Hypothesis first, then mechanism design

I may be misreading the situation but it seems to me that many people attempting to find a solution to Bessler's wheel are designing new ways of achieving this and they do not realise they are effectively running on the spot,  and I'm not necessarily referring to those who attend this blog but in general.

I read that simulation software is useful because one can test many variations of designs and save hundreds of workshop hours.  While I don't doubt that these variations can be tested quickly and accurately, I think my point is being missed.  I spoke of variations in the design of various parts which occur to you when you are handling the mechanisms, where as the variations being tested in the simulation program really only apply to the changes available to you such as altering the placing of weights, pivot points or dimensions of the parts - it does not mean that the variations being tested in the software will cause an entirely new design to spring to mind just by looking at their animations.

When you have the physical parts in front of you and they don't work, you can see by means of an ability we all have - common sense -  why something doesn't work.  There is no need to run dozens of variations through the simulator when your common sense shows you why it doesn't work, and why no amount of variation in the dimensions or placings of critical parts will improve the outcome.

I often write that I have found and understand the basic concept which drives the gravitywheel, but actually that is too broad a definition.  The basic concept is the actual idea that gravity can drive a wheel continuously through action upon its weights.  All of us who believe this is possible, understand that concept.  So the extra thing that I understand is more than the basic concept.  I understand how it is possible, why it does not conflict with any of the accepted laws of physics, and what the mechanism must do. The key to success for me lies in designing a mechanism that works according to my hypothesis.

So we are looking for a hypothesis initially which will fit within current laws of physics and then all we have to do is design a mechanism which will operate within those laws and fulfil the hypothesis we have thought of. 

So to return to my first point, you must create a hypothesis to explain how the wheel could work and then you can design a mechanism which works according your hypothesis.

JC

Some advice, worth repeating in my opinion - Don't simulate - fabricate!

I know I've mentioned this before here, but from time to time, both by email and through the blog, I'm urged by well-meaning people to test my designs with simulation software, and my response has always been the same; I have tried simulations and I don't get the feedback from it that I do when I build a model, so I don't use them.  For me, there is no substitute for holding the pieces of a mechanism in my hands and, when I find that it isn't working, playing around with it and making all sorts of interesting and new (to me) discoveries.  I enjoyed that experience earlier this January and made, what I think is a momentous discovery and suddenly the so-called 'connectedness principle' was laid bare before me and I understood exactly what Bessler meant.

I am fully aware that there are several people who are equally sure they too understand it, and maybe they do; perhaps we have all made the same discovery... and maybe not.  I would never have made this short leap of understanding using simulation software because I would never have thought of moving the parts in the way I did, and even if I had, I doubt that I would have bothered to go to the trouble of entering that particular variation into the program - and there wasn't just the one variation I tried, but several different ones - who is to say which, if any, I would have tried out in the simulator?  The truth is that you can test variations so much quicker on the work bench than at a computer - and you know that what you are seeing is real and not subject to some bug within the program. Other aspects of the design now find an echo in several different drawings from Bessler and some loose ends have been tied up.

If you have never tried making models to test your design, please try it.  There are many impressive models shown on the besslerwheel forum and I am envious of the skills displayed by their makers but in all honesty there is no need to spend much money to test a hypothesis.  I have often made test mechanisms out of cheap materials such as cardboard, ice-lolly sticks, string, glue, plastic plates, drinking straws, lead weights for curtains and even blutack.  If the test answers the question then you can make something you wouldn't be ashamed of displaying!

I have no idea how many models I've made and if I knew, would I have counted separately all the variations on one design I'd tried?  Bessler suggested he'd made hundreds and I'm sure he did if you include the variations he tried. I would say the same thing - hundreds.

So my advice is, don't depend on just testing the ideas out on simulation programs because you may miss a vital clue if you don't build a model.   I'm sure that the successful machine will be designed by someone who is building models and not by someone who relies on simulation software.

JC

The Italian Orffyreus documentary and the Pentalpha.

RAI, the Italian state owned public service broadcaster who commissioned the "Orffyreus" documentary, have said that FarmStudios cannot send me a DVD of the finished documentary as they don't want anyone outside of production to see it before it's aired, which is fair enough in my opinion. But it does mean that I won't be able to offer copies to anyone for the time being.  Of course should pirated copies appear at some point in the future, then there is nothing one can do about that.  I am to be given a preview in the next few days, so I'll report about it as and when I can.

My current position with the Bessler build is stationary, like the wheels I've built so far!  I've got the flu.  I have a plan mapped out for when I can get back to work and it is looking promising - how many times have I heard myself say that before?  I am still working with the same basic concept which I worked out some eighteen months ago and I'm still convinced that it is the way to go.  It answers all the questions raised and I'm confident it will work.  The mechanisms are complex in a way that would not be obvious to a spectator, such as Karl.  I can see why he described them as simple.  It's one thing to see the finished article and how it works - but quite another to work out how to get it to do what you want it to do, when you don't know the exact design or the dimensions.

In answer to my previous post about the pentagrams and the number 5s, in Bessler's works, I've come to the conclusion he was trying to point us to the alternative word for pentagram, reputedly used by the Pythagorians, which was pentalpha.  Some people think of the pentagram as three interlaced triangles, but others describe it as having five upper case interlocking letter As, and that seem to me to be the more in line with Bessler's thinking. We have seen the interest in the besslerwheel forum in the famous 'A with legs': THE primemover? thread and this supports the idea.

It is well-known that Bessler used alternating letter As throughout his "Maschinen Tractate", sometimes with a straight cross-bar and sometimes with a bent one. He did not do this for any other reason than to point to its importance. I'm sure that this simple lever design is incorporated within the mechanism, and the successful design will require it.  

JC

That ubiquitous number five again, the Freemasons, Alchemy and Hermeticism!

As we all know, one thing that Bessler's codes has thrown up is the frequent appearance of 5, 55 and 555.  I have suggested that it either points to chapter 55 of Johann Bessler's Apologia Poetica - and/or it is a hint that five mechanisms are needed in each direction for the bi-directional wheel.  But nothing is certain and I would not wish to become so dogmatic that I miss an alternative meaning.

I would be the first to admit that the evidence that there were five mechanisms is non-existent, and if I'm wrong, then one must assume that the large number of coded number 5s only points to Chapter 55 in Apologia.  If it is connected with the presence of a coded message hidden in chapter 55 of Apologia Poetica, the evidence for which is undeniable, why did he choose the number 55? Was it chance?  I think the presence of hidden pentagrams, hinting at the same number in all the drawings in other books rules out chance.  He left so many other pointers to that Chapter, within the Apologia, not forgetting the strange list of 141 bible references, that the pentagrams seem to be superfluous.
 
In support of the idea that the chapter number 55 was not the only reason for the presence of the pentagrams, remember that none of the drawings containing the pentagrams appear in Apologia Poetica but rather, in the later publication Das Triumphirende, which came out four years later in a much more professional publication.  if they were pointing to the chapter 55 in Apologia Poetica one would think there would have been included, some kind of link to that former publication, or did he think people would remember the earlier one and make the connection themselves?  Very doubtful, and probably most people would not have even heard of the Apologia, since Bessler had only just started on his journey when it was published.

So the choice to use chapter 55 was deliberate, not chance; the pentagrams while pointing to the chapter 55 are not necessarily exclusively for that purpose, and the need for five mechanisms is not proven.  We are left with the mystery of why 55 and what does it mean?

I did a little surfing on the matter. A random query into google led me to the Washington Monument and its extraordinary measurements.  Now there are a considerable amount of spurious facts attached to this structure and it is hard to distil the truth from them but this is what I believe is correct.

Several heights have been specified, in the past, but the consensus seems to be 555 and half feet and one eighth of an inch.  Let us suppose that the intended height of the Washington monument was meant to be 555.5 feet above ground - that is equal to exactly 6666 inches.  A nice round figure and far more likely to be the right number than some figure plus an 1/8 th of an inch as is suggested.  Mind you, there are reports that the aluminium capstone on top of the pillar has been struck so many times by lightning that it has lost just under half an inch in height which, if we include the important eighth of an inch, would give a height of 555.55 feet!  And that would give us 6666.6 inches!

At ground level the sides are 55.5 feet (666 inches) long.  Ok so there appears to be an obsession with the number 5 (or its inch equivalent, 6) - but why? I'm well aware of the 5's ubiquitous  associations with alchemy, hermeticism, the Kabbala and freemasonry, and in particular the frequent association of the Washington Monument with the Freemasons....but not why that particular number! Yes there are numerous references to the number in freemasonry etc, but no one has come up with any good reason as far as I can tell why the number 5 is so important to them.  The pentagram is the most obvious geometric figure associated with the number five and that seems to have been in Bessler's mind too.  It has links with the planet Venus because the path is (very) roughly pentagonal...so what?  The skull, book and jar in Bessler's portrait also have links to Venus in symbolic art....and to Mary Magdalen...and she too has links to Venus!  We're going around in circles here (sorry!) and perhaps that was intentional. But why five?  What was it that Bessler was hinting at?  If we really knew why the freemasons were so captivated by the number 5, 55 or 555 etc, maybe we could get a glimpse of what Bessler was trying to tell us.

These different features of Bessler's books - the skull, jar and book, the hidden pentagrams, the various encoded 5s - all seem to point towards some kind of arcane belief system, but what it is, I don't know.

I have searched and searched for years and there is nothing of practical use for our purposes to be found in the inclusion of the the number 5, so the 5s are hinting at something else.  But what?

If anyone has any ideas about why Bessler included the number 5s I'd be pleased to know.  I understand, technoguy, your conviction that the design incorporates a pentagram within it - and you may be right, but I don't rule out anything else.

JC

The Orffyreus Code - were others aware of it in the 18th Century?

I passed on my copy of Bessler's 'Das Triumphirende' to a fellow Bessler admirer, David, with some regret, but pleased that he also has an interest in this particular copy. Inside the frontispiece is a label which reveals that the book came from the library of Emmy Destinn, a world famous Czech opera singer (1878 - 1930). Destinn's close links with the Royal Opera House, Covent Garden in London are shared by David, a fine violinist with the same company.

Destinn's talents were many and varied - and not only musical. She also wrote plays, novels, short stories, librettos, and poetry; painted on canvas and porcelain; and translated and composed songs. She wrote her first play at the age of 16, and by 18 had followed that with three more. She spoke five languages fluently and wrote her literary work in Czech and German. But David had the same questions as I had - how did she come to own this particular book?

It seems that at the peak of her career she bought the beautiful castle at Stráž nad Nežárkou in Southern Bohemia. Since she moved in, in 1914, Destinn furnished the castle with a great collection of art, antiques and books on all subjects, bought while touring the world. One might be tempted to think that she acquired a copy of Das Tri during her travels, but in my opinion it is more likely to have been collected by the previous owner, Baron Adolf Franz Leonhardi, a man with a keen interest in the occult who held a number of seances at the castle. He accumulated a huge library of esoteric books, many on the subject of hermeticism and alchemy as well as freemasonry.

If the book was acquired by Leonhardi then it may be that he was aware of certain traditions attached to Bessler's books. I have never accepted that I was the first and only person to discover the existence of the pentagrams and hence the other coded items included in the books. If others were aware of secrets within the books and made their own interpretations of the mysterious features of the double portraits, for instance, then they may have recorded their findings somewhere or corresponded with others to share their knowledge. In some archive, museum or private collection there may well be a record of these findings.

It's fun to speculate but I don't want to start down the slippery slope of conjecture - and without evidence there is nothing to base an opinion on. I merely pass on my thoughts for entertainment purposes!

JC

Unable open or edit blog in Internet Explorer thank google - for nothing!

I am unable to read comments in Internet Explorer (IE) because google chrome have made alterations to the blog.  I can still read them through firefox and, of course, chrome - but I don't like chrome because I can't have my norton identity-safe toobar.  I'm not used to firefox although I could do I suppose.

I have opened up another blog at  http://besslerswheel.wordpress.com/ but I'm not sure whether to abandon this one or stay.  I can of course use chrome but I object to the way they've done this, and I am not alone.

Can people still comment here?  Try and let me know, should I stay or should I go?

JC

Remote Viewing, Psychometry and the 'sixth sense', as a way to get more information?

I have always tried to maintain an open mind to everything and yet I remain deeply sceptical of the possibility that one can retrieve information from a previous time by remote viewing (Rv). But there are certain aspects to an episode of Rv which was carried out on my behalf in 2008, which have left my wall of disbelief slightly dented. I can however provide a possible explanation for the particular report which does at least allow the retrieval of information by some as yet unknown mechanism, in real time - the notorious sixth sense?

Six remote viewers were set the task of attempting to 'see' what Bessler was doing on 6th June 1712. All they were required to do was try to retrieve something, anything, relating to Bessler, Gera, etc, but they were not actually given anything other than an eight-numbered file reference - no names, no dates,no places and no object information - no information at all. This was a highly professional set-up which it was hoped might offer some convincing evidence of its usefulness, so the strictest protocols were applied to the process.

The six reports which I read were disappointing to say the least. I saw nothing in them to grab hold of and I regretfully filed them and forgot about them. Recent discussions on the subject prompted me to read them again and I was astonished to discover one report which I had somehow overlooked. I was looking at this particular one and noticed for the first time that a simple drawing of a house looked a bit like one of my photos of Bessler's windmill. Adjacent to the drawing was a handwritten comment which said "somewhat ornate structure? Top is wrong!" My first thought was that Bessler never finished his windmill, but it was finished later as a simple building without the windmill superstructure. Perhaps the remote viewer had sensed the top was unfinished or altered. But the most extraordinary thing about the report was the prostrate figure lying on the ground at the foot of the house, with the words next to it, " trip - fall" and nearbye the word,"surprise!"

Could the R-viewer really have 'seen' Bessler's fall to his death?

Elsewhere there are several references to the letter "W" and words such as "w unbuckled" which could be interpreted as the letter 'w' split into two 'v's.  This, as many, who are aware of my work on the 'Orffyreus Code' know, is one of the most ubiquitous examples of his code.

The problem I have with this is that one cannot really go back in time, in my opinion, but one might be able to retrieve information from someone such as myself in real time. If the latter proposition is possible then we shall find nothing other than that which is in my head or someone else's. This is not to say that it is not an amazing feat and certainly it would prove useful for finding missing persons for instance, but it is doubtful that it will prove of any use to we who seek further information about Bessler.

There is one even remoter possibility that has been suggested to me in the past. Psychometry is the ability or art of divining information about people or events associated with an object solely by touching or being near to it. Wikipedia says that it is a form of extra-sensory perception characterized by the claimed ability to make relevant associations from an object of unknown history by making physical contact with that object. Supporters assert that an object may have an energy field that transfers knowledge regarding that object's history.

It was suggested that my copy of Das Tri might prove a suitable subject for this process, so I sought help in finding a recognised practitioner - I failed to find one who was prepared to do it for nothing other than one elderly gentlemean who unfortunately lived too far away for an appointment to be possible. I have since then passed my copy onto another more careful owner so I can no longer attempt to obtain information this way, but it still seems that if information can adhere to an object and that information be retrieved at a later date then all is not necessarily lost.

I have no opinion about the validity or otherwise of this subject but I can point to a fascinating study carried out in 2007 which appears to support the theory that objects can retain some kind of information which can be read by those with that particular ability. http://psychometry.psican.org/news.html does seem to give a balanced report on a unique experiment which supports the possibility. Given the probability that the mechanism involved in remote viewing and psychometry are probably closely related, I would imagine that the right person might be able to 'read' the information available in my old copy of "Das Tri"- and my other books - without actally being in its presence!

JC

An uncovered working wheel is easier to build.

When Johann Bessler exhibited his wheels, they were of a certain depth or thickness, being covered on both sides of the wheel. I assume that the cross-bars or pivots upon which the levers or weights turned, ran across the internal depth of the wheel and each end was fixed to a piece of timber on each side of the wheel. Witnesses report that the sides of the wheel were covered with oil cloth and others that there were gaps in some thin timber planks that covered it. This suggests that the wheels were built in a skeletal framework with easy access from both sides as well as the circumferential edge, then the interior was hidden by the oil cloth or the thin wood deals - not as in my prototypes which consist of a single wood disc mounted on a removable axle.

Its hard to explain without a drawing but its a simple to understand; I call Bessler's wheel a three dimensional build having depth as well as height and width. For simplicity, my prototypes are built in a two dimensional way having height and width but not really any depth. By that I mean that the same cross-bars or pivots I referred to above are only attached on one end, in my case, to a single side disc, or back-plate, thus dispensing with the need for any kind of structure on each side of the wheel and allowing easy access and adjustment.

From Bessler's perspective his wheel had to built as a framework of pieces of timber rather than two discs because of the increased complexity of fitting the cross-bars and any associated mechanisms, in-between two discs, but I'm sure his experimental models were built in a similar way to mine because at first he only needed to make a proof of principle wheel for his own satisfaction,  and then build something that would keep the internal mechanisms safe from prying eyes.

I had thought that if I was to succeed in making a working version I would need to either rebuild it with two solid discs, one for each side, to mount the mechanisms on, or try to attach to the open, uncovered side, some kind of covering to hide the internal workings. However when I decided that I wasn't going to keep the workings secret it was obvious that I could just go with the first working prototype. But now I'm aware of what a mess the basic disc I use to mount everything on is! Its got more holes in it than a hunk of Swiss cheese! The metal levers are similarly riddled with holes of assorted dimensions. What to do! In the end not much. I might apply a little paint to the disc to make the mechanisms show up against the background of the disc..... but I'm getting ahead of myself - first I have to build that working model!

JC

A HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL

I wish everyone a prosperous and successful 2012, but above all a HAPPY one.!

157 days to go to the 300th anniverary of Bessler's first wheel. Professor Hal Puthoff wrote in an email to me yesterday to say that he was "still standing ready to provide opportunity for globalizing a useful technology. May 2012 be the year!"

When I replied, I mentioned the 300th anniversary coming up and he said, "what a wonderful way to celebrate the 300th anniversary - to announce it had finally been replicated! I'll keep my fingers and toes crossed!"

I believe circumstances are driving us towards this anniversary and a successful replication of Bessler's wheel.  Pollution from fossil fuels, increasing cost of recovering dwindling oil resevoirs, the lack of good alternative energy solutions - and the knowledge that the real solution lies almost with our grasp!

I believe it will happen in 2012 and I hope it will be me, but if anyone else does it I shall still be as happy as a dog with two tails!

JC

Holiday Greetings!

To my small but loyal band of readers and to the much larger number of anons who, according to my blog statistics, drop in, in their hundreds each week, to test the water ....

Have a great holiday and please accept my best wishes for a happy, healthy and prosperous new year.

As technoguy said in a comment,

 I have a feeling of impending revelation growing stronger within me!

Thanks for that thought, technoguy, I share your anticipation, although I take the meaning of the word 'revelation' as ...the act of revealing or disclosing the internal workings of my finished Bessler's wheel to the whole world!

JC

6th June 2012 - end of the great cycle - beginning of a continuous cycle!

John Worton's comment about Venus transiting the Sun on 6th JUne 2012 got me thinking about the date some more and I googled it.

It seems that there will indeed be a transit of Venus across the Sun on that day, a wednesday. This is when the planet Venus passes directly between the Sun and Earth. During a transit, Venus can be seen from Earth as a small black disk moving across the face of the Sun. The duration of such transits is usually measured in hours, the most recent one, in 2004,lasted six hours. Six previous such events have occurred since the invention of the telescope (1631, 1639, 1761, 1769, 1874 and 1882).

But there are people who view such events with alarm or excitement, I'm not sure which. There is one group which is gathering people together at well-known sacred sites around the world to celebrate this event. I note Glastonbury is one; another is Belukha Mountain? I'd never heard of it but apparently it is in the Katun Mountains, and is the highest peak of the Altay Mountains in Russia. It is part of the World Heritage Site entitled Golden Mountains of Altai.

Belukha is a twin-peaked mountain massif that rises along the border of Russia and Kazakhstan, just north of the point where these two borders meet those of China and Mongolia. There are several small glaciers on the mountain. Of the two peaks, the eastern peak (4,506 m, 14,784 ft.) is higher than the western peak (4,440 m, 14,567 ft.). I cannot imagine how or why hoards of people plan to gather there! I don't know which peak they plan to meet on but they'll need oxygen and some mighty warm clothing!

According to their blurb, 'in many cultures this Venus Transit is considered a very special occasion. In one of the early Mayan books, the Dresden Codex, the beginning of the Great Cycle in August, 3114 BC is referred to as the "Birth of Venus". The Year 2012 is the end of this Great Cycle. Many American Indians from North and South America call 2012 the Year Zero. The Hopi Indians refer to this time of the coming of the Fifth World, and many prophecies have heralded this time of transition. Also in the ancient Vedic and Egyptian trandition Venus has a major role in the historical events on planet Earth. It's not surprising then that the second Venus transit of this decade falls in June, 2012, just six months from the end of the Mayan calendar in December 2012.'

Apparently....on June 6th 2012; the Sun, Moon, Venus and Earth will stand in one line in the Universe. All prophecies are referring to this specific moment in time. Many people all over the world are aware of that and will decide to go to sacred places to connect with each other, in order to transform the world to a higher level of existence...and many Evangelicals across America are convinced the 'rapture' is coming and the date is June 6th 2012.They say that many were against naming an exact day for fear of looking foolish if nothing happens but Wednesday, 6th June 2012 is becoming the day nominated for cataclysmic events across the globe during which the 40 odd million "saved" in America will literally "rapture " into heaven... leaving the rest of us to burn in hell ... !

I'm more than a little sceptical about all this ancient history prediction stuff but it certainly looks like an extremely apposite time for the second coming of Bessler's wheel! Let's do it!

JC

6th June 1712 to 6th June 2012 300 years or 109,573 days.

Someone has pointed out that the Gregorian Calendar was adopted in Germany in or around Bessler's time and can we accept the date of the 6th June as applicable today?

As we know, the 6th June 2012, will be the 300th anniversary of Bessler's first exhibition of his so-called Perpetual motion machine in Gera, Germany. Some of Bessler's accounts seem to suggest that he first set the wheel in motion on the 6th June 1712,as in his Apologia Poetica, "For, in 1712, during his stay at Gera in the Voigtland, he hit upon the genuine Prepondium, and so it was that on 6th June of that year he set in motion the first model of his Perpetual or self-moving Mobile, three and a half Leipzig Ell in diameter and four inches in thickness, for the very first time."

Whether that was the date of his first exhibition or the day he actually discovered the secret and set the wheel in motion for the first time doesn't really matter as we only have the date of the 6th June 1712 available. What might be important in determining the correct date for our anniverary is to discover whether this date incorporates the so-called 'New Style' dating or the 'Old style' dating. In England, dates in the Julian calendar that occur before the introduction of the Gregorian calendar in 1752 are termed Old Style. The initials 'O.S.' appearing after a date indicate it is in the Julian calendar. The initials 'N.S.' or the phrase 'Stylo novo', indicate the Gregorian calendar.

The Gregorian calendar,  is the internationally accepted civil calendar.It was introduced by Pope Gregory XIII, after whom the calendar was named, by a decree signed on 24 February 1582. Although it was slow to be taken up even by Catholic countries, it eventually spread across the world, the last European country to adopt it was Greece in 1923.

The motivation for the Gregorian reform was that the Julian calendar assumes that the time between vernal equinoxes is 365.25 days, when in fact it is presently almost exactly 11 minutes shorter.The error between these values accumulated at the rate of about three days every four centuries. This is the basis for the use of the leap year. Every year that is exactly divisible by four is a leap year, except for years that are exactly divisible by 100; the centurial years that are exactly divisible by 400 are still leap years. For example, the year 1900 was not a leap year; the year 2000 was a leap year.

Because of the Protestant Reformation, however, many Western European countries did not initially follow the Gregorian reform, and maintained their old-style systems. Eventually other countries followed the reform for the sake of consistency. So despite the prudence of Pope Gregory's correction, many Protestant countries, including England, ignored the papal bull. In the Protestant states of Germany it was officially adopted in 1700 and the day following 18 February 1700, became 1st March 1700. So despite the factthat Britain did not adopt the new calendar until 1752, it is clear that we can accept the date of 6th June as according with the new style calendar.

I note that there are 172 days left between today and the 6th June next year -  or 5 months and 20 days.

There have been since 6th June 1712, 299 years, 6 months, and 11 days - or 109,401 days.  (thanks to http://www.convertunits.com/dates/)

JC

Bessler's simple wheel bearings

I think that discussions about the bearings on the forum have become too convoluted. There is nothing complex about them, in my opinion. If you have a load-bearing shaft rotating in a bearing shell, you have two components. The journal which is the end of the shaft, made of steel, iron or brass - and it rests in a bearing shell of a similar metal which, in Bessler's day, was filled with a thick grease, pig or goose fat or even bear grease. It is usually covered by the other half of the shell to protect it from ingress of dirt, which if it wasn't included, might add friction and thus wear to the moving parts. Bessler routinely removed the upper shell so that the spectators could examine and see that there was no possible external connection. The bearings (journals) were slightly tapered to control the axle's lateral movement and keep it centred within the shell.

This, from an account of the history of watermills. "Watermills utilised wooden axles and these generally had metal gudgeons held in place on the ends of the shafts using wedges and steel hoops, which allowed the wood axle to have a small metal tip on the end. These metal tips or 'journals' would then ride on an iron half-shell liberally greased with animal fat."

Finally this from wikipedia, "A plain bearing, or a friction bearing is the simplest type of bearing, comprising just a bearing surface and no rolling elements. Therefore the journal (i.e., the part of the shaft in contact with the bearing) slides over the bearing surface. The simplest example of a plain bearing is a shaft rotating in a hole."

There is only one place where the so-called 'curved' pieces which were said to extend outwards from the bearings on the end of the axle, are reported,and at is in Das Triumphirende - as per Stewart's translation which follows, 'They rest in their motion on two almost 1 inch thick, {am Ort} somewhat tapered steel pivots horizontal in the two sockets or bearings, [the pivots are] equipped with two curves, about which the rotary motion of the whole vertically suspended wheel can be somewhat modified by applying pendula on both sides, as the attached figures at the end of this treatise clearly show'. In other words there are no witness descriptions of these strange curved pieces because they never existed outside Bessler's imagination. He introduced them into Das Triumphirende for good reasons that I shall explain at a later date.

JC

The Orffyreus documentary

I returned from Rome on Thursday night having been invited to take part in an Italian documentary for RAI 2, a part of the government television network. The documentary is about Orffyreus or Bessler as we tend to refer to him. They have already filmed actors in period costume telling the basic story of Bessler and they wish to end it with an interview about him. The director had sent me a series of topics which they would ask me to comment on.

Bear in mind the questions were translated from Italian, so the phrasing is a little awkward.

The topics included:-

What is the perpetual motion?

Can you describe the character traits of Orffyreus?

Can you describe the first Orffyreus’s wheel?

Can you give us an overview of the writings of Bessler? What do they contain? Are they logical and comprehensible to the eyes of whoever? What messages have you succeeded in deciphering? Describe how the name Orffyreus is fruit of a manipulation.

Which rivalries did Orffyreus’s increasing reputation raise up? And Who were the most persistent opponents of Orffyreus and what actions did they put into practice?

Can you tell us what happened in Merseburg?

Which tests were done on the wheel exhibited in Kassel after the 54 days of isolation?

Who was interested in the Orffyreus’s discovery following the exhibition in Kassel?

We would like also for you to comment on the following: many people are wondering how the world would be today, if the professor Gravesande had not yielded to the temptation to spy on the secret mechanism of the wheel of Orffyreus. Already, because this gesture, which proved inadequate to understand the essence of the mechanism of the wheel, determined the end of every possibility that the secret of the invention was finally released. Orffyreus, in fact, cannot tolerate such an insult. Went rapturously, and in a gesture of baleful wrath destroyed violently also his last creation under the bewildered eyes of those present.

The Royal Society dropped each contact believing that they were dealing with a madman and the Landgrave quickly found an excuse to remove that visitor now deemed unpredictable and dangerous.

Not difficult subjects for me to comment on and yet, sat in front of a two cameras, the director, a sound man, two cameramen, an interpreter and the director's assistant plus the two owners of the house where it was filmed.... I froze! I got it together on the third or fourth take for the first question though! They will send me a copy of the finished product when it's ready and it is budgeted to be finished by December 31st!

I added some additional information concerning the coded material but I don't know how much, if any, they will include as it wasn't in the original specification.

I've included some pictures for your amusement!

JC

Why gravity is a source of energy for continuous motion.

Following some comments on my last blog, I thought I'd make my case again here rather than adding to the 60 or so comments already in.

I realise that the vast majority do not accept the possibility that a gravity-wheel can be driven continuously just by the force of gravity alone as, I believe, Bessler's was. But if I state my case often enough, maybe enough people, cleverer than I, will take it on board and devise a better explanation. Until then...

My analogy that the force of gravity was similar in its action to the wind or a current of water, and it was therefore perfectly reasonable to believe one could use it as a source of energy, is routinely scorned by most people. They have taken exception to the above analogy, ignoring the fact that is just an analogy. An analogy is an inference based on the idea that if two different things show a similarity in one sense, it may be possible to draw conclusions about other aspects of the thing. It is a way of looking at something differently to try to understand it. I was not suggesting that gravity was in fact either a 'wind' or a 'stream'.

The argument against, goes something like this. Air is a collection of gases, flowing molecules - and water is similar - and when they impact on certain surfaces we can make use of them to drive machinery - but, on the other hand, because gravity is an attraction between two masses, and there are no physical particles available (such as molecules of gas) to impact on the machinery in a way we can use, it is said that it is not capable of supplying energy in the way that Bessler seems to have done. But Bessler did not know about molecules or the laws affecting gravity; he could only observe and experiment. His empirical evidence gave him the answer, and as he said, "these weights are themselves the PM device, the 'essential constituent parts' which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force derived from the PM principle) indefinitely - so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity."

How anyone can read that sentence and not understand that it means he used gravity, is beyond me.  But of course as some have suggested he might have been lying or incorporating hidden meaning within the text -  or he didn't mean gravity alone.  But for me it is plain and simple and he used gravity alone to drive his machine.

What gravity is, and what air and water are, is not relevant to my argument; the only thing that matters is that wind can move objects of mass, a current of water can move objects of mass and gravity can move objects of mass. It doesn't matter how they do it, just that they do.

One of the arguments used against the possibility of gravity as an energy source is that gravity represents potential energy. It's there if you've already put in the work. There's potential energy in a book on a shelf because you've lifted it and placed it there. Once you use that energy, when the book falls to the floor, it's gone until you lift it back up again. This is true - and it also applies to wind and water currents. Again, the work has to be put in first to gain the energy output. Release a balloon in the wind and watch it get carried along by the wind, and then grab it and take it back to the starting point (upwind) to release it again. Or put a toy boat in a stream and the same thing applies. It will float downstream and you can pick it up and take it back upstream again.  Just because we have found a way of obtaining work from wind and water streams that converts the force of wind and water to rotational energy output, does not necessarily rule out the same potential conversion of the gravitational force.

And that defines a conservative force. Since the work done by wind and water currents can be reversed, i.e. the object moved can be taken back upstream, or upwind, to be released and able to be moved again, they are conservative forces, as is gravity.  Notice the word up in upwind and upstream, its a clue.

I might not be able to add any comments for a day or two next week as I'm off to Rome on Tuesday and I'm busy writing some notes for the interview.  I'll post a blog when I get back and tell you about it.

JC

Bessler's Gravitywheel, the Bessler-Collins Project, an Italian Documentary and the five mechanisms discovery.

Now that I've got the alternative theories about Bessler's wheel out of the way, we can return to my own theory that it was driven solely by gravity and that this does not violate any laws of physics. I know that not all of my readers agree totally with me but I'm certain that I will prove to be correct.

I'm writing a lengthy document, called the 'Bessler-Collins Project' which sets out my case and I will publish it when I'm happy with it. It incorporates all the clues, both graphic and textual, as well as the work I've done so far. I'm doing this just in case I drop off my perch prematurely!

I'm pleased to say that the Italian documentary is still on, and I'm just waiting on a date to travel to Rome.

I am back in the workshop and in the process of building the mechanism again and still making further discoveries in Bessler's papers - I've found further verification that he used five mechanisms and I know in this instance it does not refer to codes.

This implies that there is a sound reason for needing five mechanisms and I think I know why. Many people have suggested that one mechanisms would suffice to prove the wheel and I agree that it should certainly be able to initiate some rotation, but in my opinion it will be shown that it can only rotate the wheel so far and regardless of being in balance elsewhere it will not rotate further. I know why - or at least I think I do, but I prefer to keep quiet about that for now.

JC

The Leiden Jar, static electricity, a solenoid and some springs!

This is in response to a long email I received about the Leyden (Leiden jar). It is not my opinion, in fact I don't think it has anything to do with Bessler, but in case I'm wrong I thought I'd air the views of another, no matter how wacky -  he's aware of my opinion of his ideas.

I mentioned in my biography on Bessler, the coincidence of Pieter van Musschenbroek, a professor of physics at Leiden University, inventing the Leiden jar, an early method of storing static electricity, in 1745 - the year Bessler died, (it was also discovered by Ewald Georg von Kleist in Germany the previous year). I had previously examined the remote possibility that Bessler used static electricity in some way to provide the additional force often suggested as necessary, to make a gravity-driven wheel complete a full rotation, and recently the idea has reappeared in a couple of emails.

The story of the first test of the Leiden jar and its effect on van Musschenbroek's student helper, Andreas Cunaeus, is well reported in wikipedia. He was virtually knocked out by the strength of the electric shock he received and was unwell for two days following. Van Musschenbroek went on to arrange some spectacular demonstrations of the power of the device, and after having experienced the shock himself he wrote, in a letter to his French colleague Réaumur, that the whole kingdom of France could not compel him to repeat the experience. The French priest Jean Antoine Nollet, a great popularizer of electrical phenomena, learned of the Leiden experiments via this letter and lost no time in contriving even more spectacular demonstrations. They culminated in one involving 700 monks joined in a circle to a Leiden jar!

It was suggested that if 's Gravesande, being a close friend and colleague of Musschenbroek, was so intently examining Bessler's wheel perhaps it was because he suspected some electric component at work within the wheel.

The static electricity stored in the Leiden jar was generated in the first place by transforming mechanical work into electric energy, usually by means of friction against a glass. Jan Ingenhousz invented an electrostatic machine made of plate glass - in 1746.

It will be recalled that Pieter van Musschenbroek, was the guy who was contacted by Daniel Schumacher, Peter the Great's librarian, charged with buying experimental equipment for his universities and of course it was Schumacher who negotiated with Bessler to buy his wheel for Peter.

My correspondent wondered if, perhaps Bessler had already discovered how to generate and store static electricity in a capacitor, or something akin to the Leiden jar. This he might achieve by including glass plates within his wheel, as per Jan Ingenhousz's method. The capacitor would have to be fully charged before he began. However I have questioned whether it is possible to temporarily power a magnet by discharging a capacitor suddenly. I suspect that the resistance in the magnet's coils might be too high for the sudden discharge of static electricity to overcome, but I'm not knowledgeable about this.

He went on to suggest that if it were possible then it might lead one to suspect that Bessler had designed an electromagnet or even a simple solenoid, powered by sudden discharges of static electricity which could be used to deflect weights on springs, thus overcoming the wheel's reluctance to continue to turn. Bessler, you will recall, said that he used springs but not in the way you think.

I know - it's crazy, but I like it!

JC

Update - and the Conversion of Centrifugal Force Into Linear Force and Motion

Well it seems to me that the Italian interview has gone the way of previous offers from the media. I had an email a couple of weeks ago saying that they were unable to obtain permission to film within the Trivulziana library at Castello Sforzesco, which doesn't surprise me, so an alternative date has been promised for an interview in Rome. I won't be holding my breath in anticipation, but if something concrete does materialise I'll let you know.

My own efforts to reconstruct Bessler's wheel progress at a snail's pace because of frequent calls on my time from other commitments. I'm busy trying to make my garden (yard?) fox-proof at the present. We have a problem with urban foxes and they seem to be living next door - you should see the holes leading to their dens! Now back to matters Bessler.

Some years ago David E. Cowlishaw produced an invention he called a Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster, this was a way of the mechanically generating a unidirectional force, with which it was hoped one could direct a vehicle or a boat, in any direction, or indeed drive a space ship. It would replace gear trains, propellers and jets, as a device for generating thrust

It was said that this device was a consequence of the variable inertia property of matter. I would suggest that it was an example of parametric oscillation.

If Bessler's wheel is successfully built, it too will rely on parametric oscillation, (see my article on 'kiiking') and might show the way to a successful inertial propulsion engine - providing the correct configuration is used, to swing weights around, in such a way that the circular movement ends up producing a unidirectional thrust. In much the same way that an electric motor reversed becomes an electricity generator, so Bessler's wheel reversed, or driven, could be designed to produce a unidirectional force from weights rotating about the wheel axle.

There have been a number of claims to have successfully built an inertial thrust engine but I am not aware of any reliable examples - although someone may correct this impression. The point I am making here is that, just as in theory one could reverse the direction of energy in Bessler's wheel to produce linear force and motion and this would prove that inertial propulsion engines were a valid area of research, so on the other hand would the successful construction of an inertial propulsion engine also prove that Bessler's wheel was a valid area for research.

JC

There would be enough energy output from Bessler's wheel to power every home in the world.

Sorry to bang on about this but it is important in my opinin. There's been some discussions on the forum about how much power Bessler's wheel could generate and it has been argued that Bessler's wheel will never be of any practical use. I quoted some of Bessler's words and one particular sentence that struck me afresh was, "If I were to place, next to a 12-Ell wheel, one of 6-Ells, then, if I wanted to, I could cause the smaller one to revolve with more force and useful power than the large one. I can, in fact, make 2, or 3, or even more, wheels all revolving on the same axis."

I know there are many, both here and on the forum, who are sceptical about the amount of power which would be available from a modern gravity wheel. I have a sanguine disregard for this scepticism and ask you to consider this.

There are two conclusions to be drawn from the above quote; firstly that the inventor could make his wheels more or less powerful, regardless of the apparent external dimensions; and secondly by placing more wheels on the same axle he could increase the power output.

The Kassel wheel was able to lift a chest of stones weighting 70 pounds on the end of a rope, but I have argued that it was designed to turn more slowly to increase its chances of surviving the longevity test. Now picture two or more Kassel wheels, both mounted on the same axle. Together, they should be able to lift 140 pounds or more, depending how many are added. Applying the first conclusion from the above quote means that the 140 pounds lifted could be increased - elsewhere he claims a fourfold increase. So possibly, the 140 pounds lifted could be increased to 560 pounds, or a quarter of a ton. Given due consideration, I am sure that there is enough potential to run a home electricity generator, and overcome the maximum possible load, as long as there are enough wheels of the optimum configuration on each axle.

By 'optimum configuration', I mean a wheel which can only turn one way. Two-way wheels were balanced and needed a push to start them, therefore I do not subscribe to the idea that the mechanisms could turn the wheel in either direction. My idea of mirror image mechanisms is more logical to my mind, in which case removing the reverse-turning mechanisms would reduce an unnecessary additional load imposed on them, and remove their extra weight. This configuration would be less complicated, less likely to suffer problems and probably have more power available.

So I am confident that when it is finally built, Bessler's wheel will provide electrcity for every house - everywhere.

JC

Why the Kassel wheel turned so slowly and what this could mean for us today.

I posted this thought on the Bessler forum but I think the message got lost in the argument I was trying to make, so I repeat the point here.

If Bessler was able to make his first three wheels turn at 50 RPM regardless of whether they were one or two-way wheels, why would he make his final and most robustly built one, only able to turn at about half the speed of the others?

My suggestion was that it was done in anticipation of the the long endurance test, so he could be sure that it would suffer less wear and tear because it would only have to to turn half the number of times, compared to the Merseberg wheel.

We know he claimed to be able to make wheels that could turn slowly or faster, so the slow rotation inherent in the Kassel wheel was deliberate. But there was a disadvantage to this decision, the slower RPM was less powerful, in my opinion, so he added extra weights on either side of the existing ones to give the wheel a little more power, and that is why the Kassel wheel was thicker than the Merseberg one, which was the same diameter, but only two-thirds the depth.  It seems to me that a slower turning wheel might produce less power than a faster turning one? If so that would explain the extra depth to his wheel when compared to the Merseberg one - he needed to add some extra weights.

On the above understanding I suggest that it would be possible to produce a much faster turning wheel complete with extra weights that could generate the kind of power we seek for our modern electrical requirements.

JC