Wheel, Video and paper update

The video I planned to put on youtube was finished and posted but then I withdrew it because it was way too long. I'm shortening it to the recommended maximum of four minutes, which is very difficult to do. How can I cram thirty years research into a four minute video? Well I have to do that or no-one will ever watch it - maybe they won't anyway - we'll see.

The prototype is almost finished. I'm using the same old backplate as I have for the last couple of years. This is the disc I use to fix everything on to. It has its own support frame and is balanced and spins easily. It's so full of holes it's getting quite fragile, but it's made of MDF (medium density fibreboard) which is useful as it's easy to drill and I have found it the most practical medium for the purpose. If this model works I'll produce a nicer looking version to display to the public. I have kept all the old backplates from several years ago, out of sentiment, but really they only tell of the number of failed attempts I have made and don't give away any clues as to the various designs I've tested over the years.

The mechanisms are finished and most of them are attached to the backplate so it won't be long before I'll know if this is a runner. There is one modification I reserve to test if this model doesn't work, and it is based on an ambiguous statement by Bessler, which can be read in three or four different ways. As far as I know I'm the only person who is aware that this comment by Bessler can be read in this particular way, although there is plenty of discussion about the ambiguity of it. This is because I'm aware of something I discovered from Bessler's codes and which I haven't discussed with anyone to date. My indecision about which method to use stems from my knowledge of the various possible interpretations of Bessler's ambiguous remark and in my opinion his comment is connected with this encoded information, but it might not be, in which case the second version I have reserved will be tested.

I picked this particular understanding of the comment in question because it seemed to me that to read it in the obvious way did not make any difference to the way the mechanisms worked, although without seeing the actual mechanisms working it isn't clear that this is so.

Sorry if that has totally confused you!

The paper I have written and intend to post to my friend the American scientist for peer review will be sent if these two models fail; and the book will be published as soon after as I can manage.

Finally thank you to Lucius Anneus for reminding about the purpose of this blog.

JC

Where are the girls?

It's a rare thing to find a girl who is interested in the subject of perpetual motion, gravity wheels and the search for an alternative form of energy - at least one that relies on a solution which includes successful revelations in these areas. In fact I'd say it's an impossibility. For example my dearly beloved wife and daughters hold me in their lowest esteem when considering my history of predicted success in this matter and who can blame them? Not I.

They fondly relate my many assumptions of success over the years while laughing amusingly at my catastrophic failure to succeed. I am, however determined to have the last laugh and have secured a staunch ally in the form of my eldest grandaughter who at 16 (nearly) should know better, bless her! She stoutly supports me against the slings and arrows fired from her nearest relatives and berates them for their lack of support in my honest endeavour. I have cunningly responded by promising her the lion's share of the ensuing fortune which will be mine once I have overcome the final niggle that prevents my wheel from flying around under the merest touch of gravity.

This has of course had the desired effect and both my son-in-laws have jumped ship with little or no thought of the moral consequences and have sided with me, proudly announcing that they were always on my side and only pretended to be averse to my ideas in order to test the metal of my resolution to finish successfully in this matter. I have generously (in my opinion) accepted their support and have promised them like riches just as soon as I have the means to hand - but have warned them about the dubious benefits of holding their breath in anticipation of an early payout.

Returning to the title of this blog it is a sad fact that few if any women do show any interest in this field and it is not for lack of female engineers and other suitably qualified members of the fairer sex, because they seem to flock to alternative energy subjects unrelated to this one with almost careless abandon. Now why should that be, I wonder?

I think that in this particular field, men do, unusually, have the more romantic disposition, imagining the benefits of such a device while successfully pushing the realities to the backmost recesses of their conscious minds. On the other hand women, it seems to me, who have always had the lead in supporting such things as mysticism, feng shui, psychic readings and of course green issues, treat this area of research, perpetual motion and gravity wheels that is, with scant regard for its potential. They assume that what they have been taught in this subject is the gospel truth, oddly, rejecting the same things that attracted the male of the species. This strange dichotomy might be explained by the fact that no classical scientist dares breath a word of support in this matter, whereas there are an abundance of 'qualified' chancers who are only too willing to subscribe to the possibilities of mind over matter, interpretation of dreams, fortune telling and psychokinesis. It is this 'clinically proven' attitude to 'spoon bending' and the like which gives the exponents of such beliefs a widespread sham authority which poor old Johann Bessler failed to get and still fails to get - despite my best efforts.
JC

Update

I received an email yesterday asking for any details of the wheel's construction, which I felt able to share with the writer. This is something that happens frequently and I can't blame people for asking, because I keep saying that I know a lot about how the wheel works. I am finding this a really difficult problem to handle because part of me wants to share what I know and the other part wants to be the first to succeed in reconstructing Bessler's wheel.

I know there are some among our fraternity who think I should share it regardless of my own wishes, because this invention could be so valuable to the planet right now. So I'm going to try to satisfy both sides of the arguement. My intention is to continue to finalise publication of my book (which will contain everything I know about the wheel) while at the same time I will continue to experiment with my prototype. Which ever I finish first will determine which action I then take. If the wheel works (please!) before the book is ready, then publication of the details of the wheel will follow; if the wheel doesn't work then publication of the book will follow. The book will be published later anyway, so either way I will share everything soon.

I read the many posts which are published daily on several different forums and I am constantly amazed that no-one else appears to have discovered what I have, about the concept of a gravity wheel. I first realised the truth about them a few months ago, last year in fact. Since then I have performed a number of very simple experiments which prove the principle. Knowing how it works has proved easier than devising a system that fulfills the concept, but with Bessler's help I believe I shall succeed soon. I'm hampered by my lack of skills and equipment but fortunately the design is very simple and should not prove too difficult for me to accomplish.

I know that there are kind souls out there who would jump at the chance to help out here but I am determined to finish this thing myself, if I can.

Rereading the paragraph above, about my surprise that no-one else appears to have reasoned out the concept as I have, I realise that there may well be people out there who have in fact worked it out too, and are currently engaged in the same process as I am, namely the reconstruction of Besssler's wheel. So may the best man win!

JC

Inspiration, perspiration and simulation

I find that during sleep, sometimes the unconscious goes to work on a problem which has exercised my mind during the day and occasionally presents the solution in the early hours of the morning. Last night was typical and I now understand one point about Bessler's descriptions that had lain in a corner of my mind as an inexplicable fact. Of course once I understood the reasons for it, it all made perfect sense.

These sleep induced revelations are a blessing in one way and a nuisance in another. I cannot usually get back to sleep afterwards, as I have become so excited at the prospect of applying my new found understanding to my prototype wheel. By the way I use the word 'revelation' not in a religious sense but as an enlightening or astonishing disclosure.

I am constantly amazed at the ability of the human mind to 'invent' new mechanical configurations over a period of time and yet I see it in operation with surprising frequency and I think that I don't always appreciate the subtleties and nuances of each design. I mean that, in my own case, often I can examine and test a particular configuration and finally put it aside as being of no practical use in my search for a working gravity wheel, only to discover at a later date a new and subtle variation which shows promise. I have now found myself rebuilding a mechanism which I thought I had thoroughly tested and rejected previously because it now forms the basis of a new theory which was recently revealed to me in the middle of the night.

It is for this reason that I discarded a popular method of searching for a solution, i.e. computer simulation software. I'm convinced that a solution will only be found by a 'hands-on' approach where someone actually builds each mechanism and tests it. It's only by seeing how the different pieces interact that you can vary designs by minute amounts that are not apparent in a simulation.

It has been said (Thomas Alva Edison, I think) that genius is one percent inspiration and 99 percent perspiration, well I'm no genius but I'd say that if I do succeed in reconstructing Besslers wheel it will take similar percentages of effort.

'Confidence is high', as the Americans say. I am certain that I can explain everything about Bessler's wheel within the current laws of physics. I am satisfied that there is no other force or outside agency required for the wheel to work, other than gravity. This, I know, goes against the belief of many, however once it is explained it will become obvious to all.

JC

What are the clues in the Orffyreus Code?

This a follow-up to Thursday's blog, as I received several emails asking me to clarify what the clues are.

The first and most obvious clue lies in Bessler's pseudonym, Orffyreus. Everyone knows how it was arrived at but no one seems to have known why he chose it. The system he used, known as atbash, invented by Jewish scribes, was a way of disguising proper names and was used in the Old Testament. The alphabet was divided in two and the second half aligned under the first half. Letters comprising the names of certain people were substituted with those letters appearing under or over them.

The questions that have not been satisfactorily answered until recently, are, why did he bother creating a pseudonym, and why did he choose this name and this method? The answer to why he had a pseudonym was alluded to in my blog earlier this week; it was to create a method which could be used to hide vital information about the construction of his machine. The name, Orffyreus, arose from the use of the atbash cipher as I explained and was designed to lead one to search for further indications of this method. Other examples exist within Bessler's written works, but they don't seem to help us get more information. Bessler himself, wrote that those who sought answers would do well to read his books and the truth is that there are answers there but they are not obvious and require some effort to decipher the clues once they have been found.

Typical clues are, a list of 141 references to chapters and verses from the bible; and page of verse which appears to be full of metaphors; and many examples of chronograms. A chronogram is a sentence or inscription in which certain letters, can also be interpreted as numerals, thus standing for a particular date when rearranged. The word, meaning "time writing", derives from the Greek words chronos ("time") and gramma ("letter"). Bessler was
particularly fond of this method of enciphering a date.

There are other clues which once found are not difficult to decipher but are extremely well hidden. These I have deciphered and as a consequence I know the basic concept behind Bessler's wheel and I shall be working hard to build a demo model as proof of the principle. I am convinced that it is only a matter of months before a working model is made - either by myself or by others who appear to be close to success.

JC

What exactly is the Orffyreus Code?

The code consists of a number of pieces of information about Bessler's wheel, which the inventor included in much of his published works. This information was disguised so that it could not be easily recognised for what it was and deciphered before he had been rewarded.

Details of the wheel's construction form the majority of the information and one can only assume that the inventor did it for one or two possible reasons. One - he needed to have published information which he could point to in case some one else also found a solution to building a gravity converter to prove he was the first and two - he could leave proof that he had indeed discovered the solution if he should die before he had had a chance to obtain some kind of reward for his efforts. I tend to think the latter is the real reason because he actually mentions the possibility in one of his works.

There must too have been the hugely enjoyable prospect of being able to point to the clues after he had sold the secret and laugh at all the nay-sayers who said he was a fraud and that the proof had been in front of them all the time.

JC

Ironic surgery

The weather has been warmer for the last week - at last! I've done some jobs outside that have been waiting for me for months - since last November to be precise.

I went for a routine medical check up this time last year and my blood count was very low. "No problem", the Doc said, "but just to be sure we'll monitor it over the next three months". Well of course it didn't improve and so I was booked in for an x-ray and cat scan. "Ah ha!" They said, "there's a lump, but don't worry, it's probably nothing but just to be sure we'll book you in for a bronchoscopy". So I had a general anaesthetic and then they shoved lights, cameras and some kind of biopsy grabbing tool - which could not only cut and scrape but bring back whatever it found to the light of day and the pathology lab. - down my throat. After a couple of weeks they called me to say that they had good news and bad news. "Oh great!", I thought, "a doctor with a sense of humour," just what I need!"

"OK, so tell me the worst". "Its a tumour, but its a benign one". "Hurrah!" I exclaimed. "Ah well it's not all good news, you see it might turn nasty or grow bigger or just sit there doing nothing for years and then suddenly flare up. Best have it out".

"Riiigggghhhhtttt. So how big is it?" "Oh, only tiny really, maybe an inch by half an inch". "Oh thats no so bad. How do you get at it, keyhole surgery?" "No actually we'll go in from the back while you're under a general anaesthetic and takeout the the top third of your right lung". "What!!!!!"

So they did it on November 5th. I'm back and well enough but the ironic feature of this is that by the time I was operated on my blood count had returned to normal and was thought to be due to a bad chest infection I had been suffering from - not the tumour!