Wheel update - two mechanisms for proof of principle....again!

It's funny how you can think you know everything there is to know about your design and how it will act and react when in a particular configuration.  My latest design did not react as I had designed it to, but instead of causing me extreme chagrin, it surprised me by acting in an unexpected way.   I knew from the start of this configuration that there were potential variables to the way I finished the design, and I was prepared to substitute those alternatives that would still comply with the initial concept.

Imagine my surprise therefore to discover that the reaction which I had designed to occur within my planned configuration was not only prevented from happening but actually reversed itself and I realised subsequently, it turned out to be the right one!  The correct path of the movement of the weights within my wheel was not intuitively obvious, but actually it makes perfect sense.  How on earth Bessler was able to design them to work as I have now think  that they should work, is just amazing.  I have very briefly imagined that configuration in the past but have dismissed it with scarcely a thought, as being impossible to achieve in a simple mechanical arrangement.

My task now is to remake the wheel with those actions repeated ad infinitum.  I am very doubtful if I can make it with five mechanisms as I have always assumed, so will have to try it with maybe just two. I'm 'fairly' confident that this is the right path, but haven't we all been here before - too many times to dwell on!

Bessler said that when he first tested his wheel it could scarcely turn with just one cross.  This word 'cross' has been a bit of a thorn in my side for many years.  Beside describing a cross as in an X or a plus sign, it can also be used to describe the crossing of a road for example or a level-crossing, as long as the word can also be 'crossing' anything related may apply.

So the phrase seems to imply that the wheel did turn with only one crossing, albeit very slowly and/or unevenly.  In which case one crossing will do, but what does a single crossing consist of? I am unconvinced that one mechanism could achieve a full turn so I am suggesting a minimum of two were needed.  Bessler said that his weight worked in pairs so two mechanisms might comprise one crossing.

I thought that the obsession with the number five suggested five mechanisms and that this number represented the total number of mechanisms possible on one side of the wheel and he had already hinted that more than a single cross was better. So I'm going to make two--mechanism wheel, one on each side, and include my new configuration and hope for success. I should add that my original principle, encoded below, is still the mainstay of my design as without I am certain no success will follow.

One more bit of news; I received an email from a literary agent with the news that a German publisher wishes to translate my book into German and publish it before the end of this year.  Fingers crossed that this time the book appears.  I had a similar experience several years ago but nothing was published then so I am less inclined to get excited about these occasional flurries of interest from the media.

There was the Italian film which was made about Bessler which seems to have sunk without trace after one broadcast; and I'm still waiting to hear about the English documentary promised for this year too.  It looks as if I'm just going to have wait for somebody to invent Bessler's wheel again before anyone really gets excited about the subject.

JC

 10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Update on Bessler's Code

This is a general update on my efforts to decipher Bessler's codes.

Everyone is surely familiar with his first code which involved using the simple substitution cipher from the Hebrew 'atbash' system to convert his name, Bessler, to Orffyre, and thence to Orffyreus. He intended future researchers to ask why he did this and provoke them into looking for further examples in the rest of his publications. His second example included the drawing of his wheel which he published in his first book, 'Gruendlicher Bericht'.  The drawing contains a number of extremely clever clues, but the first and most easily found is the hidden pentagram defined by the rope passing behind the right hand wheel.  There are a numberof numerical clues included as well as evidence of the use of the Golden Mean or Golden ratio, 1.618.  This was produced before his most intriguing work his Apologia Poetica, which was published between 1716 and 1717. At the bottom of the page Bessler writes the date of publication as 1716, two dashes and 1717. The dashes could be construed as just decoration, however the existence of several more similar dashes in part two of Apologia, suggests that the blanks represent the word ‘zu’ which means ‘to’. Adding together the 17, 17, 17 and 16 totals 67. add the u/v from zu which represents 5 and you get 72, the main pentagon number; 5 times 72 =360. The coded information which litters this work is so numerous and varied that it would seem impossible that no one has so far deciphered at least some of it.

In this publication (AP) there are the numerous 'ec's which in the Fraktur font look like 'x's.  'ec' stands for et cetera in German printing, but still their sheer ubiquity (684) draws attention to them and seems to be asking us the examine their presence and find out why they are there, since they don't appear at all in his other two publications.


The abbreviation for et cetera, ec, which looks like x.

The final page of Apologia Poetica contains a simple diagram which appears to represent the wheel.  It too contains a number of ingenious clues which again point to the pentagon.  Above this illustration is a quotation from the Bible, in which Jesus asks of his disciple, 'do you still not understand?'  Another hint that we should be looking for understanding, and elsewhere Bessler states that the answers can be found in his Apologia Poetica.  The quotation itself takes the form of a chronogram. Chronograms were particularly popular in Germany in this period and were often used on buildings to establish the date of their construction.  In this case there are several Latin uppercase letters D, I, D, V, C, C, V, V, D and I, from within the quotation, and assuming they also represent Roman numerals, added together they total the figure 1717, the year of Apologia Poetica's publication. The final line of the paragraph contains two blanks as if words had been omitted, but it is simple to add them as the whole book is in rhyming couplets and the missing word, Teufel contains the U/V alternatives which in Roman numerals represents the number 5.  The sheer number of encoded 5's, V's or their numeric/alphabetic equivalents such the letter E for being the 5th letter, is so overwhelming that one has to assume that the five and all things associated with it, such as the pentagram,  is of prime importance.

The last Chapter in the first part of Apologia Poetica is numbered 55, no surprise..  It contains 55 rhyming couplets, but just these 55 are rhymed ABAB rather than AABB as the rest of the book.  The same 55 verses contain 141 Bible references.  Research indicates that these have no relation to their actual quotations and in some cases the verse numbers exceed those actually present in any of the numerous Bible extant at that time. The references consist of the Book, the Chapter and the Verse.  My ongoing research indicates that verse number indicates the line in which a coded letter may be found.  This implies that the lines must all be numbered up to 220 (55 x 4).  However, as I have explained elsewhere, there are four empty lines which will throw the numbering out if the blank lines are not counted.

The bible book quoted has one upper case letter, the first one, and the others are lower case.  The first letter can be deciphered using the 24 letter alphabet, and its alphanumeric equivalent.  The books are all abbreviated so that there only a few letters indicating which book is meant.  These lower case letter must simply be counted and added to the numerical equivalent arrived at from the first letter.  So 'Matt' for 'Matthew' would be M=12, plus 'att' = 3 and therefore 12 plus three equals 15, thus 15th line.  As the verse number has already given you the line in question, the Book gives you the position on the line of the required letter.  You will see that the abbreviations vary and this is so that each required line can easily be indicated despite the fact that Bessler can only use a limited number of the possible books available, and also because there are more than 24 letters in most of the lines - usually around 30.  I have found that some lines require counting from the end rather than the beginning and I am sure there is an indicator which tells us if it should be done this way but so far I have not found it.

There is also an indicator that the letters should be Caesar-shifted back by five, so that the letter 'A' becomes equivalent to the letter 'V' but I'm not sure at this point whether the numerical equivalent is meant or simple the alphabetical substitution.

The so-called 'X's, that I mentioned at the start may indicate a line which contains a letter for deciphering and the possibilities which I have not yet exhausted include equidistant letter sequences (ELS) relating to the number 5 again.  I was not aware that this method of encoding information was familiar to anyone in those days, other than in the Hebrew Bible, but it turns out that it was widely used by Francis Bacon and John Dee among others and so it cannot be ruled out.

This blog scarcely scratches the surface of the encoded material and I shall return to the subject at a later date if there is sufficient interest.

JC

 10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Wheel update - precipitation, inundation, electrocution, procrastination and birthday celebration!

I included the word 'birthday' before anyone jumped the conclusion that I had succeeded in reconstructing Bessler's wheel - ridiculous thought!

Well I had hoped to be nearing completion but the interminable rain has put a bit of a damper on progress. "The deluge that has engulfed southern and central England in recent weeks is the worst winter downpour in almost 250 years, according to figures from the world's longest-running weather station.

The rainfall measured at the historic Radcliffe Meteorological Station at Oxford University in January was greater than for any winter month since daily recording began there in 1767, and three times the average amount."  Excerpt from the Observer newspaper.  Saturday 1st February.

This is definitely down to climate change although the jury is still out on the cause- man-made or a natural . The increased concentrations of  gases, especially carbon dioxide can cause global warming. There is apparently significant scientific evidence that points to human activities, such as burning of fossil fuels, as being mainly responsible for the current increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.   

On the other hand, changes in solar energy can affect global temperature. Thousands of years ago, global temperature changes were driven by solar and orbital variations. The Royal Society, the National Academy of Science in the UK and the Commonwealth confirms that solar activity contributed to changes in global temperature in the early 20th century.

Either way the rain is falling and I have a leak in my workshop; the rain is actually cascading down the outside wall of my house which in this case forms one wall of my workshop!  I've managed to move everything away from the leaking area, but I can't move the electrics so I've had to turn everything off until I can fix the leak.

So I'm 69 today and I had hoped to finish this darn wheel but hey-ho, what's another few days after 50-odd years!

Although I am unconvinced about the cause of climate change I can see its happening and strange to relate it might just be causing a delay in the Bessler wheel solution - that is if I am on the right track and who knows for sure?  I mean this flood is causing me a delay in finishing my wheel but perhaps it's nature showing us how puny our efforts to control her are.

There are some who might be tempted to suggest that there is an element of procrastination in this delay and on previous occasions I might well be persuaded to admit that.  Let's face it as long as the wheel isn't finished I can go on maintaining the belief that I am about to succeed, but if I finish it and it still doesn't work, what then?  I admit to failure and reveal all that I know (or think I know) and let others search for a nugget of gold in my mental meanderings.  But this time I can say, hand on heart, I am so eager to finish this wheel , that I was prepared to risk electrocution until my wife and son-in-law stopped me, thank goodness!

JC

 10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Update - will this one work, or will I have to share what I know?

My wheel is taking shape but I realised that because of the other attractions over Christmas, I had not looked at it for about three weeks and had forgotten that I had made a small error on drawing in the mechanism and had turned the wheel over to start my drawing again.  So on my return I was somewhat puzzled to know where I had got to - this is what happens as you get older, the memory starts to fail you! Fortunately I eventually turned the wheel over again and saw my error and was able to put it right on the other side.  

Because I (believe I) have now got the complete design with angles and lengths and of course the secret principle, I am actually drawing it out on the wheel, and I can then drill holes measure levers etc., and fit them exactly where they should go and all the stops are located in their proper places.  The hold-up occurred because I missed out a vital calculation which resulted in the levers being drawn on the wheel but incorrectly placed.  

I have to confess that a younger person would probably have finished the wheel by now but I am aiming to finish this one in a week or so and thank goodness!  It's been a long haul to get to where I am now.  I have always said that if my wheel fails I will share what I know and I guess that moment is approaching, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed for this one.  I shall be 69 next Wednesday, 5th Feb, and that would be a good day to succeed but it could be a few days after.

If it doesn't act as I designed it to do, there is one more additional movement to make which I suspect I shall have to incorporate which I think (hopefully) complies with Bessler's comment about 'connectedness' or as I prefer to say 'interconnectedness'.   If these fail then I shall finish the document I have been writing and publish it and await the reaction.  If my previous 'revelations' are anything to go by then a fairly muted response can be expected because no one accepts any theories without a working model, I know I don't.

But there will be one thing in the document which will hopefully get a more excited response, however I'm jumping the gun here - the model's not finished yet and I'm kind of optimistic about this one.

JC

 10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

When is a Conservative Force Not a Conservative Force, Answer - When it is the Wind.

I mentioned recently their seeming reluctance to expand on the answers to some questions I had put to my teachers many years ago, when I was trying to understand why Bessler's wheel could not work.  I had received the standard physics tuition and understood what I was taught, but there were still questions bothering me which related solely to Bessler's wheel, and I have never ever been able to get a satisfactory response, not once in the intervening 50 odd years.

I shall try to be as succinct as I can.  The laws of physics were designed to describe as accurately as possible each possible action and reaction, but sometimes they remind me of a legal document.  They describe the simplest of actions in the most accurate terms possible and in the event often obscure the precise meaning they try to convey.  It can sometimes help to look at the broader picture to get an idea of what is happening.

I'm assuming that we all know and understand the definition of a conservative force - and that gravity is conservative.  It's not path-dependent and it can store or regain potential energy, unlike non-conservative forces.

For the above reasons we are assured that Bessler's gravity wheel did not work - except that it did. If gravity is a conservative force, what non-conservative forces are there?  Well actually there aren't many.  Oh they will point to friction and springs and some magnetic attractions. and the like, but it seems that it is difficult to identify non-conservative forces, because they are so few and not really relevant to our cause.

Now it is a curious fact that when discussing conservative and non-conservative forces no mention is ever made of the wind as a force.  I've searched everywhere for a statement which affirms the wind's status as either conservative or non-conservative, but it just isn't there.  Occasionally you will find a brief reference to the wind as being non-conservative within some other calculations but nothing else. I have maintained for many years that the wind should be identified as a conservative force and because it is capable of driving rotatable machinery i.e. windmills; then gravity too should be capable of driving a wheel continuously, but of course wind is non-conservative isn't it?  No! This assumption is wrong and provably so.

All you have to do is compare the defining criteria for a conservative force as applied to gravity with those of the wind. Gravity is path independent, the object moved from A to B can travel by any path and this applies to the wind as it impacts on a windmill's blades.  Gravity can store mechanical energy as demonstrated when one lifts a fallen book back on to its shelf; a balloon can be pulled along into the wind and held there with the potential energy of the wind available to carry it away.  There are a number of similarities which confirm the wind's status as a conservative force and I have no idea why this fact has not been picked up by the establishment.  I assume it is because the conservative nature of the wind does not raise questions the way the gravitational force does. We understand how the wind is generated and why it flows in a particular direction at any one time.

If the very idea that the wind is a conservative force disagrees with your own impression of it, consider the opposite side of the coin; if it is non-conservative how does it turn a Savonius windmill, or an anemometer?  How could you even measure the strength of the wind because non-conservative forces are of brief duration.

I mentioned looking at the broader picture when considering conservative as opposed to non-conservative forces.  I think of conservative forces as enduring forces, not explosive actions of extremely limited duration which non-conservative forces tend to be.  Enduring forces conserve mechanical energy, non-conservative forces expend their mechanical energy and the energy released dissipates as heat etc.

JC

Will Bessler's wheel have a place in today's world?

The simple answer is yes, but why?  First of all it has investment potential and therefore it could be profitable. Today there are thousands of investment companies looking to invest in new technology, but imagine that, 300 years ago, in Bessler's time, a group of investors had sought something to put their money into, they would have been advised to put it in coal because the steam age was fast approaching; but that would only have happened after  the arrival of Thomas Newcomen and his coal-burning water-pumping engine, and  later, James Watt with the first steam engine that produced continuous rotary motion, which led to the railways and steam ships.  They would also have attracted investors first..

150 years later, they would have been  looking at oil as an investment, thanks to the efforts of  James Young, who invented a process to distil kerosene from petroleum and also produced a heavier oil for lubrication.In 1848 Young set up a small business refining the crude oil. This led, through a tortuous path and a number of experiments, to the invention of the internal combustion engine which burned a derivative of Young's crude oil refinement - gasoline.  Where would today's cars, ships and planes be without gas?

During the 19th and 20th centuries it was and is still oil, but electricity was a burgeoning industry and the means to produce it has become so diverse that the multiple investments have spread across a number of differing methods.  Solar panels, photovoltaic cells, wind farms, tidal and wave generators, geothermal units, hydroelectricity, and of course the fossil fuel as in coal and oil.  In addition the U.S. Department of Energy evaluated the Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program on May 13–17, 2013, in Arlington, Virginia.  Unfortunately, Hydrogen-powered vehicles are not as green as they are portrayed and although they might be an alternative to gas-powered vehicles, one problem with this is that the hydrogen is typically produced from a fossil fuel—natural gas—in a process that releases a lot of carbon dioxide.  Obviously there are more technologies than I can cover in a brief blog, but the picture is clear, there are many competing technologies but they all have one or more negative aspects which have so far precluded complete global investment.  Any other problems?  Here's three.

Pollution, the peak of available oil production has passed, and global warming is affecting the climate.

The search is on, like never before, to find the ultimate solution to the three problems identified above.   Clean energy to combat pollution, and yet which is capable of replacing most of the oil-based (and coal etc.) electricity generators.  What ever reason you subscribe to, carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect - or the changing output from the sun - the climate is changing and even though driving a smaller car won't make the slightest difference to the global output of carbon dioxide, reducing pollution anyway has to be a good idea.

Bessler's wheel has no negatives - except for one, and it's a biggy!  It's believed to be impossible - against the established laws of physics etc. But I intend to challenge this view with my working model and call to account all those so-called experts who taught us so well, that we all believed them. One of the curious things I intend to comment on in  a later blog, is the number of questions I and others asked to which no one ever gave a sensible answer, they just repeated parrot-fashion the old cliches.  I don't want to present any of the questions without the reasoning that lies behind each, so I'll leave that aside for now.

So given the industries I mentioned briefly above and how they started so small, each as an idea in one man's mind, and yet were able to colonise the globe with the ramifications which followed their development, what path would Bessler's wheel take?

I can't list all the possible future developments ahead but the first thing to do would be to attach it to electricity generator.  Now some say it wouldn't be powerful enough.  I don't know why they say that. Bessler said they could be much bigger and obviously if several wheel were placed in series on one axle the power might be sufficient for a whole street let alone an individual house.

Miniature device could be developed so small they could might power tablet computers for instance; or they may become large enough to power  cars, ships and trains.

My point is, as it always has been, we must produce the evidence in the form of one working wheel ....and give it away and the entrepreneurs will run with it.  Who knows what uses they will find for it, but I know for sure that when it does appear the world will go crazy for it. 

 

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Let Us Ponder upon Bessler's Rich Pageantry of Words!

I have been meaning to comment on the rather strange passage in Bessler's Apologia Poetica, in chapter XLVI.  Bessler introduces it by urging us to study his 'rich pageantry of words'.  Having returned to the original many times, I can only find the following amateur translation of the original translator's valiant efforts . The original German words appear to describe the passage as containing resplendent words or flaunting words, which doesn't seem to me to a million miles from my original translator's efforts, if a little less poetic. It appears to be a poetic description of something which we suspect is related to the wheel, but quite how is hard to determine.  I decided to put my thoughts down about it, as far as I can, which isn't far.  It is almost all speculation although I have tried to use common sense, avoiding the higher realms of speculation.

It begins thus:- "Those who are keen to ask questions should ask them of this little book. My work will not be revealed prematurely. Should anyone wish to speculate about the truth, let him just ponder on the rich pageantry of words which I now cause to shower down upon him!"

Are they metaphors, similes, analogies or what?  I cannot say but they seem to contain some kind of truth which to me is not apparent but here goes anyway.

So the first thing to do is to identify where it starts.  Many people assume the translation from my book which commences "for greed is an evil plant..." is the beginning of a metaphorical description of the mechanism. My own view is slightly different.  There is a little trick that Bessler uses that some people may not be aware of or have forgotten.  We are all familiar with the names of his avowed enemies, Christian Wagner, Andreas Gärtner and Johann Gottfried Borlach, and Bessler would frequently include their initials in the text, easily identifiable by using Roman characters instead of the usual Fraktur font.  Often the letter would form the first letter of a mildly offensive word probably for his own satisfaction and to poke fun at his enemies.

In the adjacent image taken from the original. I have ringed in yellow, the particular letters to illustrate the point. In the image you can read in order, Gärtner, Wagner and Borlach, twice. Throughout the book there are many examples all aimed at the same three people. 

From the following line, Bessler begins his metaphorical descriptions.

"An anvil receives many blows. A driver drives. A runner runs. The seer sees. The buyer buys. The rain drips down. Snow falls. The shotgun shoots. The bow twangs."

I see these as descriptions of various forces and/or actions within his wheel.  The anvil receives many blows, but it is immoveable, despite the heavy blows it endures. This may relate to the part of the wheel on which the weights land. 

A driver drives and that is a proactive action as demonstrated by the blacksmith hitting the anvil with the hammer.  It seems to indicate that something causes the weights to move. The runner runs, and that is a reactive force moving swiftly without hindrance, perhaps like an object which has been hit and just moves quickly as a billiard ball might move across a table.  The seer sees, is perhaps a non-reactive object which awaits an action upon it.  The buyer buys is the opposite in a way, it is proactive again and awaits its chance to act not react.

Next we see the forces available.  Rain drips down, under the influence of gravity (not in response to an action such as a hammer blow).  Snow falls but it is lighter than rainwater so it falls slowly.  The shotgun is an explosive force and not conserved as gravity is, so it's a once only push.  The bow is similarly explosive but actioned by tension rather than a chemical agregate.  

"A great fat herd of fat, lazy, plump horses wanders aimlessly."  This may refer to the weights hanging without any control from levers or stops, so they hang and swing without guidance, at a certain point during rotation.

"The flail would rather be with the thresher than with the scholar."  The flail was a kind of threshing device and bit like a whip. This suggests that the flail/whip strikes the scholar/pupil but does not linger but instead returns quickly to its 'cocked' position, ready to strike again.  It may relate to the so-called 'stiff fops' mentioned later in the passage.

"The children play on the little/toy pillars/columns with loud heavy little/toy clubs."  There has been much debate over the translation of this piece so it's anybody's guess which is correct., and I cannot suggest something that might be taken seriously as to its meaning!  

The rest is so open to speculation that without the design of the mechanisms in front of me, I cannot relate to any of it, although I have plenty of ideas!

I've added this blog primarily to point out the starting point of the description and perhaps to put aside any thoughts about interpreting the 'greed is an evil plant' line, as it is a dig at his enemies and probably not part of the so-called pageantry of words which the study of, will help those who seek answers from this little book.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Bessler's Codes - why did he create them?.

Johann Bessler was christened Elias Bessler and added the other two forenames at about the time he exhibited the Merseburg Wheel, the one which could turn in either direction.  Although these additional names were added some time after the first exhibition, and they seem to have been part of a plan to leave information about this wheels hidden within certain documents he was publishing, his pseudonym, Orffyreus, was being used almost from the start.  This seems to indicate that he always planned to encode information about his wheels in published documents s.  

Why he felt the need to do this we can only speculate, but as patents were not available to him at that time we might assume that he undertook this action to try to establish, should it become necessary, his priority claim in the event that another should try to lay claim to being the first to invent the gravity-wheel.  Upon consideration, this action seems hardly worth the effort, because if someone else succeeded in duplicating Bessler's wheel before Bessler himself had sold it, then the result would be the same as if he had openly given away the secret of its construction.  The pretender would have to show how his wheel worked and Bessler would have to prove his priority by showing how his own wheel worked and that it was as described in the encoded information he had buried in his publications.  So perhaps there was another reason also.

He does say at one point that if he fails to sell his wheel he will be content with posthumous recognition. But this was written in 1715 when he had excellent prospects before him and such a plan at the age of 35 seems somewhat pessimistic, so perhaps there was a third and more compelling reason for the code.  Bessler certainly demonstrates that he had a deep and abiding curiosity about codes and the pleasure he derived from its use, drove him to tantalise us by dropping subtle hints in many places about the existence of codes and also leave obvious examples such as chronograms, and the ROT13 ciphers he used to establish his pseudonym, Orffyreus, from Bessler.

I think he would still have enjoyed pointing out his codes and their meanings in the event that he did have to prove his priority, even if it denied him the pecuniary rewards he sought.  But also the posthumous recognition desire was  self-evident so perhaps it was a bit of each reason that led him to devise his complex network of codes.

I'm aware of Øystein Rustad's work on deciphering codes and I look forward to seeing what he has done, and I have also deciphered a different set of codes and like Bessler, and Øystein, I think, I can't wait to share what I know!  There are other pieces of code awaiting someone's more  incisive analytical attention, such as the Bible references, and the whole of Das Triumphans,which I believe, contains some hidden gems.

Like many before, I too have found it useful to hide a little code containing what I call the Bessler-Collins principle.  It's not as if I would ever patent anything I found, but it would be good to know that I was first and could prove it, and that is what, in the end, I think was in Bessler's mind when he began devising codes.

There have been many illustrious scientists who used a similar idea to attempt to confirm their discoveries and thus receive their due honour, in the course of time; such people as Galileo, Sir Christopher Wren and Sir Isaac Newton, to name but three.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Bessler's Wheel Required Only Gravity as an Enabling Force.

I'm still being asked why I think Bessler's wheel worked purely on gravity and required no additional forces, and without giving away my own theory, it's difficult to bring something new to the table.  However looking back at the evidence it still seems obvious to me that nothing has changed

Leaving aside, on this occasion the evidence we are all aware of regarding the numerous examinations and tests the wheel was subjected to, Bessler said in Das Triumphens, "NO, these weights are themselves the PM device, the ‘essential constituent parts’" There are several other examples where Bessler discusses his weights and to my mind there is no other option than to consider that his claims were sincere.

There is another point and it is this.  Either we assume that Bessler told the truth and there was no additional force supplied, or he lied and there was another force present; in either case the wheel worked.  If there was another force available how come no-one has discovered what it was and replicated Bessler's wheel?  Such a discovery would be equally amazing and useful as one which only relied on gravity.  If another force was present why wouldn't Bessler hint at it?  He enjoyed dropping obscure hints about the way his wheel worked but he insisted that the weights were all that was needed.  On the Besslerwheel forum several suggestions have been made at what such additional force might be, and none of them are as convincing as the idea that it was simply gravity as Bessler said.  There was very little else available to Bessler at the time apart from ambient temperature changes or perhaps some kind of static electricity. Both ideas to my mind, simply won't do.  Others have suggested centrifugal forces or some such derivative, but in all cases no continuously rotating wheel has surfaced, therefore I am certain that Bessler told the truth and gravity was the sole provider of power to the wheel.  It's a case of Occam's razor which states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.  Just one assumption is necessary and that is that Bessler told the truth, there was no additional force.

When Sir Isaac Newton wrote his 'Principia', he wrote the whole thing in Latin, which was the accepted way to introduce matters of scientific and intellectual interest.  University lectures were given in Latin and publications such a 'Acta Erditorum' were also published in Latin.  Latin was a universal language at that time and thus students from various countries attended universities in England, France and Germany with equal ability to understand what was being taught.  Newton used the word 'gravitas'  for the force and in this sense, 'gravitas'  translates as 'heaviness'. Everyone understood the term 'heaviness' as a concept but the use of the word 'gravitas' and thus 'gravity', came to be applied later to the concept of 'heaviness as if it had been coined specifically for that purpose.  So when we say that Bessler used the word gravity he didn't mean it in the way we do, he just used the word 'heaviness' as the provider of the force which turned his wheels.

In other words Bessler did not think of gravity in the way we do with all its preconditions about how it can be used, he simply meant heaviness, and weights had heaviness and it was that which he was able to manipulate to his advantage.

Heaviness is a pressure or resistance we feel when we lift something up, or hold it.  I liken it, for example to the same pressure we experience when we fight to hold an umbrella from blowing inside out in the wind; or a gust of wind hits you when you come out from the shelter of a building, or a strong current of water encountered when swimming.  It is simply a pressure.  I used to sail a lot as a young man and it's the same thing when you haul in a sail, the wind pressure fights you all the way.  Gravity is a conservative force; so is the wind, and so is a current of water.  Just because gravity is conservative does not preclude its use as a continuous pressure to drive around a wheel.  The word conservative, as used in this instance, simply means that it does not stop, it continues to apply pressure, just as the wind does when it blows and water too when it is a current. Conservative forces don't really conserve their energy but they conserve their force or momentum. Hitting a ball, on the other hand, is an explosive event and therefore not a conservative event,  It is not continuous in the way that gravity, wind and water streams are. Conservative means that it is not used up with nothing left, the force is conserved not exhausted.  The opposite of conservative or conserved is un-conserved or not conserved, so the three examples above must be conserved or continuous otherwise we could not sail ships, turn windmills, use watermills etc., etc.

Lastly all calculations seem to apply to one weight moving in a circle, they seem to ignore the presence and effect of correctly configured multiple weights.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.