The “great craftsman phrase” interpreted.

What follows is my interpretation of the “great craftsman phrase”.  In his Apologia Poetica, Bessler included many clues, some encoded and some merely ambiguously phrased so that getting the true meaning from each was a struggle.  The one I discuss here is one of the most puzzling, however in the following explanation I hope that the meaning becomes clear.

He wrote, “a great craftsman would be he who, as one pound falls a quarter, causes four pounds to shoot upwards four quarters.”  This curious phrase seems on the face of it to be nonsense and yet by picking it apart one can get at the meaning.   What Bessler sought to do was to tell us what to do but disguise it from the casual reader; however it has turned out more difficult than perhaps he anticipated.

Note that within the quote he mentions that there are five weights, one plus four, and each one is equal to one pound.  Secondly, one pound falls a quarter.  How do we define what he meant by a quarter? In this case he was referring to a clock - something he also included in the first drawings in both Grundlicher Bericht and Das Triumphirende - and a quarter of an hour or fifteen minutes covers 90 degrees.  But how could this single right angle fall cause “ four pounds to shoot upwards four quarters”? 

There has been so much discussion about what this brief phrase means, and much puzzlement – and yet once you know what it really means, it is very simple.  We saw in the first part that the word ‘quarter', referred to, not just 90 degrees but also to a clock.  In the second part the word ‘quarter' also refers to a clock but this time he has confused us by using the words ‘four quarters’. ‘Four quarter’s equals ‘one whole hour’.  Each hour on a clock is divided into 30 degrees, so the words ‘four quarters’ meaning ‘one hour’ as used here equals thirty degrees.  To paraphrase Bessler’s words, “a great craftsman would be he who, as one pound falls 90 degrees, causes each of the other four pounds to shoot upwards 30 degrees.”  

You might think that that is unremarkable and wouldn't achieve the result we seek, but as with all Bessler information you have to work at it and I have more information to share on this phrase, but at this point I will just say that it is not necessary for the weight being lifted to rise as far as it fell at this point in rotation.

You might also think it would have been better to have said that “one pound falls 90 degrees, causes one pound to shoot upwards 30 degrees”, but that would have removed the information that five weights, and therefore five mechanisms were involved, so it had to be four weights plus the one.  Also do not assume that I am saying that there were only five weights involved, there are more, another five for each of the scissor mechanisms.

This removes the problem of lifting four weights, or just one weight, higher than the same weight falls.

JC

Johann Bessler's so-called Cross-Bars

Each of these code-sharing posts will be simultaneously posted on the www.besslerwheel.com forum as well as here on my blog, so that I have my own record of the posts in this subject.

Each post will contain information I have found in Bessler's books which will hopefully help towards designing the actual mechanisms, and should convince those who believe that Bessler left no information about the actual mechanisms within his wheels, that in fact everything we need can be found if you know where and how to look.

Much has been written about Johann Bessler’s puzzling comment about his use of  cross-bars and I think it’s time I shared what I believe to be the truth about them.

In his Apologia Poetica, on page 71 of part two, he wrote, “If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in the machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself, but on the contrary, when I arrange several cross-bars, pulleys and weights, the machine can revolve much faster, and throw Wagner’s calculations clean out of the window!”

That’s how it appeared in the English translation at the back of my publication of Bessler’s Apologia Poetica.  But a couple of years ago I decided to go back to basics and looked up the word creuze which appears twice in the above quote in the original German.  The word creuze was translated as cross-bar because it was one of dozens of alternative meanings in a huge German/English dictionary I owned, and seemed to be the best fit with Bessler’s description of his mechanism.

But I could not understand how it might be possible to design the wheel with just one cross-bar and it was then that I resolved to check out the whole translation myself.  The word creuze has one obvious equivalent in English and is the basic meaning in German, and it is cross.  There is one obvious place in Bessler’s entire output of mechanical drawings which can be described as a cross and it is in the scissor mechanisms.

The scissor mechanisms is an essential ingredient in the design of the wheel, according to Bessler.  It is obvious when you look at the picture below that the red parts are indeed crosses and in my opinion Bessler is suggesting that one linkage, or cross was scarcely sufficient to turn the wheel but more of them made the wheel turn faster.

The inclusion of the words weights and pulleys along with crosses, suggests that the three items are connected in some way, one of them being the scissor mechanisms.  This solves the puzzle of having “just one cross-bar”, because you could have several crosses on each mechanism.

In a subsequent post I'll show that there were only two X's required, although you can see 8 in the above picture which is from the Toys page in MT, if you include the two handles.  This suggests that more will be better?

You can see from the above single scissor mechanism that one X would provide the minimum  extension.  Two would give more extension.

JC

Where are Our Academic Peers?

Another brief beef about the system!

We often complain about the problem of trying to get people to at least consider Johann Bessler's claims in a more open minded way, but in an age of highly defined specialisation, there is a widespread intolerance for ideas that originate outside of ‘official’ university-based frameworks.

There is also a general assumption that if a new theory collides with a preferred paradigm it must be wrong. If you are not toeing the conventional line you are a pseudoscientist. This is academic mudslinging that rejects those who hold a reasoned counter-view.

The world of science is surely an amazing place and in my opinion, one of the most fascinating aspects of life both now and historically. It is a pity that so few people in academia actually use the real principles of open minded consideration of all evidential material, no matter how contradictory it may seem when compared to the current paradigm.

The definition of an academic is someone who has been trained in a given discipline and is subsequently employed by a university to teach and possibly conduct research in that subject. They are expected to work procedurally, to apply scientific testing to their logic and to comply with conventional protocol. This includes the process of peer review prior to the possible publication of new information in academic journals.

But we, who seek to prove that Bessler’s work was genuine, have no academic peers, so we cannot be reviewed and therefore our work cannot be directly published by any of the academic journals.

But.....even if we did somehow become part of an academic peer group, we would have to offer an explanation, if only in the most general terms, showing theoretically how and why Bessler's wheel did not conflict with the current laws of physics. Alternatively demonstrate a working model - have I said that before once or twice?!

JC

Johann Bessler's Logo

In his last and most professional-looking publication, ‘Das Triumphirende…’ (produced in 1719), on page 144, Johann Bessler included a logo-like doodle that at first sight seem attractive to the eye but meaningless.  But there is more to it than meets the eye. I have reproduced it enlarged so that it is easy to see the features incorporated with in it.  The logo is composed of a crown with some curious lettering beneath, some of which on closer inspection looks like the word Orffyre which was Bessler’s name according to the atbash cipher and before he latinised it.  There is some additional lettering reversed on the left side of the middle circle.

If I transcribe the letters into modern font it will be easier to read.  It says:-

HTARORFFYRE, which, when the left side is reversed, reads RATH ORFFYRE.  This means COUNCILLOR ORFFYRE.  

Below that there are 5 letters evenly spaced, which might stand for Doctor of Mathematics, Medicine and Perpetual Motion, attributes he claimed for himself, or possibly Music in place of Mathematics.

Knowing of Bessler’s propensity for using numbers and letters substitution in various ways, I was sure that the logo contained hidden information, and the key to solving this innocent looking code could be found. One of his favourite puzzles used alphanumerics and the above is easy to read.  If D is the fourth letter of the alphabet then applying the same principle to the other letters gives  4 + 12 + 12 + 15 + 12  = 55 (again!) But that cannot be all.

Here is one of those curious, easily dismissed anomalies I have spoken of previously.  Notice the ‘P’; it does not look quite right. Is it upper case or lower case?  If lower case then the upper curved portion is too big; if upper case then the downward portion should not extend below the line of text. Which ever is the intention it should be upper case because the other letters are.  But why are the letters YR above the letter 'P'  conjoined? Is there more to this than just producing five letters or at least five letters if you include the YR as one letter.

A possible clue might be seen in a handrawn version of the logo but with some variations as below

 
In this example the 'p' has a tail similar to the letter 'q' when hand written.  However it might also be also be a 'j' or some other letter, and these puzzles can be read to provide what ever answer you seek!  Notice that in the hand drawn picture Bessler has put the letter 'O' at each end instead of in the middle as in the first logo but this is not as good at providing the link to the two way wheel as the first logo does.  

As for the other features of the logo, the crown represents Karl, the ruler; Rath Orffyreus tells us that Bessler was a counsellor under Karl; the D.M.M.P.M. tells us, in my opinion, that he was a self-proclaimed, Doctor of Mathematics (or Music), Medicine and Perpetual Motion; the number 55 tells us that he was telling us of the importance of the number 55.  Finally, the leaf design is similar to the leaves of the Arondo Domax giant reed, which is commonly used in Organ Pipes of that period, and still is today for that matter.  This is a reference to Bessler’s skills in organ building.

I am leaning towards the letter 'M' standing for music since  Bessler's later connection with organs seems to be more suitable, and of course there are examples of his musical notation for the carillon he was hoping to build one day for another prince, Karl I, Duke of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttelf.

One more item.  This a close up of the centre of the logo, and something that Bessler often used in placeof his signature.....

Very very interesting!

JC

Some more on Bessler's Codes

I've decided to share here, some more of the pieces of  Johann Bessler's coded information which I've discovered from time to time. For brevity I am reducing my explanations, just pointing out my findings and conclusions. The really detailed information is in my book which is steadily progressing and will be published in due course.

I put this clock up here last year but here's another chance to study it along with a little extra information.

Notice that the lines of perspective are as you would expect, all centred on the point of rotation.  I noted that there appeared to be a single gap in an otherwise fairly symetrical arrangment of lines.  I became curious when I noted that the two weights numbered 8 seemed to be on an alignment which passed through the centre of rotation but for which there was no perspective alignment available

The number eight figures seemed to me to be just on a line where you might expect an eight o'clock line to be.  Then I realised that when this line was added there were just twelve lines and made the logical conclusion that they must represent a clock.

Obviously I questioned the point of this inclusion and managed to relate it to another piece information. There appear to be a surplus of numbering in all of Bessler's drawings and this led me to the conclusion that the numbers might be designed to add up to a significant total.  This, as it turned out was correct.  I had already investigated the atbash route, converting numbers to letters, hoping to find a hidden text message but there was none. But the numbers in the above drawing total 660 and  660 divided by twelve (from the clock) comes to 55.   What is the relevance of the number 55?

Chapter 55 of his Apologia Poetica contains the mysterious Declaration of Faith, which also includes 141 Bible references which you can read more about in my web site http://www.orffyreus.net/

There I have shown the existence of a long and detailed code, but so far no one has to my knowledge deciphered it yet. I think that the number 55 had a dual purpose, firstly it related to his machine, and secondly it pointed to the largest piece encoded text.  The other hints at this number are numerous and I'll point out some of them in the next few weeks, but if you want to know Bessler's secret then you need to decipher the part of Chapter 55 I have described in the above web site.

PS As promised in comments, I include picture of the designs at the foot of page 128 on Apologia Poetica.  Do the represent Fibonacci spirals?

 And below is a rough copy of the preface to MT, I assume you meany this and not the actual preface?

JC

Hmm - No References to my Books about Johann Bessler on Wiki.

Curiously, despite the fact that I have added information on the subject of Johann Bessler on Wikipedia and other 'official' search engines, I can find no mention of the five books I published, which give more information in one place than anywhere else as far as I know.  There are no links to any of my web sites though I have added them in the past.

All the references and links point to either historical accounts or negative articles about Bessler.  I have added new information three or four times over the last few years but somehow all those references and the information I provided have been removed.

It isn't because I need to see my name up there but rather, anything that catches the attention of someone with the instinct, imagination and luck to make the leap from merely repeating what every one else has done to finding that unique concept which Bessler found, is exactly what we need. Any method that attracts the attention of the right person is valid.  Without such information on Wikipedia how can people who might be interested find out more about it?  I realise that google offers the ways and means of getting more information but Wikipedia lends authenticity to such searches.

If I was paranoid I might think there was a conspiracy to silence any attempts to promote Bessler's work, but I'm not.  I suppose that because the Bessler wheel type of perpetual motion is declared impossible by  historical precedent, Wikipedia censors anything which might seem to validate his claims.  I guess we could test that out by seeing if any other kind of alternative science which has not been accepted as legitimate by its peers is referenced with links and articles supporting its claims.

It seems to me that the majority of people interested in this subject are of an age similar to my own. Could it be that the younger generations have been brainwashed into believing that an interest in this subject is so laughable that they cannot even take a moment to consider it?

Computers and all their related offshoots require a different discipline quite alien to the way we thought out solutions to physical problems in our youth.  Just as I find it hard to get to grips with computers, so they, the younger generation are taught to find the answers with computers.  I think that we older ones are used to visualising mechanical processes, whereas the new generation can't because they don't need to.

But who removed the references I added to wiki?  Presumably someone with the education to 'know' that my information isn't backed up by the educational institutions and is therefore proscribed.

JC

Gravity plus Gravity Drives Bessler's Wheel

I decided to post this both here and the the Besslerwheel forum to publish my idea about the secondary force involved in Bessler's wheel and hopefully generate some discussion about its potential as possible step forward towards a solution.

I could apologise for writing in simple terms without the use of numbers and formulae, but I won't because I think they put people off and confuse some fairly basic concepts.

Bessler’s wheel used weights, he makes that clear.  Weights can only have an effect if they either overbalance something or they fall – I leave impetus and inertia to one side for now.  

Gravity enables the weights to fall, or as I prefer to say, it makes them fall, therefore let us cut out all the dancing around and say that Bessler’s wheel is driven by gravity.

What about gravity?  It supposed to be a conservative force, but what does that really mean? To me it simply means that it conserves its energy, or to put it another way, it’s a continuous force, therefore no matter how much work it does it is never diminished, at least not as far as we are concerned here on earth. 

We are taught that you cannot obtain continuous rotational motion from gravity i.e. in a wheel.  The reason is that the force acts on all parts of the wheel at the same time, so that even in a overbalancing wheel the falling weight has to be lifted back to its pre-fall position and it has to be lifted against the force of gravity.

In fact this does not preclude the possibility of achieving continuous motion, its just that no one could see how it might be achieved.  It is correct to say that gravity having made a weight fall, cannot be used to also raise the same weight again.  We need another force to raise it back to its pre-fall position.  For hundreds of years perpetual motionists have searched for the other force without success.  Even today we continue to look for the means to lift the weight back up and many have been forced to conclude that it is indeed impossible to find a force capable of acting quickly with equal power to gravity.

That force has been under our noses all the time.  Gravity is the only available force which matches the desired criteria.  Obviously we cannot use the falling weight’s own  kinetic energy to raise it or another weight back up, because that energy has already been used to rotate the wheel a little.

The answer, it seems to me is to have another weight whose sole purpose is to raise the first weight back up.  Obviously this second weight cannot have an effect on rotation or it would negate the rotation gained by the first weight.

Bessler have us two good clues about this.  Firstly he said his weights worked in pairs, and this seems to support the second weight notion.  And he also described in his Apologia Poetica how “A great fat herd of fat, lazy, plump horses wanders aimlessly”.  I think that this describes the weights whose job it is to raise the fallen weight, in their inactive state.  When they are not raising the fallen weight they must be in a neutral position, possibly their action takes place in the Z plane but I have design which does not require that.

JC

Why Science is wrong about Bessler's Wheel

Science has taught us that perpetual motion machines are impossible, they violate the laws of physics and we are all wasting our time and our lives in chasing this fantasy. It's interesting to look at the support for both the scientific point of view and the dogmatic one.

Science relies initially on theory which is an idea held contingent upon 'evidence'. A theory can be a set of statements supported by evidence  that can be used to predict natural phenomena. Predictions are the fundamental support of theories and they evolve from empirical observations.

Even 'established' laws of physics are still theories though regarded as proven by evidence and the fulfilled predictions based on that evidence, but they are still subject to re-evaluation if either; new evidence comes to light; or a better (simpler) theory comes along that explains the same evidence.

Dogma or doctrine, on the other hand, could be a statement originating from a revelation, vision, image, dream, or thought or any other source of mental origin. Its support is faith. No evidence is required and neither is it necessarily sought. Reliable and consistent predictions are absent from faith related statements. Dogmas may change and evolve exclusively from human decision and not from any empirical observations.

Perpetual motionist's beliefs tend to fall somewhere between science and dogma. Adherents believe, for what seems to them to be good reason, that perpetual motion machines are possible, in particular, gravity enabled machines. I used the word 'enabled' with good reason as we have been told an infinite number of times (it seems!) that gravity is not an energy source. Leaving that aside for a moment, perpetual motionists feel intuitively that a weight driven machine could be made to run continuously with no additional input of energy other than that from falling weights.  It seems so obvious to them, and I include myself,  that we think that science must be wrong - at least in rejecting Bessler's wheel.

But, without a theory explaining how this might be achieved, the disciples of this belief can only be regarded in much the same way as members of a religious faith, who, requiring no evidence other than their own subjective certainty that what they believe must be true, exhibit blind faith when questioned on their convictions.  This may be regarded as too simplistic a view but without evidence to the contrary where does this strong but inexplicable certainty come from?

Well in this case, Johann Bessler's extremely convincing demonstrations of his wheels provides the strongest evidence ever reported about such machines.  The vast majority of people dismiss the very idea that Johann Bessler could possibly have built a genuine perpetual motion machine. Personally I don't like to use the term 'perpetual motion' about a weight driven machine; it isn't perpetual motion so much as continuous motion, providing the force of gravity is present.  Continuous motion sounds more believable too, not that that is any kind of criterion to support such a contention.

The laws of physics must remain unaffected by this machine; there can be no conflict with them, in which case the theories I spoke of earlier will remain intact and supported by the evidence provided by Bessler's machine.  Only the predictions are wrong about such machines being impossible.  As I said above, the predictions are subject to re-evaluation and in this case they will be once the proof is self-evident, in the form of a working model.

JC

September UPDATE - at last!

I have been extremely busy for the last few weeks and I apologise for being absent from this blog.

My log cabin is finished and my workshop which was to be in it, has had to be moved to the garage, which is more suitable for drilling and sawing etc  The log cabin is now my writing and drawing place and will provide a good space to complete the numerous illustrations required for the book I am engaged in writing  I read somewhere that a surprisingly large proportion of authors prefer to work in a quiet bolt-hole out in the garden. Perhaps there they can let their creative juices flow away from the distractions they’d otherwise encounter in the main home or in a traditional office space. Not even a phone for many, and certainly no spouse, kids or visitors to disturb them. Perhaps this, together with the peace and tranquility which the garden lends, is the secret to their success …well you never know, it might work for me too!

I've had a number of emails and posts asking when I aim to be back so here is an update for now and normal service will return shortly

The code breaking has continued despite the hiatus caused by moving house and helping my family in several tasks, including building another log cabin, clearing and tidying another one's garden and of course my own self-imposed plans.

I read with fascination the many claims to know the secret to Bessler's wheel, and remember how many times I also made the same claim, only to discover that I was wrong.  I told myself back then, that I would not make the same mistake again...until I had found a work-around that would satisfy the demands of Bessler's wheel, without conflicting with the accepted laws of physics - well I have known of such a concept for several months but I was unable to figure out how to build it into a working wheel.  Now I have a complete design and it is all due to Bessler's clues and all I have to do is build it.

But I think that I have said too much already, I don't want to follow a certain person's lead on the BW forum, who has so far achieved about 90,000 views without actually saying anything!  So although I believe I have the secret I don't want anyone thinking I am making a claim to actually have it, I just think/hope I have...along with all the many others who also think they do.

The book so far contains over 30 illustrations, all of which will be refined before it becomes available as a download.  There are possibly going to be another 20!  If you think that is a lot, I have already combined some and eliminated others.  The reason for so many is that there are so many solid clues in Bessler's work that each step requires an explanation and an illustration of what it is and how it is used.  I'm confident that there will be little or no argument about my explanations, but I want to get it as precise and as good as I can get it, before I release it into the world outside!

So back to the log cabin - I must post a picture of it in my next post, it is thing of beauty and I am inordinately proud of it, considering I built the whole thing single handed.

Back soon, happy wheeling!

JC