Horse before cart - or cart before horse - does it matter?

The advice, 'to put the horse before the cart' has cropped up time and time again in reference to Bessler's wheel - and mainly because Bessler uses the phrase himself in one of his 'Maschinen Tractate' drawings. It has been self-evident to me that often when discussing the translation of Bessler's words we can make substantial errors of understanding when confronted with eighteenth century German. I recall one phrase from Bessler's 'Poetica Apologia', whose meaning my translator interpreted as 'a land flowing with milk and honey', but which he said was literally, 'a land where roast pigeons fly into your mouth'. The meaning is clear despite the unusual metaphor and it is strange to think that the translator's 'improved' rendering stems from the Hebrew bible.

Although German sometimes follows the same word order as English, it doesn't always. That can lead to confusion and as if that wasn't bad enough there is the problem of interpretation, as illustrated in the following German to English examples:

A sign in a hotel catering to skiers read "Not to perambulate the corridors in the hours of repose in the boots of ascension".

Another reads, "In case of fire, do your utmost to alarm the hotel porter."

Also there is, "Do not enter the lift backwards, and only when lit up."

And finally in Germany's Black Forest: "It is strictly forbidden on our black forest camping site that people of different sex, for instance, men and women, live together in one tent unless they are married with each other for that purpose." You can see that translating modern German into English is fraught with problems.

Into the recipe for a translation disaster we should throw two more ingredients; one, the original text was written three hundred years ago and was certainly a lot less erudite than say, Samuel Johnson, who lived at roughly the same time. An example of his incomparable style should suffice:

"Sir, a woman's preaching is like a dog's walking on his hind legs. It is not done well; but you are surprised to find it done at all."

Yes I know - not really the same at all, but I just liked the quote! A better example would be this:

"The place, which the wisdom or policy of antiquity had destined for the residence of the Abissinian princes, was a spacious valley in the kingdom of Amhara, surrounded on every side by mountains, of which the summits overhang the middle part. The only passage, by which it could be entered, was a cavern that passed under a rock, of which it has long been disputed whether it was the work of nature or of human industry. The outlet of the cavern was concealed by a thick wood, and the mouth which opened into the valley was closed with gates of iron, forged by the artificers of ancient days, so massy that no man could, without the help of engines, open or shut them."

Imagine translating that into modern German!

And lastly, the writing of that particular quote about horses and carts was written not only in eighteenth century German, but in the most attrocious handwriting to such an extent that it is barely legible. Despite this considerable handicap there are people who have managed to extract what they believe to be the correct meaning. Given that and the other considerations I have outlined above,a small dash of scepticism is in order.

In any case, in my opinion the advice to put the horse before the cart merely refers to MT 20, the design of which, was ascribed to an aquaintance, and should not necessarily apply to all designs. I don't mean that it is wrong so much as we might have over emphasised its importance.

In fact you could put the horse before the cart and let it push it, but there is a reason why this method was never generally adopted. The harness most commonly used, compressed the poor old horse's windpipe when it pushed, causing potential harm or death. But it is another matter when using mechanical leverage. Levers can push and pull and twist and turn about a pivot so don't rule out putting the cart before the horse.

JC

Nothing else but a working model will do.

I've had to re-assess my plans following a lengthy email from the USA, and it's bad news guys - at least for me anyway. My American contact has decided that although he is curious to see what my paper says, he says he wouldn't be able to form an opinion on the theory detailed in it, without seeing it demonstrated at least in some small way, by means of a working model.

This, he says,is because, according to his current understanding, there is no place for such a machine within the laws of physics. So even though my paper describes how the machine can be explained within those same laws without any conflict, he has made his position clear and I have had to accept that only a working model will persuade him (and anyone else) otherwise.

It may be partly my fault that his thoughts have crystallised along this path, because I asked him what would be his next course of action should my paper convince him that I was right. He explained that even if he thought my theory had merit he would not be able to take any further steps unless I could provide some sort of physical evidence that my theory was based on experimental data rather than mental gymnastics ( my words, not his). Upon consideration I realise that this has been the case all along and I had allowed myself to be persuaded that he would be convinced by my theory and that that alone, would be enough to start the ball rolling (or the wheel spinning!).

I understand his point of view especially considering that he may be in touch with many people such as myself from around the world, all of whom are convinced that they know the secret of Bessler's wheel and are eager to share their thoughts with him. I, of all people, should have remembered that only a working model would ever convince anyone - I've given the same advice to other people often enough - so if I can't share my theory unless it's backed by some kind of mechanism that goes some way towards proving it, then so be it. I must get back into the workshop and try and try until I succeed - or not.

This raises some questions in my mind. My American friend signed an NDA and agreed not to discuss the paper with anyone else, so how could he have initiated some engineering work based on the paper without discussing the project with anyone else? I would have to obtain NDAs off each person involved in building my prototype. If I was able to follow that route and it was found to have worked; how does one proceed then? I don't know. I know that I have his support if I was in that circumstance and could supply him with what he needed, a working model, but I haven't, so there is only one course to follow - build it myself or publish everything and let everyone else build it. If I publish it how do I get some intellectual property protection; some return for my efforts? Patent? Too expensive; may be already covered by prior patent or easily circumvented; not sufficient world coverage (unless you're already a millionair); not acceptable as a gravity-driven device to be taken seriously by patent offices - etc, etc.

So whether it be pride, greed, paranoia or a fit of the sulks - call it what you will, there seems little point in sending my paper to my American contact nor publishing it yet.

Re-evaluating my intentions has been useful to me and I am going to take a little more of this precious time we have at our disposal to continue with my work and hope I can complete my self-imposed mission. Obviously there has to be a cut off point at which I will have to publish, but as I had thought that sharing my paper with my American friend was almost the ultimate path open to me if I didn't make the working model, I now find myself in the position of preferring to continue for a little longer before I give it all away. I have a cut-off point in mind and I will probably adhere to it, but I better not say what that is for fear of having to over-ride it - again!

I intend to remain quiet from now on about my future intentions at least, because I have put my foot in my mouth too many times already! I will keep those who are interested updated about my progress.


JC

Underlying Principles and Design matters

I think I need to explain myself a little better as I have had some questions raised, and although my answers to them seemed clear enough to me, they obviously remain confusing to others.

My use of the word 'principle' may have unintentionally misled some people. In my mind the words 'principle' and 'design' have two different meanings and that is where the confusion may have arisen. I used the word 'principle' to refer to what, in my opinion, is the actual intellectual reason why Bessler's wheel worked. It does not mean the design of the mechanism. The underlying principle could rely on pendulums, or overbalancing by having some weights further from the centre of gravity when on the falling side of the wheel and nearer to it on the rising side; or it might require the use of an additional force such as ambient temperature changes; or electrostatic or magnetic attraction or a combination of them or centrifugal or centripetal forces or something else. Whatever method the wheel uses may constitute the underlying principle if it can be shown how the use of such forces can be applied to make a working gravity-driven wheel.

So when I say I discovered the principle a while ago, sometime last year or maybe earlier, I cannot remember when precisely, but I mean that now, finally, I can describe how it worked without it coming into conflict with any laws of physics. But the understanding did not arrive in a flash as a complete explanation but rather, it crept up on me in bits and pieces and in the same way, understanding developed in bits and pieces and that is why I cannot say definitively that I discovered the principle on such and such a date. There was, however a starting point which was sudden and dramatic, a bit like Bessler's dream, I imagine. But thinking it out was not enough by itself, to immediately design a working mechanism. That has taken time and I have had to constantly refer to Bessler's clues to gain further insights into how it worked.

So the underlying principle came to be understood by me some time last year and the initial flash of insight which eventually led to full understand occured even earlier than that, but I can't remember exactly when, because the insight did not reveal the full understanding immediately, so I did not know how important it was at the time.

Now as to the design, well there have been several but since the second part of last year I have been designing and redesigning a mechanism which is capable of operating according to the underlying principle. Whether you call it a new design or merely an improved design is a matter of personal opinion, but obviously it has changed over that period but only in detail. Again I may have caused confusion by saying when the design was made and the truth is I can't be sure exactly when this current design was first established as the fore-runner of the prototype but it was towards the end of last year.

All you perpetual motionists know that there comes a point where you are sure you have the final design and you want to share the good news. Then you discover a 'minor' hitch which requires some 'adjustment'. I've been there more times than I care to admit and it is hard to go public and admit you got it wrong. For me this last year has been unique because, as I now understand the underlying principle I know that it is the only way to succeed, but the mechanism has proved to be very difficult to design. Without Bessler's clues I would never have got this far. For instance the 'Toys' page is full of information but it is almost useless unless you have most of the design already down on paper.

One thing is clear; the underlying principle can be used by different mechanisms to achieve the same end, so my mechanism may not be exactly the same as Bessler's and I think that he has put clues out which show more than way to take advantage of this principle.

I hope that's clearer but I have feeling that there may be more questions.

JC

Never say never again!

I can see an end to all these years of research - I always was an incurable optimist! I have received a signed non-disclosure agreement from my American professor contact, and I have counter-signed it and returned a copy, so all that remains is for me to finalise my paper and send it to him. I am extraordinarily excited at the prospect that at last someone with intellectual 'clout' (as we say here) will read it and decide what to do about it. I am so certain that the principle I have described is correct and that it is the only explanation for Bessler's wheel, that I am beside myself! Just what does that mean? It doesn't matter - it describes my mood perfectly.

What if he dismisses my theory as garbage? Perish the thought!

In the mean time I'm still grabbing the occasional opportunity to work to finish my wheel.

I have resurrected my facebook account to see if it appeals to me more than before. I also used to have a twitter account but I couldn't see the point of that and shelved it, and I doubt I will ever bother with that again. But then I didn't think I'd start up my facebook again - so never say never!

JC

Time flies - and there isn't enough.

Time is passing at an alarming rate and I don't want to end up being too old to pass on the fruits of my labour, so I think that I must call a halt (officially) to completing my attempt to construct a working Bessler's wheel. I could continue 'to the last syllable of recorded time,' but I have to admit that the passage of time appears to accelerate with age and one must pick a point at which the pursuit of the prize must be subservient to the reality. And the reality is that I must stop sooner or later, not because I don't know how it worked but because I'm having trouble actually making it, and sooner is better than later.

So I have decided that I must share what I know and what I've discovered, and relinquish my manic grip on it, and pass it into the hands of a good American friend so he can test the theory and see if I am a genius - or utterly deluded - and very sad!

To that end I have written requesting an NDA from him which he has obligingly agreed to do, and in the mean time and for the last several weeks I have been writing a long document describing everything. I shall pass this to him, sometime next week I guess, and then I shall await agog (or as the dictionary defines it - highly excited by eagerness, curiosity, anticipation, etc) to hear his opinion.

Should he fail to be persuaded by my amazing vision of how Johann Bessler's wheel really worked, there is one more avenue open to me and, failing that, I shall publish said document for all to read and try to see where I may have gone wrong - and maybe help them towards the real solution.

But of course confidence is sky high that I have got it right, so I have no fear that my learned friend will fail to see the light. In fact my explanation is the only one that fits, unless you think that Bessler lied, and that is now unthinkable.

And of course, like some perpetual motion machine I shall continue to strive to complete this complicated construction in the hope that I shall, in the end, triumph over my artless artificer's actions and make a working wheel!

Sorry for the lousy alliterations, but I find it hard to resist - so I don't ;-)

JC

Why Bessler's wheel was able to accelerate to full speed in three turns.

Further to my last blog,I posted my thoughts on http://www.besslerwheel.com/ forum, about something that to me seemed to be illogical; the fact that the torque appeared to be greater for a one inch movement horizontally on a smaller wheel than on a larger one - and in the process found myself corrected. The torque itself remains the same but the acceleration of the overbalancing effect due to a one inch difference between the two positions horizontally, is greater on a smaller wheel than on a larger one - or when the action takes place closer to the axle. So although my means of getting there was wrong my conclusions were correct.

I had compared the speed of reaction on two rods balanced on a pivot at their mid-point. One rod was two foot long and the other was six foot long. In each case the same weights were attached, one at the end of the rod, the other, two inches inwards towards the centre of rotation, at the other end. The torque was the same in each case but the shorter rod accelerated into its unbalanced position much quicker. This suggested to me that, with the limited range of movement available from my mechanism, it would be react to imbalance more quickly if I placed the weight as close as possible to the axle.

This may explain why Bessler's wheel accelerated to full speed in just three turns - because although the weights moved a small amount, they did so close to the centre of the wheel rather than near the edge. I believe that this is a useful piece of information and one that is generally ignored or perhaps people are unaware of its significance. I certainly didn't consider it of any importance, but when I found I was limited by space for the mechanisms and sought a way around it, this fact supplied not only the solution to the problem but will, I believe, also deliver an improved reaction to the movement of the weight.

JC

Was Bessler's mechanism design counter-intuitive?

I got back to the workshop again yesterday, despite the snow, and made some adjustments to the mechanism. The reason being that while I was kept indoors by a chest infection I kept thinking about the reasons why, in my opinion, Bessler's wheel worked, and at the same time, wondering why none of us had ever thought of the solution. I realised that although the solution is simple enough and we see the principle in operation every day, how you can make use of it is not so easy to work out. As if this did not make the solution harder to find, it was extremely difficult to get the mechanism right because, I discovered during my days off, that the way I had designed it to work was incorrect in one very important detail - a design feature which requires some counter-intuitive thinking.

Even the simple arrangement of two weights diametrically opposite each other on a free-wheeling disc, can, under certain circumstances, give rise to incorrect weight placement when designed to overbalance the wheel. I called this counter-intuitive for good reason. I have only just worked out why Bessler showed some of the mechanisms the way he did, not because they were deliberately done that way to confuse but because that was the correct design for them. I'll explain what I mean in more detail at www.besslerwheel.com in a day or so. But for now I have to work to catch up on the time lost recently.

JC

A vertical or horizontal axis gravity-driven wheel

I was thinking about the fact that windmills can operate in the wind with either vertical of horizontal axes. The axle can either be in-line with the force of the wind or across its path. The same thing applies to water-driven wheels too. Over-shot and under-shot water wheels have an axle which lies across the path of the water. Water turbines have their axle in line with the flow of water. I have from time to time attempted to design a gravity wheel which would have a vertical axis, looking somewhat like the vertical axis windmill that Bessler was building when he died. I have never been able to find a theoretical solution to this problem and yet it seems to me that it ought to be possible.

I hadn't mused upon this question for some considerable time and inevitable my thoughts turned to my current understanding of the principle which works Bessler's wheel and I realised that for the first time I could visualise a workable system using the same principle for a horizontal gravity wheel. I will not be making one soon, as I have to finish my basic model which has had to await my recovery from a secondary infection I got after my cold the other week. But it seems to me that this might be a method of discovering if anyone else's design will work. If it can be converted to work with either a horizontal axis or a vertical one then it just might be the real thing.

JC

A film about Bessler and my life researching him

Since my lung operation in november 2008, I hadn't caught even a sniffle, and that's as well because they warned me never to catch anything ever again! Unfortunately, having managed to stay clear of infection for over a year, since I caught a bad cold on or about Boxing day just gone (2009), I have been having one cold after another and I can't seem to shift it. My wife thinks it's because I spend too much time in my cold old workshop, but actually I wish I could be there for longer, so I can finish the wheel. Now we are back to the arctic conditions and there is no way I can spend any time there even with my faithfull old patio heater. And that's another story. The problem with the heater is that it roasts the top of my head and allows my nether regions to develop icicles - nasty!

Anyway I received an email from a couple of guys who are into film production and they have decided that they want to do a documentary on Bessler and my search for the truth about him. They came here about eighteen months ago and interviewed me on film for about half a day, but since I hadn't heard much from them I thought the project had died. Now however they have time and the project has been revived and they have asked me to write a film script for the documentary.

I've never done one before but I am using the texts of such programs as 'Horizon' and 'Cutting Edge'and similar documentaries as a guide so that I have some idea of how to proceed. I guess that there will be considerable editing to do before it gets the go-ahead. We want to include animations and also visit some of the places where certain events in Bessler's life occurred. Because it is also about my search it will have to be slanted to my perspective which I like - and I may get to do the voice over. Of course it might never get off the ground - unless I produce a working version! Lets hope this cold weather warms up real quick.

JC

I'm 65 today!

I'm 65 today! I can now officially retire...except that I already did so a few years ago. On such a day I am allowing myself a little frivolity and I tried to write a limerick about me for my birthday, but I haven't managed it yet so here's one I wrote about Johann Bessler.

There once was a guy called Orffyreus,

Whose claims were regarded as spurious

He said with some levity

plus a morsel of gravity

The spins of his wheel were continuous!

And if that isn't enough here's one I did earlier:

There once was a guy called Orffyreus

Whose invention, they said, was ingenious.

He created a wheel

but would not reveal

What made it spin so continuous.

I shall of course return to my wheel work and sobriety tomorrow.

JC

The current build and why five?

Here is an update on the current build.

This model has presented some problems which I'm trying to sort out. It is a constant learning process and my latest revelation has explained another aspect of Bessler's clues which I had thought I'd already understood, more or less to my own satisfaction, previously. However I found that I could not make the mechanisms operate exactly as I needed to do, according to the principle I believe lies behind Bessler's wheel and I was tinkering with the various parts of the mechanisms and suddenly grasped why Bessler had done a certain thing and it was a real eureka moment!

I have had a number of these revelations over a period of time and some have turned into cul-de-sacs but others have proved invaluable. I know that I should not parade my hopes so publicly because if I'm wrong its a long way to fall and even further to climb back up - but (and as I heard it said on TV the other day - its a 'J.Lo but') I am so excited at the prospect of finally getting to the end of this life-long search that I cannot contain my exuberance!

I think that people will be surprised at how simple this machine really is. Even though I'm having problems building it, the basic idea is so simple that, as Karl commented, I cannot understand why it hasn't been discovered before. Bessler gives an amazing assortment of clues which all make sense once you have the whole picture but individually they seem to counter each other.

I still maintain my belief that five mechansisms are required and I'll try and explain why without giving too much away. If you assume that a piece of the mechanism has to fall at some point, then it is logical to think that the maximum benefit from that fall will be obtained from a right angled fall, i.e. 90 degrees. You could increase this up to 180 degrees, but half of that fall would be counter productive because .... think, which might be more effective? To start from twelve o'clock and fall to three, or start at three and fall to six o'clock. Any angle outside those two and you stray into the other angle's area of effectiveness.

So a 90 degree fall would fit with a four mechanism wheel. But a fall takes time to start and accomplish what ever it is designed to accomplish, so part of the fall will be ineffective because it is falling and not landing. If you also throw into the mix the fact that the fall cannot start early nor over-run, you can see that although it is designed to fall 90 degrees, in fact it is only going to be effective for slightly less than a full 90 degrees.

What is the next whole number after four that would fulfill the need to have a continuous input from falling weights? Five.

If that is a confusing explanation, I apologise. I thought I'd have a go at explaining my conviction that Bessler used five mechanisms without giving away the solution. Maybe I have?

JC

Gravitywheels for Reactionless Drives?

I'm probably going to be accused of jumping the gun because no such device currently exists, however I, a least, am confident that a reconstruction of a working Bessler wheel is almost upon us, in which case the following speculation might be of interest.

If I am right in my thinking, I believe that the simple fact that Bessler's wheel, or gravitywheel, is a real device then it should be possible to employ, say, an electric motor which can be used to drive it, taking over the role from gravity. What possible reason might one have for doing such a thing? A gravity wheel depends for its power on the force of gravity and what it does is convert the linear force of gravity into a rotational force. If we then apply power to the same device, forcing it to rotate, we should be able to obtain linear thrust, creating a linear propulsion engine or reactionless drive.

This is a well-known characteristic of many mechanical devices. An electric motor is also an electric generator. In its simplest terms you can turn the coil to produce an electric current or you can apply an electric current and turn the coil. So how could we use this potential inertial thruster?

Such a mechanical arrangement has been sought for years for space ship drives. Currently the options are limited to rocket power, although antimatter drives are being researched because it is reckoned to be the most potent fuel known. While 15 tons of chemical fuel were burnt per second to propel a rocket-powered human mission to the moon, just a few tens of milligrams of antimatter will send a ship to Mars, but imagine how much simpler the research would be, and cheaper, if a technique based on a gravity wheel configuration was available.

There are many other potential uses for such a machine and I'm sure that once a working gravitywheel is verified, the floodgates will open and a torrent of new ideas will come pouring out all based on the simple principle of a gravitywheel.

The employment prospects allied to this invention are probably higher than anything else ever invented.

JC

Back to wheel work imminently.

My flu-like symptoms are fading at last (I don't know if it was flu or just a bad cold, but the effect was the same). The weather here in England has been cold, at or below freezing since before Christmas, and well-below at night and we have had several inches of snow and the wind is blowing straight from the Russian steppes - it's cold bbbrrrrrrrr! Last night's temperature fell to 9 degrees below, here and 28 below in Scotland. More snow forecast for this afternoon.

I have cleared a footpath through the snow to my workshop and have dragged an old garden patio heater into it. Unforunately the gas bottle is empty so I am going to get a replacement one today, if I can drive the car to the store without wrecking it - the icy roads round here are lethal! Once the heater's working I shall be able to get back to work and finish this darned wheel!

LATER - got the gas and the heater works!

JC

Happy New Year - and my new year resolution.

Happy New Year to all.

I predict that this year, 2010, will be the year that Bessler's wheel finally returns to its former glory, to spin continuously, powered by gravity.

I have made my New Year's resolution to finish this last prototype of Bessler's wheel as quickly as my health and the weather, allows. If for some reason it doesn't work, I shall publish details of the principle behind it because I know that this at least is correct and it explains why no-one, apart from Bessler, has succeeded in building a gravity wheel, or gravity converter, call it what you want, in recent history. Failure of my wheel to run will be down to my own lack of skill in building it.

My previous predictions have fallen woefully short and my efforts to complete this task sucessfully must be be taxing most people's faith to the limit, but for the first time in my life, I have found the true reason why everyone has failed to date, and it is this knowledge that drives me on.

It was during the first half of 2009 that the truth dawned on me how we might achieve a gravitywheel but it wasn't until the latter half that I actually worked out the real meaning of Bessler's clues and subsequently the actual principle that would drive the wheel.

In the (hopefully) unlikely event that my prototype fails and my published work is also rubbished, I am sure that much progress will have been made leading to a greater understanding of the way the wheel worked. If this leads to someone else succeeding, good luck to them. This task is worth more than a single person's dream.

I added that last paragraph to cover all eventualities but in fact I don't anticipate complete failure as described, but if it happens it happens and I shall admit my fault with as much grace as I can (probably grudgingly) muster!

JC

More cold, and a cold.

Well I shouldn't be criticised for having good intentions but even the safest-seeming plans can suddenly become too hard to accomplish - they can go astray at nature's whim. Only days ago I believed the cold snap was over. Soon I would be back in my workshop to finish my final prototype (as I like to think of it); Christmas day followed with all the glad familial diversions it brings; more of the same on Boxing Day, to recover and then the freezing temperatures returned and I awoke with a throat that felt as if broken fingernails were wripping it apart! A fresh fall of snow of some 8 inches is forecast and it looks though my plans have been scuppered again!

It is only just over a year (November 5th) since I had a large portion of my right lung removed to rid me of a small benign tumour. I asked if I needed to take any precautions after my surgery and was told "no, just steer clear of infections"; I saide "OK - for how long?" "For ever" was the response.

So = now I have an infection and I have to keep warm - what a "*^$-8:/><*!"

I have finished my 'paper' on the workings of the gravitywheel and I'm ready to go public but just let me try to complete this final fiasco first ! (I love alliterations - in fact I find 'front'-rhymes fascinatingly fortuitous. The repetitive rearrangement of rhyming rear-end rhymes rate rather less rewardingly for reasons I realize are probably personal.)

I'll be back as soon as possible, confidence is sky high!

JC

Too cold! Time is short! More Bessler stuff decoded.

Since the weather has been consistently on or below freezing since my last blog entry, it has proved extremely uninviting and inhospitable in my workshop; so I have not been in there, other than for about twenty minutes a couple of days ago, when my finger actually stuck to a piece of metal I was trying to attach. I am desperate to finish construction but I'm thwarted at the moment, but there is still time before the year's end!

I've used the time to write up another description which I intend to publish on my web site and it should satisfy those who are convinced I've lost the plot or think I'm some poor deluded soul who builds gravitywheels in the air.

Even at this late stage I have made further progress in deciphering Bessler's work and I doubt that anyone else knows why Bessler included the 'Die Andere Figur' and the adjacent one in 'Das Tri...'. On the face of it there is nothing useful in the drawings so why bother to include it? Yes it has a simple bit of number code but there is more, as there always is with Bessler. Happily for me, it only serves to confirm what I already know.

JC

Yin yang, Tesla and Bessler.

In 1997, I wrote about the principle of yin and yang in my biography of Johann Bessler. I argued that it had very little provenance and yet it was widely revered as a philosophy. I know this word, provenance, is usually attributed to paintings and describes records or documents authenticating them or the history of their ownership, but I was trying to describe the odd lack of explanation of its origin and development. I am fully aware of the philosophy behind this important symbol and have read a number of theses on the subject but there is absolutely nothing which explains its derivation or origins and I suggested that perhaps it derived from a design for an actual machine - many eons ago, as the SciFi books say. This is not the place to enlarge on my theory but suffice to say that all references to yin and yang include descriptions of various kinds of energy and that and the lack of provenance was the basis for my idea.

I went on to compare the yin yang design with the design of the Savonius Rotor, but subsequently I felt that there was too little substance to add to my suppositions on this matter to pursue it and I had more or less dismissed any thought of further research from my mind - other than using the device as my avatar on www.besslerwheel.com - until today. Imagine my surprise to discover a link between yin and yang, something I call Bessler's principal and a diagram by Tesla. I don't wish to reveal anything more at this stage but I cannot help but marvel at the strange circuity of events that we encounter in a more or less haphazard manner throughout our lives, which seem to have a connection, however nebulous. I don't use the word circuity in its implied sense of a roundabout way of doing something, but more in the sense of a circuitous connection between two or three apparently disparate events which seem to add up in the same way that two plus two equals four.

I don't think I'm a gullible fan of mysteries and the so-called suppressed inventions, so I try to treat gossip and rumour ,with a generous helping of salt, as unsubstantiated and prefer to work out the truth myself where possible, but I once saw a sketch which was reputed to have been drawn by Tesla which, he apparently said, showed the shape that all energy derived from. There were some similarities to the yin-yang symbol. I have been unable to locate any copies of this sketch although I have looked from time to time and its possible that I have a copy in my Bessler archives somewhere. I shall endeavour to find it and will post it here if I'm successful - or someone else locates it and sends me a copy. How reliable the information is that Tesla did really draw this sketch, I don't know, but at least it makes an interesting coincidence if nothing else - and I can confirm there does seem to be a link between the yin yang symbol and Bessler's wheel.

JC

Hostage to fortune.

My seeming confidence in my ability to successfully reconstruct Bessler's wheel may seem like I have given a hostage to fortune - and yet, despite the limited time left to achieve my goal, as far as my wager goes, I remain buoyantly unconcerned at the possibility of failure. The reason for my apparently disproportionate feeling of optimism lies, not in my current construction, but rather in the sure and certain knowledge that I know what principle lies behind Bessler's wheel and which powers it. I can say without any fear of correction that there has not been a single suggestion by any person, past or present, which explains this principle, although there have been a number allusions to it in a general way but which have missed the truth by a whisker or two. Because of this knowledge, I'm confident that I shall succeed, if not this month then next month or the one after.

Now before certain people jump on this carefully considered comment as a sign that I am getting ready to admit failure, I would like to assure them that I have not failed as I have not finished the construction. However, I have heard it said that when man hatches plan, God dispatches man, so I have taken time to record my thoughts on this matter and have taken steps to ensure that, should my end arrive prematurely, my efforts will not have been in vain and hopefully we shall see this miracle of simplicity, operating around the world . Antoine de Saint-Exupery once wrote, "A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away". I cannot say that this design is perfect but it is extremely simple to understand - if only it were as easy to construct!

My insurance in case of a sudden exit from this world has taken considerable time to complete and that task has looked more attractive to me than contemplating the prospect of standing in my workshop during the weather we have been subjected to during the last two weeks. But that task is done; the sun is out; it's very cold but dry, so back to work!

JC

My new frictionless and wobble-free wheel

Recently I have managed to refrain from giving updates on my attempts to reconstruct Bessler's wheel because time keeps slipping by and my frequent estimates for completion slip away too. I was receiving a certain amount of flak, good-humoured I hope, but it made me think twice about making promises I might not be able to keep. However I have had a few emails requesting an occasional update so this is the situation at present.

The current prototype is still under construction and looks like it will be finished before the end of the year - in order to win my wager with Bill! I have built a new wheel stand for this model because the previous one looked so bad when compared with those I see posted from time to time and I anticipate posting pictures of this one, working or not. The bearing supporting the wheel has been improved with the addition of a bicycle front wheel bearing and there is very little friction to interfere with any spontaneous rotation that might occur - I wish!

I have argued repeatedly that friction should be the least of our worries because we wish to build a wheel which will do work, and therefore overcoming friction would be a breeze. But I have to admit that seeing the new backplate spinning easily and without the lateral wobble which seemed to be an intrinsic component of all my previous models, I'm now converted to relatively friction-free assemblies. The wobble I referred to had a tendency to throw my previous mechanisms into disarray, so it is all to the good that it has been eliminated. I remain confident that this design will work.

JC

Gravitywheels and bogywheels

The email address for this site uses the word bogywheel and it has been pointed out to me for the umpteenth time that this spelling is incorrect and it should be spelled bogey or bogie. Bogie wheels are used, typically under railway carriages and I think they are called wheel trucks in the USA. I was well aware of this fact and deliberately mispelled it because I intended it as an acronym for Bessler/Orffyreus GravitY Wheel, BOGY wheel for short.

This brings me to something that has bothered me for some time. I used the word 'gravitywheel' because the wheel is driven by gravity - alone. Everyone knows that I am firmly of the opinion that Bessler's wheel only required gravity to work - no other forces were necessary for its continuous rotation. This viewpoint is certainly not universally agreed with, even among those who support my contention that Bessler was genuine. To try to answer such criticism I have attemped to argue the point from time to time, for instance, via my web site at http://www.gravitywheel.com/ under the heading 'The Collins Conjecture'. My words have bounced off the skins of the vast majority with little effect and I have to admit that the arguments were probably too speculative, confusing and poorly worded and what we need is something that is simpler to understand.

I have argued that because gravity is a conservative force does not mean that it cannot be used as we desire and that wind and water flow are also conservative which we already use for energy. There is one major problem with likening gravity to the wind and flowing water; despite the fact that it can be argued that each force is conservative and therefore capable of being tapped directly for such purposes as generating electricity, both wind and water act directly on windmills and water wheels, respectively, while gravity wheels require the addition of weights. It seems to me that there must be a better way of comparing the three forces to obtain a deeper
understanding.

To compare the three forces under the same circumstances the following would have to apply. To drive a gravitywheel requires that moveable weights should act on the wheel to cause it to overbalance and turn, or alternatively, a succession of falling weights from some external source; for a windmill to be tested under the same strictures we should have to picture a test in which we released into the wind-flow a succession of objects, helium-filled balloons for example, each carrying a small weight, which were designed to hit the blades of the windmill causing it to turn. But we would need endless numbers of balloons striking the windmill on one side to keep it turning. The same test could be applied to water flow; there would have to be a succession of floating objects striking a submerged wheel in such a way that it too turned.

Under these circumstances, the wind would be driving the weights, not gravity. No one would seriously suggest that that was the way to turn a windmill and it is obvious that if you tied the balloons to the blades of the windmill that it would not turn in the wind just because of the pressure of the wind on the balloons. But that is what we are suggesting with a gravity wheel. To solve this problem We have to design a weight-driven wheel that reflects the interaction between the wind and the windmill blades.

JC