the solution lies, as he said, within the weights themselves Manipulation of falling weights is the only possible scenario which ties in with Bessler's description and it must be possible even if no design has been discovered so far. It's not using gravity directly but using the result of gravity acting on a weight and making it fall.  Some say what's the difference? Well for those who are particular about such things, the fine detail must be examined, if we continue to believe Bessler, but at the same time accept that gravity itself cannot be used as a form of energy, that leaves, as Bessler, put it, the weights themselves.  The only energy available is that which results in the weights moving under the influence of gravity.

It's a bit like the official view on heavier-than-air machines before the Wright brothers showed how it could be done.  The theory of gliders was recognised long before the Wrights achieved powered flight, but before them there was no suitable engine, they were too heavy.  It was the introduction of an aluminium crank case which lightened the engine enough to allow the airframe to lift it in flight. Yet the academic response to their claims and even to a model that actually flew, was denial.  But people believed instinctively that it might be possible to fly an aircraft, in the same way that we believe that is possible to construct a weight driven wheel which will spin continuously.

We need to keep it simple, just as Karl described the interior of Bessler's wheel, so simple a carpenter's boy could make one if he was allowed to study it for a short while.  Anything which requires complex mechanics should be avoided.  Bessler was afraid that people wouldn't think the wheel worth so much money once they knew how it was done - that is what he said.

Ignore anything which does not apply to the one way wheels, but rule out nothing.  Conflicting advice?  No, but don't just assume eight weights/mechanisms are necessary.  Accept that the wheel started spontaneously when the brake was released.  Make a working model; the Wright brothers did and even then there were many sceptics who denied its possibility, so we have an uphill struggle even if a working model is produced so for that reason, in my opinion, simulations are a waste of time.

JC

Johann Bessler left Clues both Textual and Graphic.

It has always seemed obvious to me, that if Johann Bessler was genuine he would have wanted to leave precise information in a publicly accessible place, about how his wheel worked, otherwise without a sale, he could never dream of final acknowledgement of his amazing achievement, even if it was after his death.  The options are limited to placing such information in one or more of his published works, leaving it for post humous discovery, either connected in some way with his private vault, or in his papers which had not yet been published, including private notes, letters and of course his Maschinen Tractate (MT) which he never got around to publishing. He obviously intended to publish it but his circumstances prevented it.  We already know that some important information had originally been included in his MT because he says so on the frontispiece, that he has burned or buried some pages which reveal the secret but a careful study of the remaining ones may eventually lead to the solution.

This short piece of handwriting on the front of the manuscript, with its strong hint that the secret is available to those with eyes to see, has tempted many researchers to study the 141 drawings, some of which have short notes attached.  For me the secret has so far remained too well hidden, apart from the final page, curiously numbered 138, 139, 140 and 141, as if this page replaces the four he removed.  It does offer some interesting pointers, but more is needed I believe, before sense can be made of the odd collection of items, which I labelled the 'Toys' page, in my original biography of Bessler, 'Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?'

The MT is also full of other pieces of code which seem to hint at hidden information, but although these can be readily identified, what information I have been able to interpret seems too scant to be of use. But there is another researcher (O) who has made some astonishing discoveries within the MT.

But with or without the mysterious MT to guide you, there are ample other areas suitable for study, which were clearly intended to lead the determined researcher to the solution.  Apologia Poetica, was Bessler's personal account of his long search for the secret of Perpetual Motion.  It contains a number of  different encoding methods, all of which appear to be legitimate and carry a hidden message.  I'm not going to go into them all in detail here but you can learn about some of them by visiting my other web sites all of which are listed on the right side of this page.

Logic suggests that somewhere there must be drawings which were intended to help us get to the secret of the wheel, because all the words in the world will never be equal to some graphic explanations. The only problem is that the drawings must be extremely cleverly disguised.  KB has claimed that he has managed to extract much encoded information that he says he discovered within the two portraits Bessler included at the front of his last and most professional publication, Das Triumphirende.  I cannot comment on what he has found as I have no idea what it is. Das Triumphirende, was a selling aid or advertisement for his wheel.  It is written in both German and Latin, which was  clever because all lectures at universities were carried out in Latin, so it would seem that he was appealing to the more intellectual members of society in the hope of gaining some credibility among those elite.

Within this book are a number of drawings which depict his wheel from various viewpoints and positions and these were very carefully drawn.  Again there are a number of what I would call, discrepancies, apparent errors, which litter the drawings, which might give the impression of carelessness, but a closer look shows how precise the drawings are.

JC

5th February - 72 today! Update

It's my birthday today so I thought I'd write something a little different.  First an update.

Building work is drawing to a close on my house.  My log cabin which is now known fondly, in my family as Bessler Research Activity and Inspiration  Nerve centre (BRAIN!)  is finished and has all my drawings, computer files etc in it, but actual hands-on work is now possible in my somewhat truncated garage.

I think I'm in pretty good health but I remember back in school reading George Orwell's book, 1984, and wondering if I'd make it to that date!  So far so good! That phrase reminds me of Steve McQueen's comment in the film, "The Magnificent Seven", when he said, “It reminds me of that fellow back home that fell off a ten story building. As he was falling people on each floor kept hearing him say, "So far, so good."'

Two people known to me suffered brain aneurisms last year, one was only 40 and survived thank goodness - it was touch and go; but the other, who was in her seventies died.  So it is not sufficient to assume good health is enough, you need some good luck too, to avoid these invisible weaknesses which can manifest themselves at any moment without warning.

So my new year resolution is to publish my research this year pending success or failure in my wheel building.  Now that I have my workshop back and the workmen are about to leave us in peace, I can get on with it all.

One of the unavoidable consequences of this research which is full of documentary information is that the information is ambiguous.  It is all presented in a 300 year old foreign language, it apparently includes encoded information, but no one is sure what this information is designed to reveal; will it be Bessler's last laugh, tying us up in knots in our attempts to extract real information, which is only the inventor showing us how he fooled everyone, or will it contain actual instructions for building his wheel?

This ambiguity leads to numerous false starts, and the dissemination of inaccurate or just plain wrong information presented as fact.  But as time goes by I see also a faint light at the end of a very long tunnel.  It is my firm belief that Bessler strived to leave sufficient information after his death, to allow us to work out his discovery and reconstruct his wheel, but he also had to find a way to prevent those people in his day from working out his secret.  These two requirements were and are incompatible. This makes our job doubly hard.  Are we in the 21st century any cleverer than those of Bessler's day?

People such as Blaise Pascall, Sir Isaac Newton, Gottfried Leibniz, Leonard Euler - the list in endless, that tiny sample of people of Bessler's day demonstrates that the human mind was at least as ingenious as any today, so how do you go about leaving information encoded in such a way that people of those days could not decipher the message and yet others of a later age could do it?

I came to the conclusion mnay years ago that Bessler must have left something in his family grave which would point the way to full disclosure.  We know he obtained permission to be buried in his own vault in his garden.  I and another reseacher sought details of the burial site and came to the conclusion that the site was covered by a carpark, and was probably destroyed at some point prior to its construction.  The only other potential site was the windmill from which he fell to his death; but this did not belong to him and he must have built it assuming that he would return to his home and garden once that commission had been completed.  It is therefore most unlikely that that anything of value would be found there.  I have also visted the windmill which is still in existance although in a somewhat ruinous state.

To my mind that is the most likely method he might have chosen to direct those who searched for a solution after his death.  Nevertheless, I remain confident that my own research will provide a lead in the right direction if not the complete reconstruction and it will be apparent this year.

Cheers

JC

Bessler's Workaround - a method for overcoming a problem or limitation in a program or system.

Given that the search for the solution to Bessler's wheel has gone on for what seems like for ever with no real sign of any progress, and that all apparent alternative means of lifting the fallen weights has drawn a blank.....maybe its time to consider the impossible?

Despite the scornful comments which this post will doubtless engender, from those who (understandably) believe what they have been taught, that gravity cannot be used to drive Bessler's wheel, - and indeed see no convenient loophole which could accommodate my suggestion which follows -  I remain convinced that Johann Bessler found a workaround that allowed him to do just that. I will try to explain why, so please read on.

In the first place much has been made of the vagueness of his statements regarding his probable assumption that gravity drove his machine. The first, and final, impression that I got when reading Bessler's words was that he believed his wheel was driven by gravity.  He implied that it was the cause of the weight's movement. But..... .subsequent analysis by those who search for such nuances of expression, believe that he was not suggesting that gravity alone,  was the source of his wheel's energy, but some additional other unidentified agency.

Having considered the idea that gravity was the prime initiator of rotation, and also the cause of continuation of such motion, someone such as Bessler would have considered every conceivable method to achieve continuing action, including the use of gravity and/or some other agency to relift the fallen weights at the opportune moment, just as we who research this subject have continued to do so since before Bessler and after him.  He states that it was following a dream that he attacked the problem with renewed vigour and enthusiasm, which culminated in success.

This dream seem to have confirmed something he was considering, and the end result was success.  So what could have so inspired him to contimue his research with so much confidence?

This other agency has been extensively sought, and suggestions made as to its nature, but no one has come up with a convincing story.  The truth surely is that if a suitable energy souce had existed, it would have been found by now, and since it hasn't I must conclude that the other agency is the same as the one which caused the weights to fall, i.e. gravity, and that he devised a workaround to avoid the problem.  I'm not sure if Bessler was aware just how impossible his claim to have invented a machine which was driven exclusively by gravity was regarded by the establishment, but I doubt he believed it, even if he had been told many times.  In which case he just persevered with the search instictively searching for a workaround to access gravity  for all his wheel's energy needs.

We know that he was aware of the wall of scepticism around him, but was he aware of exactly why he was not believed?  Why gravity was utterly rejected as a potential sole power source?  He made his discovery before he became notorious and it is likely that he succeeded because he did not know in those early days, why it was impossible!

There were even fewer alternative forces available to Bessler than there are today, and to assume that he found some additional energy to lift the weights, due to changes in ambient temperature, magnetism, air pressure, steam, static electricity or some other force, begs the question why not take the simple route?  Use Occam's razor - when you want to explain something, make no more assumptions than are necessary.  Assuming that some additional source of energy was found, for which there seems to be no evidence, seems to me to be complicating an already puzzling problem.

To find the answer I think we have to dismiss the idea that there is absolutely no means of using gravity to be the sole source of energy for Bessler's wheel.  I believe that there is a workaround that will work, and when it is found it will be very simple in concept, but not so easy in design.  As some of you may know I believe I have found what seems to be that simple concept, which is why I continue to argue that gravity can be used to drive the wheel around for as long as the wheel and its components remain within the field of gravity, subject to certain design elements.

As long as we continue to deny the possibility that Bessler found a way of using gravity to drive his wheel, we shall fail to replicate his machine.  We must bite the bullet and seek a workaround for Bessler's wheel.

JC

Johann Bessler - A Man Before His Time.

Johann Bessler's timing was unforunate; Thomas Newcomen installed the first working steam engine at a coalmine in Staffordshire, England, in 1712, the exact same year that Bessler produced his first working gravity-enabled wheel.  When Newcomen died seventeen years later, over 100 Newcomen engines had been built throughout England and Europe.  Bessler had sold none.

Newcomen's engines were proven; loud, dirty, inefficient but reliable, and using coal in a coalmine made fuelling them easy, even if consumption was high.  Bessler's wheel was an unknowm quantity; even though Newcomen kept the details of his machines secret everyone could see what they were capable of.  Bessler also kept the details of his machines secret, but their power appeared to be extremely limited, in comparison.

In addition he promoted a principle which even then, was loudly rejected by the scientific community whereas steam power had already undergone a series of proven inventions by Denis Papin, who published a study on steam power, including a number of new ideas.  So Bessler's invention was ignored for the same reason it has been ignored ever since; it's premise that it acquired its energy from gravity was proscribed.

But ..... if Bessler had been born today and posted a youtube video of his machine working, with all the parts visible in detail - surely he would have been in the same position as we find ourselves in today, if we were able to replicate his wheel?  It seems curious that he made the discovery back in 1712 when Thomas Newcomen was about to ignite the Victorian industrial age.  Bessler's wheel was far more suited to today's world, than the early 18th century, in my opinion.

It's almost as if he was out of time with his invention;  300 years premature!  Even if the scientific community of Bessler's time had accepted his claims to have used gravity to drive his wheel, the competition from Newcomen would have killed his invention stone dead.  

Despite various claims that Bessler's wheel is too limited in its ability generate usable energy, I do not accept this view.  To me it seems obvious that his wheel can be scaled up to provide sufficient energy for many modern uses.  We have discussed this before on this blog, so I'm not necessarily inviting discussion on this point, but I wanted to reiterate the importance of not dismissing Bessler's wheel as a useful and practical invention at the start of the 21st century - and that it's time is now.

JC

Why I'm sure that 2017 will reveal Bessler's Wheel.

When I  look back at the posts here and on the Besslerwheel forum, at this time of the year I note, with some sadness, how each new year we are optimistic that this year will be the one!

The truth is, we want it to be this year, whatever year it may have been, but wishing is never enough, even when you have devised a new mechanical arrangement.  Something new, a novel principle or an additional element that has so far been lacking is needed, then we may see our wishes fulfilled. I am as guilty as anyone for forecasting success, and yet despite numerous setbacks (failures) I remain optimistic that this year will see success.

So what's different about this year, why now and not before?  Ever since I began this search roughly 55 years ago, I have ignored Bessler's advice and concentrated on creating an over-balancing wheel, totally dependent on having its weights further out on the falling side and closer in on the rising side.  A few weeks ago I asked the question, "is over-balancing a side-effect of some other principle?"

This was an obscure clue to something I'm working on at the moment.  I suddenly realised several months ago how Bessler's wheel could do all that it did without conflicting with the well-known argument that gravity-driven, or as I prefer, gravity-enabled wheels, violate the laws of gravity.  I'm convinced that the dream  Bessler had, which encouraged him in his persuit for a solution, revealed to him the same principle I discovered.

Although I'm not ready to share the information yet, until I've tested it, I can say that there is confirmation of a sort in Bessler's text in his Apologia Poetica.  The passage I refer to is the one where he begins, "For greed is an evil plant"' etc. (chapter XLVI). He mentions various substances and the effect gravity has on them, and includes other types of force.  If the confirmation I referred to sounds a little vague it is because a Bessler is deliberately vague, but there is something about the words he uses which struck a chord with me and I related it immediately to my own discovery.  I doubt anyone could make the connection in reverse, you have to understand why he included it and have the principle in your mind before the words make sense.

So even if I am unable to incorporate the principle in a working wheel, I will share the information widely, and that is why I remain more optimistic than ever before because this year there is a new element to include in the wheel's design which has never been there before.  Someone, maybe not myself, but someone will make the wheel work this year, of that I'm certain.

JC