On 6th June, 1712, in Germany, Johann Bessler (also known by his pseudonym, Orffyreus) announced that after many years of failure, he had succeeded in designing and building a perpetual motion machine. For more than fourteen years he exhibited his machine and allowed people to thoroughly examine the outside of it, but it’s internal workings were kept hidden. This was because the inventor feared that his design would be copied and someone else might obtain credit for all his years of hard work looking for the solution. He followed the advice from the famous scientist, Gottfried Leibniz, who was able to examine the device, and recommended a number of demonstrations and tests designed to prove the validity of his machine without giving away the secret of its design.
A blog about Johann Bessler and the Orffyreus Code and my efforts to decipher it. I'll comment on things connected with it and anything I think might be of interest to anyone else.
The ‘Bessler’s Books’ button at the top of the right side panel, will take you to a page giving access to all Bessler’s books. Simply click ‘home’ to come back to my blog.
Note the copyright notice.
Monday, 8 May 2023
Johann Bessler aka Orffyreus and his Perpetual Motion Machine
Thursday, 4 May 2023
Gravity Enabled Continuously Rotating Electricity Generator
There are a small group of people wide spread around the world, who believe that Johann Bessler’s claim that he had invented a so-called Perpetual Motion machines was genuine. But most people’s first opinion is to dismiss such declarations with little further consideration, and it’s not surprising, given the current school of thought about such assertions.
Despite the certainty that the educational institutions have established in their curriculums, teaching the young and old alike that Johann Bessler was a fraud, there are a number of questions which are routinely dismissed or ignored, but which need to be properly examined in a fair and unbiased fashion to determine the truth about his machine. Why? Because those questions raise serious doubts about the consensus of opinion that any kind of machine such as Bessler’s was or is impossible
The inventor never gave up on his contention that his machine was genuine and he declared that if he was found to have been cheating then he should be executed for it. You might think that such an end was unlikely but actually several people making claims to take advantage of one or more members of the ruling class were indeed summarily executed by having their head chopped off.
Early on during his initial exhibitions, his claim to have invented and exhibited a perpetual motion machine caused a considerable amount of interest within certain court circles among the intellectuals who inhabited that elite society. Numerous letters between several witnesses who attended Bessler’s demonstrations sparked the interest of Gottfried Leibniz. He managed to arrange two private demonstrations where he was able to ask several questions and examine the wheel and its motion. He came to believe that here was a great invention which should not be lost because of the scepticism generally advanced in reaction to the demonstrations.
Following his advice and help, Bessler was ordered to bring his machine to the court of Karl, the Landgrave of Hesse. Karl had spent some considerable time funding the experiments of Denis Papin and subsequent to his departure for London, Karl agreed to provide Bessler with rooms to exhibit his new and larger machine. Of course Karl insisted on being allowed to confirm the inventor’s claims by examining the workings of the machine which he did. He concluded that the machine was genuine and remarkably simple. He was a man of tremendous prestige being held in high regard and had a reputation for honesty and sincerity throughout Europe. This coupled with his interest and knowledge of the latest discoveries in the world of science made him the ideal person to offer Bessler his patronage
Following Leibniz’s recommendations, Bessler developed a series of demonstrations which were designed to provide firm, convincing evidence that Bessler’s wheel was genuine. The most obvious one required a continuous run of around two weeks under lock and key and the Landgrave’s personal seal. A guard was also placed outside the room for the full period of the run, which was actually extended to 54 days in total.
Other measures designed to reduce the chance of fraud, included providing two alternate sets of pillars supporting the wheel, to enable the device to be moved from set to the other. This allowed the examiners to check both sets of bearings before and after translocation had taken place. Nothing suspicious was ever found. An Archimedes pump was attached to the wheel to demonstrate how it could pump water if needed. A chest of stones weighting 70 pounds was hoisted by the wheel from the castle yard to its roof and lowered many times.
Many have tried to find a way that Bessler might have faked the demonstrations, but no secret method has ever been found, and the truth is there for anyone capable of objective analysis to examine the evidence - to see if it was impossible to fake or impossible to be real!
Current research suggests that although a perpetual motion machine in an isolated system is impossible, where there is an external force field there must be a way to tap this force continuously for as long as that force exists. Bessler states very clearly that his machine relied completely on the action of some weights thus propounding the force of gravity.
This suggested solution is customarily dismissed because gravity is a force and not a source of energy. However thousands of waterwheels and hydroelectric power stations are enabled to work due to the force of gravity. The argument that a fallen weight has to be lifted once it’s fallen is used to dismiss Bessler’s wheel, but if Bessler managed to contrive a method which overcame that problem, then his machine was indeed the real deal. Obviously he must have succeeded so there is a potential solution to global warming with free, clean energy.
What are we waiting for!
JC
Saturday, 29 April 2023
Johann Bessler’s Tilted Pentagram.
One of the curious features of the pentagram embedded in the Weissenstein wheel shown in Johann Bessler’s Das Triumphans book, (and at the top of my blog) is that it is slightly tilted. Given that he provides a strong indication that the pentagram is deliberate by including two of Euclid’s pentagram construction steps within the illustration, how come it ended up tilted?
In the illustration below I’ve shown the Weissenstein wheel with Euclid’s 11th proposition, next to it which ran thus::-
“To inscribe an equilateral and equiangular pentagon in a given circle….”
Below I refer to the padlock line (blue) which follows the diameter of the wheel. I also use the rope line (red) which shows the path of the rope which actually passes behind the wheel.
By including the padlock line (blue) which clearly bisects the angle of 36 degrees formed by CAD at the point where the rope line (in red) meets the padlock line, implies that the result was deliberate and therefore for him to produce a tilted pentagram, either he introduced a deliberate error, or he deliberately included it as another clue towards an eventual solution. He emphasised the precision of the pentagram by drawing attention to the base of the triangle where it overlies a succession of hatching lines which are perfectly aligned with it.
Of course he might just have drawn the rope line in the wrong place or at the wrong angle, that could create a tilted pentagram; but given his skills in drawing, measuring etc, that is too unlikely to consider.
Knowing Bessler and his habit of including more than one solution to each clue, I’m sure that he tilted the pentagram for a reason. The rope line should form an angle of 54 degrees with the central pillar upright, 54 being an multiple of 18 degrees like every angle in the pentagram, but it is hard to be sure if it hits that angle. I considered that he might have altered the angle to 55 degrees but such a small difference would be easily missed missed and I concluded that he didn’t.
I tried many times over the years to make the pentagram sit straight with the upper chord exactly horizontal, but failed and it wasn’t until I discovered a second clue which explained how and why the pentagram had a tilt. I’ll explain why it’s tilted in my next blog, next week.
I’m away up north with my granddaughter Amy until the next week. She’s just hit 3.5 million followers, amy pohl on TikTok.
JC
Saturday, 22 April 2023
Is This the Real Solution to Climate Change? Yes, Absolutely!
The Legend of Johann Bessler’s Perpetual Motion Machine.
Tuesday, 18 April 2023
The Intriguing Riddle of the Letter-Numbers.
I know I’ve said this before but I find it puzzling to say the least, that the sheer ubiquity of the thinly veiled insinuations by Johann Bessler, that somehow the number five is of tremendous importance, seems to be largely ignored. Equally perplexing is the opposite adherence to just one other clue that mentions on a single occasion, “….the sound of about eight weights landing on the side towards which wheel turned”. It’s my impression that Bessler-world spends an inordinate amount of time fixated on this supposed fact, while ignoring Bessler’s admission that he had, on occasion, muffled the sound with felt.
He altered his forenames from Elias Bessler to Johann Ernst Elias Bessler. This, coupled with the adoption of his strange pseudonym, Orffyreus through the application of the ancient Hebrew code, atbash, as it was known, led me to do the same to his initials and convert JEEB to WRRO..
E being the 5th letter of the alphabet, chimed with the pentagram being a circle of fifths, and there were two of them. This also connected with his comment in AP, that his weights operated in pairs.
The letter J, the tenth letter of the alphabet, seemed superfluous, however once I applied the atbash cipher to JEEB and got WRRO, I understood the presence of the J and W. The W can be seen to be composed of two Roman number 5s. Bessler always wrote his Ws as two interlinked Vs, suggesting again two 5s, or two fifths, were working together as a pair.
Notice the names of his sworn enemies, their surname initial and then their whole surname in the above picture from AP, Gartner, Wagner and Bosz.
The letter R is the 18th letter of the alphabet and is also the basic number used in the pentagram. In fact every number in the pentagram is a multiple of that figure - 18, 36, 54, 72, 90 and 108. All of these are used in Bessler’s wheel. Notice there are two letter Rs in the images of his signature below, supporting the letter O. One for each direction.
The letter O, serves Bessler well as a representation of his wheel, with a dot in the middle representing the wheel itself, it is known as a circumpunct,
The above examples of coding that Bessler was able to use have one thing in common, they have proved remarkably convenient and apt for his purposes. How fortunate that the 5th letter E should have as it’s atbash equivalent the letter R, the 18th letter. 5 and 18, the basic numbers of the pentagram. He chose the letter J, the 10th letter because it’s atbash equivalent is W to provide the information that two 5s were interlinked as pairs. The letter O, the atbash equivalent of his B for Bessler, within the same cipher provided the circumpunct, the perfect symbol for his wheel.
These simple facts raised questions in my mind. Was it just coincidence that E/5 and R/18 were each in their precise positions alphabetically, to imply a relationship with the pentagram - or was there some other factor or agent which positioned those two letter/numbers to both be present at the right place? One way to see if there was anything other than coincidence would be to see how long the alphabet has been in the same order.
It seems, from a brief search, that the alphabet order has always been the same. This is because it was taught to children while they were learning to read and they taught their children and so on. Of course letters were added and removed from time to time dependent on the language used. But it can be traced back almost 2000 years before CE and those letters remained in their current position for at least 4000 years - but that doesn’t answer the question.
One theory suggests every letter had a number with it in order to keep it in the right position, and the numbers were dropped over time. But the atbash cipher wouldn’t work if the number/ letters were in a different position, which suggests that the placing was deliberately chosen.
Someone, at some point, thousands of years ago arranged the order of the alphabet and it hasn’t changed much in most cases. It would be interesting to find some confirmation that E/5 and R/18 were placed in their positions for the reason I suggested - or is that a stretch too far and it’s just a coincidence!
There is more to this than meets the eye and it’s something that may help us unravel Bessler’s puzzling “Declaration of Faith” in chapter 55 of his “Apologia Poetica”. He placed 141 abbreviated Bible references at the end of short lines of text, which seem unconnected to the subject matter in the references. Some of the references do not exist; for instance, in some cases the number of verses quoted are more than can be found.
I’m currently investigating the output of Christian Weise, Bessler’s teacher who published ideas about the use of number/letter alphabets; also David Heinichen, promoter of his “Circle of Fifths” and the composer JS Bach and “the Riddle of the Number-Alphabet”. The latter three knew each other, lived within a short distance of each other and at the same time. All three people were involved in the theory of music and the last two wrote extensively on the use of letter/numbers in both music and texts.
JC
Monday, 10 April 2023
Update - Things Are Looking Up!
Finally the builders have left and I’m getting ready to move into my new workshop. Originally they estimated finishing in January, but a few events conspired to cause delays.
There’s one wall of bare plaster which I’m painting, then I’m building a work bench to fix to the end wall. I’ve got some of my wheel parts ready for assembly but I’m going to build a test rig just to test the action of one mechanism, which I’m confident will act as I designed it to. I know how overconfident I sound but the truth is the prime mover is so simple to understand, once you know, it’s a forehead slapping moment…..
I know people are sceptical and I don’t blame them, I’ve been positive so many times before (haven’t we all?) but never like this. For most of the last year, I’ve been writing up details of the clues and the reasons for the meanings I’ve taken from them. My concern is to try to show what and where the information is in the books, and what it means, and try to avoid dubious interpretations. I think that if the wheel works that should remove any doubt, but if it doesn’t, I’m still certain that it is very, very close.
Much of my code breaking has centred on the number five which Johann Bessler appeared to be obsessed with. I think the number five might have been the one word he was worried about accidentally revealing in case it might give his secret away. But that does not appear to have happened and perhaps he wasn’t speaking literally, but meant any accidental slip of the tongue.
Given the very simplicity of his wheel, I half expected someone else to stumble upon the truth about the Prime Mover, before I had a chance to test it out on a model, and although there has been much discussion about certain clues Bessler sprinkled all over his works, and I thought that they were getting close, the focus of the talk moved away.
My one determination is to build and test my design before I release it to the public. I’m not interested in patents, IPs nor am I concerned at someone else using my/Bessler’s design for their own purposes. Having spent most of my life chasing information about Bessler, I would like to think it that I did something worthwhile with my life that would be remembered after I’m gone.
My translations and publications of everything to do with Bessler will still be available for years to come, and probably better translations will appear. But I like the idea that all information currently discussed and quoted from, originated from my hand and was the source most commonly used in this field of research.
So at last, maybe I’ll succeed in building a proof of principle machine.
JC
Saturday, 8 April 2023
The Legend of Johann Bessler’s Perpetual Motion Machine.
Sunday, 2 April 2023
Ink Blots - Clues - Deliberate or Accidental?
It’s my opinion that too much importance is being placed on simple printing errors. These ink spots are leading to wild speculation and I don’t think it has anything to do with Bessler’s intentions. However seeing as people wish to discuss them and their validity, I’m willing to leave the comments public.
The same applies to the numerology comments. But any comparison with Ken’s work will still receive the spam label.
I shall continue to dismiss inkblots and numerology as having any meaning here, but we’ll see how things go. I’m not afraid to consider a well-argued comment in favour of either, but I’m sceptical of my acceptance of either.
The comments on this blog are covering what appears to be subtle clues in the ink block prints. I don’t think they are deliberate, I’m sure they are accidental. What follows is part of an article on ink block printing by a teacher of the subject. Thanks to https://www.recoverie.com/blog/block-printing-mistakes
“ARE YOU MAKING THESE BLOCK PRINTING MISTAKES?
BLOCK PRINTING MISTAKE 1: USING TOO MUCH INK!
This is by FAR the most common block printing mistake I see people making, and really, it's the most unfortunate.
...because the fact is, the amount of ink you use will drastically change the end result of your block prints.
SO:
In order to attempt to remedy this, I decided to break down a few of the most common block printing mistakes I see people making when it comes to block printing.
BLOCK PRINTING MISTAKE 1: USING TOO MUCH INK!
This is by FAR the most common block printing mistake I see people making, and really, it's the most unfortunate.
When you take the time to design and carve out such an intricate pattern, it's weird to think that people treat the ink side of things as such an afterthought...
...because the fact is, the amount of ink you use will drastically change the end result of your block prints.”
I haven’t included the rest of the article because it covers more modern practices, but it does suggest that what some people believe there are deliberate clues which are in fact simply over inking of the wood block.
As I commented in my previous blog,
“ That is just a typical ink block printing error, a little too much ink in one area and you get a blot. These prints that Bessler left us were designed to be used with his students, and the actual wood ink blocks were kept so he could print some for every new class. So the paper prints were kept for his own purposes, showing what each ink block depicted so he could easily see which one he wished to use. A minor print error such as the so-called severed head is just that, nothing more, no hidden meaning, no secret warning. Obviously he would print better copies for his future students.”
Unfortunately the trolls and naysayers have, by their abusive comments, persuaded me to remove the anonymous comments feature. I shall continue to post this blog up to and including the period when I publish my information about Bessler’s wheel. I’m sorry for those who enjoyed commenting, I shall miss them.
JC
Wednesday, 22 March 2023
Numerology - Art or Science?
Johann Bessler’s Perpetual Motion Mystery Solved.
The climatologists and scientists are clamouring for a new way of generating electricity because all the current method (bad pun!) of doing ...
-
There are a number of images taken from Johann Bessler’s books which appear to support my previous post on Bessler’s Wheel Revealed. I shal...
-
Finally I’m going to share what I know, and what I think I know, about the solution to Bessler’s wheel. This will be a bit shorter than my ...
-
I’m 79 today and I’ve been studying the legend of Bessler’s wheel for about 65 years! Well, about 35 years of serious research. Not quite t...