Thursday, 27 May 2010

Update, no sims, no ETAs, but soon.

I should post another blog to curtail the length of the previous one! It seems as though some people think I should publish everything right now. I said many times I would publish everything I know and I will.

It has been stated that I have plenty of time in my day to finish the work, both the construction and the written, but how can anyone know what I fill my days with? I am up every day at around 5.45 to attend to both the internet and my own computer requirements and I don't usually get to bed before 11.00 pm; I'm retired so where does the day go? I frequently ask myself that question and I can see what has taken up my time. I used to wonder what I would do with my time once I retired - now I wonder how I ever had time to work!

I'm not going to detail what I'm doing every day; it would bore you all and it's private anyway. But I am busy and I do work on both the wheel and the publishing material as and when I can. I continue to research the history of Bessler and answer a number of emails daily. My work in decoding Bessler's material continues in my spare moments - what spare moments? I have a number of web sites to maintain and update which admittedly doesn't take long and I'm still trying to finish my update of my original biography of Bessler.

As for simulations I have tried them in the past and found them awkward and non-intuitive. It has been suggested that I could buy a more powerful PC for £300, off ebay - would you buy a PC off ebay? I wouldn't! I like to know I can go back to the guy who sold it me if something goes wrong and anyway I don't have the cash to flash, buying PCs and simulation software no matter that it's only £30 or whatever.

I know that younger people than I can quickly get the hang of everything digital these days but it gets harder to find your way around it as you age. My fifteen year old grandson is a whizz with computers and can sort out my minor problems with ease.

When I first wrote my book I did it on an Amstrad PCW8512. For those of you who do not know of it, AMSTRAD is a contraction of Alan Michael Sugar Trading - Sugar became the star of the BBC reality show The Apprentice which has had five series broadcast in each year between 2005 and 2009, in the same role as Donald Trump in the US version. I read that he is worth over a billion US$ - not bad for an East End of London barrow boy. That computer was a nightmare to run, and even scrolling down a page took minutes but it was cool then. Since then I have taught myself everything I needed to know about computers and web sites and it was a steep learning curve for me - and it still is. Self-publishing held the same problems, there wasn't much info about it then although now, with such web sites as, it is so easy.

So I'll say this once more. I am finishing the latest construction and then working or not I go public. I don't think Pete Clarke's going to be able to spare time within the immediate future to assist me in building the designed model so it shouldn't be long before you can see what I've been working on. I'm not giving an estimate of the time because I have been way off on that before, but it will be soon.


Saturday, 22 May 2010

Use it or lose it

Here's a quick update. The situation at present is this. I've just received a signed NDA from Pete Clarke and we have yet to arrange a meeting to discuss our alternative designs and, I hope, take the first steps toward constructing a wheel according to my (Bessler's) design. Pete leads a hectic life and it may be some weeks before we get together and make some progress. In the mean time I am continuing to try to build my own proof of principle wheel and maybe I won't need Pete's help if I can finish it successfuly in the next few days.

I'm also writing up my research and this is time-consuming because I need to describe my theory and show why it will work without compromising the laws of physics (which I can do). I am also providing supporting evidence from the descriptions of witnesses as well as Bessler's own words. But in addition I am citing as confirmation that my design matches Bessler's almost exactly by including my decoding of Bessler's many many clues, most which I have not published so far, because they are too revealing!

I am a sudoku addict and have been for three or four years because I find that it stimulates my thought processes. According to Ronald Kotulak, a Pulitzer prize-winning author, mental training in old age can boost intellectual power, and help maintain mental functions like problem solving, and also reverse memory decline. He reckons that even if they haven't received the benefits of good early education and experience, older adults can still do much to keep their brains in shape. That's my experience too. My powers of recall had faded significantly but recently there has been some improvement. [Ronald Kotulak. "Inside the Brain: Revolutionary Discoveries of How the Mind Works" (Kansas City, Mo.: Andrews McMeel Publishing, 1997)].

Marilyn Albert, a Harvard University neurologist and director of gerontology research at Massachusetts General Hospital, studied more than 1,000 people ages 70 to 80. She found that both physical and mental factors seem to determine which elders hold on to their intellects. Key elements revealed in the study were education, which appears to increase the number and strength of synaptic connections; strenuous activity, which improves blood flow to the brain; lung function, which ensures that the blood is adequately oxygenated; and the feeling that what people do makes a difference in their lives.

Kotulak quoted Albert, "Is mental exercise important for the brain? People used to ask me that years ago, and I would say we don't have enough data one way or another. I don't say that anymore. I tell them that's what the data look like: Use it or lose it.

So as well as researching Bessler's wheel, doing sudoku, acrostik crosswords and reading, I cycle for roughly an hour each day; I used to run, and have done four London marathons and competed in numerous smaller events, but acquired a prolapsed disc about four years ago which prevents my running. I have designed an amazing machine with which I hope to cure my disc problem but lack of money and time means its on the back-burner 'til I get this wheel going. I believe that the mental stimulation I get and intensive excercise will keep my mind alert and functioning for at least as long as the body does -well I hope so anyway. ;-)

Of course I'm only 65, a relative youngster, but it's as well to try to keep everything working to the best of its ability.

The thing about sudoku is this; when you 'discover' the next number, you get this mental kick, which spurs you on to the next one. The 'discovery' is 'rewarded' with a quick shot of dopamine. This is the 'jolt' that induces euphoria and combines the initial reward and subsequent reinforcement. Over time and with repeated exposure, these jolts initiate the gradual adaptations in the reward circuitry that give rise to addiction. Which is why I'm addicted to sudoku!

But I think that this is related to the addiction we Besslerfiles get when we think we have 'discovered' the secret. It does not matter that in due course we find we were mistaken; the 'jolt' has already been received and we seek another one and that is why we continue to research this 'science'. It's the same mechanism that causes people to become drug addicts, but in our case it may turn out to be a beneficial addiction.


Monday, 17 May 2010

Hands-on wins over CAD every time

OK, just to continue comments on a new page to save making the page any longer! Some people have assumed that I used computer aided design software in my work to reconstruct Bessler's wheel and on discovering that I don't, the very reasonable question raised - why not? It was further commented that you can get immensely powerful CAD/CAM programs for free, and that you don't need much power to design Bessler's wheel. I have used this kind of software in the past and found that it does require a more powerful computer than mine is (it kept freezing) but also it does not do the job and I'll explain why.

I have always had a hands-on approach to this problem because I find that having the pieces in my hands can show me more effectively than all the fancy software can, how minor alterations to length, angle, weight and position can produce different results/reactions. What do I mean by hands-on? It means that I need active participation as opposed to the theoretical approach of computer software. Without a hands-on approach I don't get the feedback necessary to this kind of research. It is not always possible to test every potential alteration with the kind of software currently available for free and which will work on a home PC. In my experience you have to input each variation of angle, length, weight or position and run the test but the results are not always informative and a hands-on test will suggest other possibilities not recognisable in a software run. You cannot imagine every possible variation and just input it - without the pieces in your hand and arranged and rearranged on the work bench you simply will miss opportunities that occur to you as you manipulate them.

Only those who routinely use hands-on building practice will understand my point of view and I suspect that those who favour the CAD/CAM approach wil make the counter argumenty equally effectively, nevertheless that is how I work and although it takes much longer than using computer aided design it will, in my opinion, win out in the end.


Sunday, 9 May 2010

I'll publish and probably be damned.

Wow - my shortest post and it gets the most responses! Thanks for the comments, guys. With the emails I got too, the picture I have in my mind is very mixed and it suggests that what ever I do there will be some for and some against my actions, in which case I might as well do what ever I want. The only certainty as far as I can see is that the sooner this is out in the open the better. I haven't talked to Pete yet as he is very busy but I have sent him a signed NDA and I await its return. In the meantime I continue to work on my own prototype and I'm finishing off the document I began a while ago which explains everything in detail along with all the clues I found and my interpretation of them. I'm also planning another video which explains in simple terms the principle that drives Bessler's wheel and I'll youtube it when its finished.

I could start a thread on and respond to posts but I want to answer as many possible questions in advance by placing as much information as I can in one place so that I don't have to spend too much time defending my argument. For that reason I won't prejudice my stance by posting a brief summary of my principle there but will try to get it right first time and post at my leisure. That doesn't mean I won't respond to any comments that evetually appear - I just want to get my point across as clearly as I can.


Monday, 3 May 2010

Decision time

I have of course realised that it's May already and I've missed my ETA for the finished wheel by several months (years?) .... Things have a habit of diverting one's attention from one's intended purpose and I am perhaps more guilty than most. Nnotwithstanding, I am constantly working on adjusting the mechanisms to try to make them do what I want them to do and although I have said countless times that I understand the principle or the concept which makes Bessler's wheel work ... it is taking the very devil of a long time to get it right.

I sometimes liken it to understanding an auto engine - you understand the concept and what the various parts do, but it would be difficult to make one that works without constantly refining and adjusting each part. Anyway I'm on the verge of giving up. I have three options open to me; first I can continue to try with the help of Clarkie, but I'm not sure how long that may take; secondly, I can involve Hal Puthoff and see where that gets me - or doesn't - or finally I can publish everything in a book, on-line and through a video. I'm looking at the last option.


Friday, 23 April 2010

Electricity - life without it is so basic!

My daughter and son-in-law are coming home from Spain by plane today - Hurrahhh! I thought at one point I was going to have to fetch'em. Now I can get back to work on the wheel!

Their recent experiences have highlighted two of the most important inventions of our lives. Firstly their electrical fire which resulted in no electricity for a week. No light, no heat, no freezer or fridge so no perishable food in the house;
no cooker so no cooking, no hot water so no washing, no TV, no computer, no internet, no telephone. no charging of mobiles. They played scrabble with the kids by candlelight!

The second thing was the grounding of all aircraft. The chaos that ensued was uttlerly incredible. People walked the lines of cars waiting to cross the channel offering cash for a seat in a car. Others hired cars and dumped them at the port. So many stories! We use aircraft routinely to travel to distant places in a hours - places which would have taken weeks to get to a hundred years ago, and when they fail for some reason we are thrust back to that era and rediscover the problems people used to have just getting around.

When I was researching my book, "Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?" I read about an Englishman who bought paintings done in Italy and carried them home to London where he sold them to the rich. He walked to Italy and walked back again! He did this several times and became extremely rich - and footsore!

I can't say Bessler's wheel would have had any impact on the grounding of all aircraft but it would have a major benefit for the domestic electricity user!

I have now got two designs of mechanism both of which will operate according to the principle by which Bessler's wheel worked. I'm using one design for now just to prove the principle. The two mechanisms work in different ways but they achieve the same ends and I think there may be another way too, because what I have does not accord precisely with Bessler's designs as far as I can tell. There are common parts but there is not 100 per cent match.


Monday, 19 April 2010

Volcanos, Fires and delay!

I expect most people know someone who is delayed by the Eyjafjallajoekull volcano system which began spewing volcanic ash over everyone and caused the closure of airspace in most of Europe. We are awaiting the return of my daughter and son-in-law who went to Spain for a few days while their homes was rewired and we redecorated it.

I may have mentioneded it already but, a few weeks ago they suffered a fire at their home due to an an electrical fault which resulted in three fire engines turning up. In fact there wasn't any actual fire, just billowing toxic smoke and a vile smell. The firemen had a heat sensitive camera and identified a couple of hot spots,which showed the source of the wiring fault.

Dave and Jo had actually boarded the plane before their return flight was cancelled and now they are trying to find alternative means of getting home. We volunteered to drive there and bring them home but it's 24 hours non-stop driving each way plus £500 worth of petrol - not to mention the price hike on the channel tunnel- £200 each way! They have looked at getting back by train (only 22 and a half hours!). But the trains, buses and ferry's are all over-subscribed and you can't even get a reservation through the internet for the web sites crashing. So they are destined to stay until the wind changes direction or the volcano runs out of steam!

Given this situation, I'm afraid I haven't been able to get much done lately in progressing my Bessler wheel to completion, but I still get some work done when I can grab a minute. I have been designing and building gravity wheels for most of the last thirty years, but not at an intense rate - just returning to it as and when the fancy takes me. So the present pressure to finish and publish information about either a working model or my work on it, is an unaccustomed burden that I am finding difficult to accept - even though I understand everyone's impatience. I am neither naive nor psychologically unable to finish what I started, as has been suggested. I just push back when pushed.

For those who think I'm wasting my time and their's I would say this. Wasting my time is doing anything that doesn't contribute to my goals. My goals are to either to build a working Bessler wheel or, failing that, publish my own work on it - and at the same time respond to my family's needs. One or both goals will be achieved - but not at the expense of my family. I'm as eager to finish this project as anyone else, and sharing what I know is a matter of tremendous anticipation for me. If I'm wasting your time...well the remedy is in your hands, but I should be sorry to see you go.

I found the principle by studying Bessler's clues and that option is available to everyone, although I did serendipitously stumble across a helpful clue via the internet. The clue was also in Bessler's books but I had previously ignored it or rather, not recognised it for what it was.


Monday, 12 April 2010

Patent? No thanks.

The subject of patenting has arisen again and I'd still prefer not to patent, assuming I was in a position to consider patenting Bessler's wheel.

I understand the advantages of patenting such an invention, having had them drummed into me constantly by people who are both pro-patent and fully versed in the intricacies of the legal protection system, but there are a couple of disadvantages which to my suspicious mind, outweigh any advantage you care to name.

The first is the expense. Although the total fees only add up to £200 in the UK, there are other costs such as patent agents fees, renewal fees as well as the possible cost of enforcing your patent which will add significantly to this initial cost. I couldn't write it myself so I'd have to pay some patent attorney to do it for me. No, trust me, I couldn't write it for myself. I am reliably informed that it could cost over £30,000 to get patent protection across Europe and further afield; and a simple dispute could cost over £200,000 if not resolved out of court.

Now I know that many will immediately suggest such fears are groundless; "think of the fortune you will be getting! The cost will be peanuts compared to what you will receive," some will say. Although potentially true, there is one small point that has been overlooked and that, or rather she, is my wife. There is no way she is going to allow me to remortgage our home to finance the patenting of a machine whose very existence is denied by science. So that's that.

Then there is the more spooky prospect which I have also been relentlessly warned about. Should I have the temerity to go ahead and make my outrageous patent application despite my beloved's warnings of impending doom, if I decide to follow that route, I have to face the distinct possibility that certain sinister groups, mascarading as gentlemen in dark attire, will pounce upon my patent and seize it and all persons connected with it and bury the lot in some secret location, never to be seen again.

Seriously, there is a mechanism whereby the British government oversees all patent applications to ensure that there is no chance that they might conflict with their interests, with a view to censoring the release of information on the subject. It is a distinct possibility that any government might, for its own purposes - i.e. tax revenue - wish to seek control of such an invention. Such action, however remote the possibility, means that I could not afford to apply for a patent just in case it never sees the light of day. Although I cannot answer for other patent offices in other countries, I am of the opinion that all of them have similar options available to them.

I don't even accept that patenting is the right thing to do in this case. If I succeeded it wouldn't be my invention, but Bessler's. I couldn't have got as far as I have without his help and I shall prove that soon - working wheel or no working wheel.

But the main reason why I wouldn't patent is because such a device needs to be openly discussed and promoted to the whole world. More than enough money would find its way to my bank account for me not to be concerned about losing out on the vast sums of money purported to be mine, should I patent. Books, interviews etc, for a few weeks would more than suffice to replenish the family coffers.

So don't tell me I'd be screwed every-which-way if I didn't patent - its a case of screwed if I do and screwed if I don't!


Monday, 5 April 2010

There's only one Principle for a Gravity-Driven Wheel.

The possibility of making a working gravity-driven wheel which could utilise one of two or even more different principles has surfaced and my first reaction was, yes, it might be possible. However further consideration has cast some doubt in my own mind. It all depends on some differing criteria. My device is designed to work using only the force of gravity, and no additional forces are necessary, other than those subsequently generated by the motion initiated by gravity.

Inventors have sought to design just such a machine for hundreds of years and have, so far as we know, failed. Only Johann Bessler claimed to have succeeded. I have discovered the same principle that Bessler discovered, and I know this because I have found confirmation of the fact, and it was only after I thought I'd had found the answer that I sought and confirmed it for myself in his books.

This principle undoubtedly provides the answer but I have come to the conclusion that there is no alternative design which requires only the force of gravity to initiate it. Anything else will need an additional force of some kind, be it electromagnetic, magnetic, ambient temperature changes etc. So my opinion has changed, and I think there is only one principle which will work to make a gravity-driven wheel rotate, with no additional external forces to aid it.

Of course it might be possible to incorporate this principle and use something other than weights to induce rotation and I have a couple of ideas but they all require an additional force. So it is my opinion that anyone who believes that they may have designed a working device which does not seem, from the slender information given out about it, to require the adoption of this particular principle, is on the wrong track and is surely heading for failure. I may be wrong and it is after all just my opinion, but perhaps I will be able to prove the matter soon.

I realise that gravity-only wheels are almost anathema to many perpetual motionists (in the meaning of anything forbidden by social usage - thank you Nick), but I am confident that a full explanation will desolve those beliefs like sandcastles in the incoming tide.

Wednesday, 31 March 2010

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.


Tuesday, 23 March 2010

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.


Wednesday, 17 March 2010

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.


Thursday, 11 March 2010

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!


Wednesday, 3 March 2010

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 ;-)


Friday, 26 February 2010

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

Further to my last blog,I posted my thoughts on 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.


Sunday, 21 February 2010

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 in a day or so. But for now I have to work to catch up on the time lost recently.


Tuesday, 16 February 2010

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.


Wednesday, 10 February 2010

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.


Friday, 5 February 2010

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.


Wednesday, 27 January 2010

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?


The True Story of Bessler’s Perpetual Motion Machine - Update

At the end of March we sold our house and moved in with my daughter, son-in-law and granddaughter, expecting to be there for no more than tw...