Angular Momentum to Linear Momentum - and back again?

Sometimes when looking for a solution to a mechanical problem it helps to reverse the sequence of events required - or as Professor Eric Laithwaite liked to do, consider an analogy.

What we seek is a way of converting the downward linear force of gravity into rotational motion. As a means of seeking a solution for those of us who believe Bessler's wheel operated purely by gravitational force, perhap it might help to study the work of those whose ambition is to reverse the process. They wish to generate a unidirectional or linear force from a rapidly rotating weighted lever. There are a number of sites devoted to the experiments http://jnaudin.free.fr/html/IPEmain.htm for instance.

Now whether or not you believe it can be achieved, and I do, it is a fact is it not, that if Bessler's wheel is successfully built and is proved to be driven by gravity, and a working model demonstrated, then it follows that an engine that converts angular momentum to linear momentum can also be developed, since the action or process of one must be the reverse of the other.

Such an engine would have its own extraordinary abilities.  It could move over land and water and rise upwards against gravity.  Space drive with no emissions.

JC

Who best to play Bessler?

It has been remarked on more than one occasion that the story of Johann Bessler's life would make an excellent movie. It has already been made into an opera although I have not seen it, and it seems to me that a movie about the inventor would have all the ingredients needed to make a worldwide box office success.

There is lust, greed, jealousy, theft, hatred, love, a hunt for treasure, black magic, murder, corruption in high places and conspiracy - all set against the background of one man's struggle for recognition and a prize worth millions of dollars in today's money - not to mention a solution to today's energy and pollution problems. Need I say more?

And who is to play this tenacious, conceited, highly ingenious, emotional and troubled man? This is something I have pondered on at length for several years. For most of that time I wanted a British actor to play him, because I think they are the best actors, generally speaking. It requires someone who can express ingenuity, determination, obsession, triumph, paranoia and suspicion and blind fury - and yet call for the tenderest outpouring of love on occasion and be motivated by an overwhelming commitment to his religious belief.

That was until the other day when I saw Robert Downey Jr. and recognised his outstanding talent. He seems to have the look of Bessler sometimes. I now have him as my favourite for the part, unless someone else betters him in that unique role. - and someone probably will.

JC

Flights of Fancy - Or the right interpretation?

Over the years I've had a number of thoughts about Bessler's words and what he might have meant. Some of those I have published on my web sites (listed on the lower right). Some of it is speculative but nevertheless I didn't include anything I didn't seriously consider a valid proposal.

But there are other ideas that are more subjective and I won't publish them on my websites in case someone takes them as factual, but here on my blog I see no reason not to engage in what some might call flights of fancy. Therefore I shall post some comments on Bessler's words over the next few weeks. They are still valid interpretations but not certain.

I've no idea if this will generate any comments but this blog format is not ideal for discussion so although I shall read all comments with interest, I think that it will not be possible to respond to each one,  here.  I have considered opening a forum but I do not really have the time to run  it properly so I'll leave it to those who may want more discussion to take it elsewhere.  So, for my first example consider the words by Bessler.

"A great craftsman would be that man who can 'lightly' cause a heavy weight to fly upwards! Who can make a pound-weight rise as 4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall. If he can sort that out, the motion will perpetuate itself. But if he can't, then his hard work shall be all in vain." - page.295 of my book "Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?"

Or as Rainer on the besslerwheel forum wrote, more succinctly, "When 1 pound drops 1/4 , it will (swing,throw?) 4 pounds upwards by 4/4"

or as Stewart, also on the forum, says more precisely,"He will be called a great craftsman, who can easily/lightly throw a heavy thing high, and if one pound falls a quarter, it shoots four pounds four quarters high".

The gist of the comment seems to be that a one pound weight can lift a second one pound weight four times higher than the distance the first weight falls and the lift or thrust upwards is accomplished easily - or even that one pound could lift four pounds four time higher! These suggestions are, on the face of it, ludicrous. Obviously, Bessler cloaked his meaning in apparently meaningless nonsense and yet there is a sense to be obtained from it if we can, so here is my view on the matter.

One pound falls and four pounds rise - four plus one makes five. As has proved the case often, Bessler has hidden more than one layer of meaning in his clue and I think one layer of the phrase was intended to point us to the five mechanisms again.

Secondly, included in the comment is the emphasis on the second weight being lifted or thrown upwards easily. To me this means that if the weight can be lifted easily, it must mean that it is not lifted very high, just a 'kick' upwards. One way to do this is with a long lever with a weight at its end, doing the lifting.. 

Implicit in the comment is a corroboration of another of his clues which suggests that his weights worked in pairs, so that when the first weight in a pair fell, it moved its paired weight into a position from which the wheel was made to rotate. The other four mechanisms then revolved with the wheel and each rose at some point, so one pound falling made each of four pounds rise four times each.

The use of the word 'quarter' confused my translater and he adapted the word to the English system of weight, when actually I think Bessler meant that each lever-and-weight unit rotated a quarter of a turn.  However there is another possibility, and that is that the 'quarter' referred to, simply meant that the falling weight fell the same distance as the rising weight.  The word 'quarter' was used to throw us off the scent.  He might have said that each pound rose half way when the other pound fell half way. - or they rose and fell 15 degrees each.  The important clue was that both weights moved through the same distance.

Well that's my take on this particular comment by Bessler.  More to follow.

JC

Copyright © 2011 John Collins

A gravitywheel will still obey the laws of physics

I know that it is commonly believed by some people that when Bessler's wheel is finally successfully replicated, those who inhabit the higher echlons of science will have to eat humble pie and re-evaluate the laws of physics and a few believe that the laws will actually have to be rewritten.

I have long believed that a successful version of Bessler's wheel cannot require the overturning of well-established physical principles. No matter how it might appear to conflict with the laws of physics, a gravitywheel must adhere to them. In which case when a working model is produced it will not be the laws which are wrong, but our interpretation of them.

It will be more than enough just to produce a working model and there is no need, in my opinion, to invoke some new physical law which so far has been undetected by mankind. For such a law, if it could be established and verified, would surely have been observable in some other context long, long ago. So that simplifies things because we only need to look at the laws we already accept and see how our understanding of them can be modified - without changing the them - to acommodate Bessler's gravitywheel.

I have spent a lifetime looking at these laws and I think I know how Bessler's gravitywheel was able to operate within the confines of the law of conservation of energy. I have alluded to this before, briefly, but reactions have ranged from scorn to apathy. So, as I said recently, I am currently building a model with an accompanying video, with which I intend to demonstrate that, despite the fact that gravity is a conservative force, it does not preclude the possibility of a gravity-driven wheel.

JC

66 and still trying to invent the wheel!

I'm 66 today! They say time travels faster as you age, and my goodness, is it speeding past now! It's been fifty years since I first read about Johann Bessler and even longer since I began designing perpetual motion machines, and I thought I might have solved the problem long before now.

There is a nice succession of links in this story. I first read about Bessler in a book called "Oddities: A Book of Unexplained Facts", by Rupert T. Gould. He was a Lieutenant Commander in the British Royal Navy noted for his contributions to horology and a host of other things and was described as a polymath. He gained permission in 1920 to restore the marine chronometers of John Harrison, and this work was completed in 1933, aided no doubt by his photographic memory. Harrison was the guy who won (eventually) the British Board of Longitude's prize for establishing the longitude of a ship at sea. The prize was £20,000, a fortune in those days, and it was the publication of this prize in 1714, which it is believed was the inspiration for Johann Bessler's decision to ask the same sum for the secret of his own invention, the gravitywheel. (For more on Harrison and to see an animation of the grasshopper escapement see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Harrison)

John Rowley, the finest instrument-maker in England at the time, was highly praised by Harrison in each of two volumes he published. The King of England, George l, who had already recognised Rowley's expertise in mechanics, and made him "Master of Mechanics to the King", requested a special sun dial from Rowley as a gift to Karl, the Landgrave of Hesse and Bessler's patron. Rowley took it to Kassel and installed at Karl's castle and during his visit was able to meet Bessler and see a demonstration of his wheel. He came away convinced of Bessler's claims and devoted the remaining years of his life to trying to replicate what Bessler had done.

Briefly, Rowley actually witnessed the wheel, he was a friend and colleague of John Harrison whose clocks were restored by Rupert Gould who also researched and published an account of Bessler, which I subsequently read. One cannot help but speculate that Gould must have had an interest in Bessler's machine and been aware of the connections between those involved.

As someone pointed out recently, mine and Bessler's obsession with the number 55 even includes my birthdate. 5th Feb 1945. There is a five and a two, so writing two fives makes 55 and then 1 and 9 is 10 plus 45 is 55 again! Amazing (not)!

Being the optimist that I am I am still convinced that Bessler's gravitywheel will be replicated and it can't happen a moment too soon. Time is, as I said, whizzing past at great speed and the need for this machine is growing at an alarming rate. Sticking to the 55 theme, I think I should have discovered the secret when I was fifty-five however I didn't and neither did anyone else. Maybe this year as I'm sixty-six and Bessler first exhibited his machine on the 6th June 1712, (six and six) someone will do it then, but of course next year, being the 300th anniversary since then, it would be even better.

No 'wheeling' for me today - just relaxing, being waited on - and the company of my very patient family. (patiently awaiting a working wheel!) But tomorrow I return to the task.

JC

Don't tempt fate with a precipitate announcement ... John

This is merely an observation and not aimed at anyone in particular but I note a common theme in postings both here and in the besslerwheel forum and in other alternative energy forums. Before I go any further let me admit that I recognise exactly the same symptoms to a marked degree in my own actions and therefore I speak with some considerable experience.

Researching Bessler and seeking a solution to perfecting a working gravity wheel is what drives most of us and it is commonly observed that many who are involved in this persuit may on occasion have a sudden spontaneous flash of inspiration and illumination in which the solution to the problem is revealed. Further consideration over a period of time - it might be hours, days or months, it makes no difference - and the details acquired in this sudden attainment of intuitive knowledge are confirmed to the apparent satisfaction of the lucky recipient.

Following on from this exciting news and transported by thoughts of fame and fortune, the beneficiary of this amazing insight will be mentally preparing the details of how he will reveal his knowledge to the world with one or two caveats. He will want to ensure that he receives a just reward for his projected success but he will be concerned that the mysterious MIB do not take remedial action to stop any public announcment - and of course he will consider the advisability of patenting his new invention.

These thoughts are common to most of us and understandable, and I suspect that everyone of us has had a moment when the solution seemed clear but upon further consideration it was decided that the design did not answer the problem. There are times too, when even detailed analysis of the apparent solution seems to indicate that we are on the right path and it is only when we come to actually build a model that the truth becomes cruelly apparent.

This tendency to be utterly convinced that you have hit upon the right design does not always fade with experience - I know this better than most! If you wish to share the design and are not concerned about who gets recognition for it, then go ahead and tell the world, but if you wish to have some kind of recognition - and that is perfectly understandable and acceptable - be warned, "multa cadunt inter calicem supremaque labra", or there's many a slip twixt the cup and the lip. It's best, in my opinion, not to say that you have the solution and you have only to complete construction of the device before revealing it to the world, because experience shows that what was revealed intuitively to you in the wee small hours,sometimes has a habit of tripping you up, by not actually working.

Let me stress that this is not so much a message to others as to myself! To all who would seek the glory of success, contain your excitement; say nothing in public; make a working model first.

JC

Aren't we ignoring what is under our nose - Bessler's words?

Discussing my ideas about gravity-driven wheels (gravitywheels) has sparked some interesting ideas and theories by email which might advance my own research - or perhaps someone else's, but I think I'm on my own as far as believing that Bessler's wheel was driven purely by gravity.

I understand the reasons for the complete and utter rejection of this idea, but I don't think anyone understands why I am so committed to this line of reasoning. If it was based entirely on faith, which has been suggested more than once, I could understand why my viewpoint is ignored, but it's not. In addition I find it quite puzzling that almost everyone interested in this extraordinary project is single-mindedly looking for the solution almost anywhere except one which uses gravity alone.

When you read Bessler's words it seems obvious, to me at least, that he means that his wheel was driven entirely and exlusively by gravity, but because this appears to be in breach of the law of conservation of energy, such an idea is rejected without further consideration. To discard this proposal is to reject Bessler's words as if they were either false or designed to mislead, and while I accept that he didn't want anyone to discover his secret, he took the greatest delight, in my opinion, in teasing his readers with small pieces of information designed to titllate and intrigue. I simply don't accept that he wrote all that he did with the intention of completely deceiving us, his readers. He knew or at least hoped that at some point in the not too distant future his secret would be sold and everyone would eventually know how it worked. At that point he would not be best pleased in having to defend himself against accusations of lying or misleading. He was looking forward to pointing to all the clues in triumphant glee.

However that leaves us with a problem; how do we resolve the issue that gravity is a conservative force? I've posted some of my thoughts about that but I haven't revealed the design nor the key factor which I believe I have. I'm working on that but in the mean time I plan to video some demonstrations  of how the conservative nature of gravity does not necessarily hamper us in our search for a solution.  I'll post them and put a link here in due course.  This may take some time to accomplish.

Watch this space.

 

JC

Response to my forum posting about conservative forces.

The publication of my ideas about conservative forces on the Besslerwheel forum was met with a mixture of benign criticism and some somwhat less than favourable comments, as expected. You can't expect to suggest that 300 years of scientific advances might have overlooked some small detail without incurring criticism and argument, and I am not dispappointed by the reaction - it has got people talking about Bessler's wheel again.

What has surprised me is that among a small number of emails I received which offered their support for my conjecture there was one which apologised for not saying so publicly. The reason apparently was that doing so might diminish their standing in some way. I find this remarkable and it seems to mimic the situation between the majority of members and the rest of the world and indeed the whole history of the search for perpetual motion.

Many people who study Bessler's writings look for subtle deceptions and double meanings in everything he wrote and while I am guilty of seeing encoded messages in various places that are not as clear to others as they are to me, I think that he wrote the truth without dissembling and only restricted the information enough not to give the secret away. So when he wrote such phrases as, 'the machine was set in motion by weights'; 'Weights gained force from their own swinging'; 'the weights applied force at right angles to the axis' and Karl's view that' he did not disguise the fact that the mechanism is moved by weights', I think he spoke the truth and I have no doubt whatsoever that the machine depended on the presence of gravity and indeed was run by gravity alone. I see no need to invoke hidden meanings in phrases which describe in normal everyday language, the way the machine worked.  There is a phrase, 'the law of parsimony, or succinctness', which describes the principle of choosing a theory that requires fewer new assumptions, and in this case the simplest interpretation is the most likely one to be right, I think. 

I understand why some highly intelligent and experienced members of the forum insist on sticking to the belief that gravity cannot run the wheel because it is a conservative force, but I regret that they dismiss my thoughts with friendly humour but no serious consideration. And yet I read Bessler's words and can only conclude that gravity was the mainstay of his machine and just because gravity is a conservative force may does not completely and utterly rule out a way around it.  If my suggestion does not meet satisfactorily the criteria sought by those who would deny it, then I can't help but compare them to the rest of the scientific community who also refuse to contemplate such a possibility.

So once again I point the reader to my web site at http://www.besslerswheel.com/html/conservative_force.html, where he will read about the 'mysterious other force' which helps the weight complete its rotation without using any additional energy which wasn't generated by its fall.

JC

Circumstances in which a gravitywheel can be turned continuously by gravity alone.

I have felt for some time that maybe I should put something about my own thoughts about the fact that gravity is a conservative force and therefore apparently unable to drive a gravitywheel continuously.

So I posted a short piece on my web site at http://www.gravitywheel.com/ and perhaps more unwisely, a short copy on the Bessler forum.  I know in advance that some people will take their customary potshots at me for taking this viewpoint but I cannot help my opinion.  I remain uttlerly convinced that there is a way to drive a gravitywheel by means of weights reacting to gravity and no amount of  constant repetition or parroting of the disinformation stuffed down our throat  at school can shake my conviction.

I read and read and read what I had written over and over again and I cannot see how anyone can argue with it, but argie they will and in the end I shall go my own way and maybe I'll prove myself right.  I hope so.

PS

In the light of a new day my words seem a trifle strong.  I wasn't dismissing everything we have been taught, rather I wished to express my doubts about the fact as taught, that because gravity is a conservative force it cannot be used to drive a gravitywheel continuously.  My feeling is that such a statement will one day be shown to be too inclusive, and that a particular mechanical design will allow such a mchine to work.
JC

Bessler's Wheel - The Solution to the Energy Crisis - Spread the news!

When I first published my biography about Johann Bessler, also known as Orffyreus, I discovered that there was a small but keen group of people eager for information about the inventor, which resulted in a steady stream of orders from all over the world from people who appeared on the surface at least, to believe in the possibility of a perpetual motion machine.

Now I was never happy with that designation and I have tried over the years to differentiate the term 'perpetual motion' from what I believe was what Besslers wheel was. I have argued that since his wheel seemed to have acquired its energy from the force of gravity, and a 'perpetual motion' motion machine was believed to have no access to external energy, it could not be called a 'perpetual motion' machine and that a better description would be a 'gravity wheel' or 'gravitywheel'. I think most of the people who bought my book are well aware of the distinction and fully understand the impossibility of 'perpetual motion' machines when defined as a machine which runs for ever with no addional input of energy.

It doesn't really matter as long as there are a sufficient number of people, who are prepared to be open-minded about Bessler's claims, to carry on and maintain research into his machine with the aim of discovering the secret of its construction, and to my mind the information available in Bessler's books holds the best hope of success. But what is puzzling me is the sudden drop in orders for my books, allied to the apparent decrease in the number of new members of the Besslerwheel forum - and the fall in the number of posts. I'm not concerned at the fall in income from the sale of books, that only ever helped to recoup some of the cost of translations I had had done over the years, plus of course ongoing costs in running the web sites and doing further research. Even if I got no further income from book sales I would continue with my research. But this seems to indicate a fall in interest.

But why is it that the public interest in Bessler's wheel seems to be disappearing? What has changed? If anything I would have thought that there would be renewed interest as well as more newcomers to the subject. There is so much discussion about the need for a new way of generating electricity; so many adverts around the world by governments desperate to solve the problem of escalating oil prices, and reductions in carbon emissions and the lack of any real alternative to be worthy of consideration ... that I cannot understand the sudden flack of interest.

To me the only answer is to try to spread the word about Bessler's wheel as a potential energy generating device, more widely. But I have tried to spread the word for the last few years with little success. I think something more dramatic is neeeded which will grab everyone's attention. Of course the one thing that would do that would be the announcement of a new device based on Bessler's wheel and that is our ultimate aim, but in case that does not happen in the very near future something else is needed, in order to bring more new amateur researchers into this field of research.

The solution may appear next week or not for ten years or longer, so the sooner the public gets involved the better - and the sooner the wheel will appear.

So all suggestions welcomed for discussion here, but try to keep it legal guys! LOL

JC

Words of Encouragement

It seems to me that we who try to solve the mystery of Bessler's wheel, seem to have lost our way a bit, lately. Maybe we should return to what originally attracted our attention and caused us to consider the possibility that a method could be found of driving a revolving wheel by the use of gravity.

Remember that on 6th July 1712, Johann Bessler, also known as Orffyreus, claimed that he had invented a wheel which would turn continuously powered only by gravity. As proof, he exhibited a working model - something none of us has achieved to date.

I have provided as much information as I have been able to find in 30 year's research - the most complete biography of Bessler to date, books by Bessler with English translations, letters by him and about him and to him, drawings by him, descriptions of his encoded clues compete with my interpretations of what he meant. I have done this to draw attention to Bessler's claims and I have updated version of the original book almost ready for publication but I don't want to release it because I feel that the solution is about to appear and I would like to include any new information relating to the new discovery - however......

...it seems as if every year at this time we think, optimistically, that the answer will magically appear next year - but I have seen this written here every year for the last several years - I've posted such optimistic forecasts myself - but so far nothing. I think that there is a desire to believe that, with the 300th anniversary of the first announcement of his discovery looming, the time is ripe for the return of Bessler's wheel, and so it is, but it won't neccessarily happen just because the time is right.

Our thoughts need to return to basics, in my opinion. The more complex the design the more there is to go wrong. Bessler was hugely concerned that people would think his machine too simple to be worth what he was asking for it and argued strongly that despite its simplicity of design it was worth every penny.

So stick to basics, keep it simple and build a working model! Let's make the 300th anniversary a real celebration with a working model! Easy-peasy!

HAPPY CHRISTMAS ALL!

JC

Don't patent Bessler's wheel!

Over the years I have questioned the prudence of patenting an invention such as Bessler's wheel. After much deliberation I eventually came to the conclusion that if I was fortunate enough to succeed in building my own version of the wheel, I wouldn't patent it.

I know the subject has been discussed numerous times on the besslerwheel forum and I'm aware of the current opinions being aired, but I was delighted to receive an email from a regular correspondent who directed my attention to a book called, "DON’T File a Patent!" by John D. Smith (Smith Press, 200 pages, $24.95) . I'm not saying I agree with the bombastic tone of the chapter headings and I haven't even read the book, but the concept struck a chord with me and I was pleased to note that I am not alone in questioning the validity of the argument that the right course is, necessarily, to patent.

Some people have ascribed my decision not to patent, to ethical or moral values, but that is not the whole picture. I do in fact believe that this particular invention, if it were successful, should be freely available and without let or hindrance (by which I mean,without anyone or any organisation, having the right to prevent anyone else from building, using, selling or in any other way benefiting from it, however they wish.)

No, there are other reasons why I am sceptical of patenting. One is that in the first place it is costly - enormously so.  Yes of course I know that the costs of such an invention could be recouped a million times over, but this is a cost that grows with time, as you try to cover international patents and their annual fees.  The sheer amount of paperwork would be more than enough to defeat my enthusiasm.  But it is not the cost alone which causes me concern.

There is the policing of the patent. No patent office bothers to protect your patent, they only issue them. You have to consider whether it is worth taking every infringement to court; such an invention will attract every fly-by-night operator in the world, every far Eastern fabricating engineer trying to make a living; every one, in fact, who is looking for ways and means of feeding his family. Would you wish to act against everyone of them? A patent won't protect you against these. You might decide to just take legal action against the big boys but they will have done their homework and even if you win, you will have spent time and money you'd rather not and maybe you won't win.

But there is one more issue concerning infringement which I believe has not been considered or if it has, it has been ignored, and that is the psychological and physical impact experienced in defending your patent; no one seems to consider patent infrinegements other than as a legal challenge but I know, for myself at least, that it would be very distressing and also alarming and irritating to fight a continual battle against those who would try to circumvent your patent.

But these issues are nothing compared to the distinct possibility that your concerned government might see fit to step in and forbid your patent, and tie you up in legal bonds which would prevent you even talking about your device. Then where would the value of your patent lie? The important thing to consider is this; you apply for a patent to protect your invention, and presumably you do this for one or two reasons. Firstly you want to earn some money to secure you and your family's future; nothing wrong in that. Secondly you wish to preserve some control over how it is used. Again a reasonable intent. But if you lose the patent through governent inteference, where's the security in that? Who would control it then? It seems to me that if there is even the slightest possibility of that happening, then you must forget patenting your invention.

So it's no to patenting Bessler's wheel - what then? You publish the details of how it works through newspapers, TV and of course the intenet. There will be enough interest generated to make many of the world's media companies rush to your door and make attractive financial offers to you for your story. This prospect might not seem desirable but do you think that, even in the case where you did apply for and did receive a patent, and the governments around the world welcomed it with open arms, that the media won't make the same concerted rush for your door? Of course they will.

So if you are lucky enough to have to make a choice, my advice would be to give it away and let market forces do their thing. 

JC

Is this really the only alternative to fossil fuels?

How frustrating it is to come across web sites like the one below!

"Generate your own energy!

Renewable energy technologies like wind turbines, solar panels and biomass heaters offer an alternative to fossil fuels and can help reduce your homes CO2 emissions.

There are financial benefits too. Investing in a renewable energy technology now basically means pre-buying energy at today’s prices for a future where energy may cost a lot more. If fuel prices rise, your pay back would happen even sooner."

The above exhortation comes from http://www.energysavingtrust.org.uk/, but there are dozens - probably hundreds or even thousands of similar schemes around the world. They urge us to buy into these wonderful-sounding solutions as if they are the answer to the energy crisis - but they aren't - they barely scratch the surface of the problem - but the most frustrating thing about them is that even though there is a real solution - Bessler's gravitywheel - they dismiss it, ignore it or they don't know about it (or they don't want to know about it!).

The world of science has long scoffed at the possibility of running a wheel driven continuously by the force of gravity, and it will take a sea-change in thinking to make someone somewhere sit up and take notice - or a working model!

It's been done before so we know beyond reasonable doubt that gravitywheels are possible. Johann Bessler achieved it and first demonstrated it on 6th July, 1712. In less than two years time it will be the 300th anniversary of that day. I am determined to celebrate the occasion with a complete working reconstruction of the gravitywheel that Johann Bessler invented, if not by me then by someone - anyone!  And.....

...despite temperatures of -8 degrees Celsius (about 17 degrees Fahrenheit) during most of the last two weeks, I have managed to do some work on my current construction of a Bessler wheel model, and regardless of previous experience, I dare say, confidence is high!
JC

Addition to www.theorffyreuscode.com

Following some serendipitous studies I found what I believe is an interesting piece of information regarding MT 137 - but only for those who relish the code-breaking requirements of Bessler's  tortuous coded constructions.  It doesn't shed any more light upon the meaning of MT 137, but for me it confirms what I have always thought - that the drawing is only intended to be another secret pointer to the number 5.

I have added yet another page to the http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/ web site and an extra button MT 137 C!  I have slightly altered MT 137 A, and MT 137 B although I doubt anyone will notice the difference.  I'm not posting anything on BW forum because I don't think anyone is particularly interested.  That's not sour grapes, its just the way it is.  I don't think that repetitive revelations that yet another piece of code appears to suggest the number 5 will light anyone's fire, not even mine, but I do have an interest in all things Bessler and I am constantly intrigued to find new layers of meaning within his writing/drawing.

The only thing I would say is that after all these discoveries relating to the number 5, I must admit that I am perplexed at the ubiquity of it and concerned that something so apparently important to Bessler should be ignored simply because there is so much of it.

JC

Apologia Poetica, Chapter 55. Beginning to decipher the code?

As promised, I have published my ongoing research into deciphering the code in chapter 55 and nyou can read it at http://www.orffyreus.net/. I haven't actually deciphered anything yet although I feel I have made some small progress in untangling the clues. I confess I've reached a dead end at the moment and although I do have some other ideas to explore there is nothing sufficiently convincing for me to think it worth sharing.

Even if the web site inspires someone to have a go at following my lead and succeeds where I have failed, then it has to be worth it.

Good luck!

JC

Update on wheel progress and decoding chapter 55

Just to update folks who are interested. After my last effort to persuade people that I knew the principle behind Bessler's wheel and the fiasco that resulted, I swore to myself that I would keep my mouth shut in future. The trouble with making such claims is that, understandably, people demand proof - and without a working model no such proof is available. Unfortunately I succumbed to the requests to share my ideas and in effect shot myself in the foot. However,  (didn't you just know that there would be a 'however'!) my recent experiments have revived my optimism that I shall succeed eventually and I simply have to share it (my optimism not the design!)  But don't worry , I shall keep my ideas to myself until such a time as I can reveal a working model. I won't even hint at my design so then I won't be tempted to share it until I can prove it.

So why am I bothering to say this? Well I have just been counting up how many emails I have received since my premature crowing, several months ago now, (just the ones which simply asking me how things are going) and I counted 67! This particular blog was prompted by getting five in one day earlier this week, so this is just to update those kind people who I consider my friends and who seem supportive of my attempts to publish what I know (or what I think know!).

As those who read this blog may remember, I am preparing to post some stuff about my attempts to decipher chapter 55 which I believe holds an encoded message. I was going to hold off until I had included everything about my work on this material, however recent posts on the besslerwheel forum about chapter 55 have encouragedd me to publish what I have done so far, in the next few hours. I'm sure I shall receive the usual dose of criticism mitigated by supportive emails, but if my efforts help someone else towards deciphering the code then it will have been worth it.

I hope that the web site at http://www.orffyreus.net/ is not too long and the evidence not too badly argued. I have found it quite difficult to explain without getting into too much detail and yet not omitting important points.

JC

Bessler's "Connectedness Principle".

A couple of weeks ago I received an email asking me what I understood by Besslers "connectedness principle". I answered to the best of my ability at the time, but I have had further thoughts about it which I thought I'd put down here.

In his Maschinen Tractate number 9, Bessler says:-

"Because experience shows us that the ball-driven wheels like those seen in the present figure and diagrams were of no avail, people speculated on another principle, namely on weights. To be sure in all the weight drawings that I have found, these weights appear simple and are not connected together with belts and chains, even in Leupold, but nothing can be accomplished with any device unless unless it responds due to my connectedness principle..."

In my original version I changed the phrase "connectedness principle", to something I thought was more accurate, but since then I have been persuaded that the above phrase is probably closer to the original intention.

So what did he mean? The word "connectedness" doesn't even appear in some dictionaries and is probably more akin to the literal translation of Bessler's language than an apposite English word.  It is a noun and is defined as "a relation between things or events http://www.thefreedictionary.com/connectedness - or a "state of being attached, ability to be connected". http://dictionary.babylon.com/connectedness/.

I don't feel that these get to the actual meaning intended by Bessler. For clarification I looked up some synonyms for 'connected' and found :- "linked, joined, united, coupled, associated, combined,engaged", and there are several more.

"Connectedness" conjures up the idea of things being joined together or united, but in my opinion it also suggests the amount or intensity of a connection which may vary in some way. The coupling of two objects may well be described as connected but their connectedness might be less than or equal to a theoretical maximum. How can we determine what was meant?

One could argue that two things are either connected or not, but it depends; it might be a loose connection in the same way that a nut might be loose on a bolt and therefore it can allow some movement in the connection - or the nut is tight and there is no movement; or it might describe a man on a length of elastic doing a bungee jump - he can stretch the connection and be pulled back to a degree; or a dog which is connected by its lead to its owner - he can pull the dog or prevent it running away but he cannot push with the lead because it's a made of a chain or a length of leather and therefore one might describe it as connected but the connectedness is not as complete as it could be with say a metal rod which is inflexible.

It may be a two-way connection but one way is rigid and the other is flexible. The connection may be, to a certain degree, more or less flexible than it could potentially be.

Bessler must have intended something other than a rigid connection otherwise there was no point in establishing the idea of a "connectedness principle". He implied that his wheel required his connectedness principle in order to function, therefore we might assume that the connection in question was not rigid and unyielding but that the two connected objects were capable of some movement which was independant from each other at some point. For instance if a weight fell and in doing so moved another weight, that would require some connection even if it was only a brief collision with the other, either by direct impact or by means of a rope or chain. Subsquently the fallen weight would have to return to its former position in order to fall again but would perhaps be able to do so without pulling the other weight with it.

Such a "connectedness principle" might also permit delay in certain movements of weights which would be advantageous in some designs.

I don't know what the answer is, but I thought I'd pass on my musings as food for thought. In the mean time I have a theory and I am testing it. I don't know if it will help but given the variety of possible connections outlined above it will probably take me some time to work my way through them. The only thing I do know is that in my design a connectedness principle as described above is a vital ingrediant.

JC

Curious Coincidence or Spurious Inference?

Following my blog entitled "Decoding Chapter 55 of Bessler's Apologia Poetica",in which I mentioned the large number of clues from Bessler which signified the number 55, it was mentioned that an interview I gave to "Infinite Energy" magazine way back 1998 was printed on page 55! At that time I knew nothing of the apparent importance to Bessler of that number. This was an interesting coincidence and added to the fact that the other person involved happened to look at that page on the same day that I posted my blog almost convinced me of some implied causality! I was discussing the matter with my wife and she pointed out that my birthday is on February 5th - another 5 and a 2. I then observed that 5 x 2 = 10 and added to my year of birth, 1945, added up to 55. It shows how easy it is to be lulled into seeing meaning in something which is perhaps mildly serendipitous - a nice coincidence, but nothing more.

The brain tends to identify patterns and sometimes it gets fooled. I remember after 911, the spate of seemingly meaningful number coincidences that related to that event that appeared on the internet. This feature of the way the brain works is useful but can lead one up a blind alley. Clouds sometimes form shapes which some people see as recognisable faces but there is probably more meaning in the patterns seen in the rorschach inkblot test. Nevertheless one cannot always ignore them and Orffyreana are a ripe area for the appearance of such curious coincidences - or are they spurious inferences?

One well-known coincidence is the fact that Bessler included 141 bible references in "Apologia Poetica", in the section headed "Orffyrean Declaration of Faith". Apart from the fact that there are so many, on their own there is nothing to wonder at, however in his "Maschinen Tractate" (MT) he destroyed or hid some of its drawings at the time of his arrest and replaced others to make 141. The last one which I call "The Toys" drawing has five numbers appended to the bottom of it to bring the total to the desired 141. Why did he want to have 141? Are we to draw a connection between the two books? I don't know. Coincidence or design? And Why does MT47 have a ghostly mirror image of the number 47 attached to it, and does it matter that 47 goes into 141 just three times. Coincidence? Probably, but should we ignore it?

I have a reputation for seeing meaning in everything Bessler wrote or drew, and I know that some think my imagination is leading me astray, but in fact I do study each 'clue' with a highly critical eye. Sometimes if I am unsure about its validity, I publish details about it and hope to draw comment which might enable me to confirm it as a real clue or discard it completely. With regard to Chapter 55, I have found much of the route to deciphering the coded parts but there is some ambiguity about where to go next and that is why I intend to publish what I know.

JC

The Decoding of Chapter 55 of Johann Bessler's 'Apologia Poetica'.

Reconstructing Bessler's wheel is an important objective for me, but the mystery of Bessler's code fascinates me almost as much.

It has seemed obvious to me ever since I discovered the hidden pentagrams in the Merseberg wheel drawings and subsequently several others in other drawings by Bessler, and of course the proliferation of encoded 5s and 55s elsewhere in his publications, that there must be more to it than just my own theory that they indicated five mechanisms as a basic requirement for a successful gravitywheel - or seven or nine.

It is already obvious to many people that Bessler hid some encoded information in Apologia Poetica and I think that the key to deciphering it involves the number 5.  I'm not saying that I'm wrong about the five mechanisms, it's just that I think that once Bessler had discovered that his gravitywheel needed at least five mechanisms to work (and more as long as they were odd numbers) he decided to use the number five as part of his encoding method, as well. This is typical of Bessler, he seems to have delighted in designing each code to have two or more ways of deciphering it.

The repetition of the number five, almost exclusively within the Apologia Poetica, suggests that it is within this book that we should look for a secret message and Bessler hints at that exact thought. He says,in chapter 46, "Those who are keen to ask questions should ask them of this little book. My work will not be revealed prematurely." Chapter 55 is the final chapter of part one, (part two was added later to respond to unfair accusations by his enemies) so, given my firm conviction that there is an encoded message hidden in the book, and taking into account that Bessler is practically shouting out the number 55, chapter 55 seems like an excellent place to look.

It would be extremely useful to find someone with professional experience in codebreaking who would be willing to apply their professional skills in deciphering the code. I have made contact in the past with acclaimed experts in the field, men such David Khan, widely regarded as the world’s leading expert on the history of codes and cryptology, who although unable or unwilling to help did introduce me to an ex MI5 codebreaker, who was unfortunately too ill to help and who has subsequently passed away. I have also in the past been in contact with Cheltenham GCHQ in the hope that someone there might be of assistance. The woman I spoke to suggested that I post the problem to her and she would publish it internally. Unfortunately this particular piece of encoded material does not lend itself to brief publication on a noticeboard.

I have returned to the mystery of Chapter 55 many times and have accumulated a considerable amount of information about it and I plan to publish the details soon, which will, I hope, help those whose experience in the art of codebreaking is so much more profound and whose knowledge of the subject is infinitely broader than my own.

There are several mysteries attached to Chaper 55; the 141 bible references for a start; the fact that some of them don't actually exist; the fact that the rhyming couplets used throughout the 7000 (approximately) lines of the book are changed for just 220 lines in Chapter 55 (55 verses!); the apparently random switching from fraktur font to Latin font; the fact that five (yes its that ubiquitous number again!) references are duplicated; the weird spaces and omitted lines for no apparent reason. I haven't even mentioned the 684 'xs' that litter the end of many lines in the whole book. I could go on, but I won't. Let me just say that I have some of the answers and I shall post them in due course on one of my web sites in the near future and will notify all who might be interested as to where and when it will become available as soon as I can.

I would add it to www.theorffyresucode.com but that is so full of brief pieces about some of the codes that there is no room for any more, and I plan a more detailed article about Chapter 55 so I've decided that for the time being I shall probably add it to either http://www.orffyreus.org/ or http://www.orffyreus.net/.

JC

Das Triumphirende FOR SALE. But only until Midnight GMT 31st OCTOBER 2010

It seemed like a good idea to leave the period that the book was availabe for sale, with an unlimited cutoff date to allow as many people as possible to consider the idea of purchasing the book. So far I have received three firm offers and there are a couple more considering their options. Understandably there has been some concern over how long they would have to wait for their offers to be accepted or rejected, so I have decided to put a time limit on the sale. Anyone interested should make their offer known to me by the end of October, midnight GMT on 31st October 2010.

However, should a firm acceptable offer be made prior to this date, rather in the way that ebay sellers accept "buy now" offers I would be prepared accept it but would only be fair to notify those others who have expressed an interest in purchasing the book,in case they wished to put in an improved offer.

I hope that this seems fair and reasonable.

JC