Friday, 22 July 2011

Why the number 5? What does it mean?

In a recent comment, Andre reminded me of something I have become so used to that I had forgotten how extraordinary it is. He said; It's monumentally obvious that the number 5 had a very special and important meaning to Bessler. It pops up everywhere."

I think this is something that people forget or are unaware of or disregard - and yet Johann Bessler was so preoccupied with the number five that he inserted it or hid it,in every single document he published as well as many that never saw the light of day, until recently.

Everyone is familiar with the pentagram and its association with the number five, and Bessler certainly was, because it too, appears, or should I say, is hidden within, many of his drawings. Hidden it may be, but it is easily found once you are aware of his fondness for it. Space prevents me from detailing all the many coded references to the pentagram and the number 5, but you can see some of the evidence at my website

So the question is; why did Bessler include so many references to the number 5?

I suggested that it was to tell us that a gravity-driven wheel, capable of driving another device, has to have five mechanisms to accomplish the task. I also considered it likely that it was intended as a pointer to the most comprehensively encoded text of all of Bessler's publications, chapter 55 of his "Poetica Apologia".

Bessler became known as 'Orffyreus' at about the same time he first exhibited his wheel, a single-direction one, in 1712. So at that time he must have already decided on a simple code, alphabetic substitution, to use as a pseudonym for Bessler, probably designed to suggest that at least he had an interest or was knowledgeable about such things. In addition he added two more forenames to his given one, which was "Elias". The names, "Johann Ernst", do not appear on his birth registration documents but a glance through my website at shows how he also introduced the same 'number five' theme into his pseudonym at or before the time he first exhibited his wheel.

It seems to me that he must have already decided to encode information about his wheel so that, at some point in future, he would be able to show that he was the original inventor, long before he was successful - and to me that is a likely scenario as I have been guilty of the same!

So does the number five relate to the wheel or the code or something else? The problem is that the number five and the pentagram have several connotations. In fact they hold so many commonly understood, subjective cultural and emotional associations, in addition to their explicit or literal meaning, that the potential for misinterpretations are boundless. Connections include,the golden section, Mary Magdalen, the planet Venus and Freemasonry, to mention just some  the morer diverse ones.

I think that Bessler found the best way to produce a gravitywheel which was suffiently powerful to be able to drive an additional piece of machinery, such as a water pump. This design required five mechanisms for reasons which I will discuss in a later blog. Five then formed the core of his subsequent code. He built a large dual direction wheel at Kassel, which required two lots of five mechanisms - one for each direction - hence the ubiquity of the two number fives i.e."5,5". What better use of "5,5" than to write his autobiography "Apologia Poetica", incorporating his code into Chapter 55 and inserting numerous pentagrams into the drawings in other documents.

How delightful to fill the ensuing book and all his drawings with veiled references to the his mysterious number 5s - and sit back and watch as others pored over the clues and tried to make sense of them!


Sunday, 17 July 2011

Maybe Karl described the simplicity of the concept, and not the wheel itself.

I suppose I should mention this on the Besslerwheel form but it doesn't seem to warrant a new thread; it's just my musings again.

When Karl's emissary, Nathaniel von Stapff, first approached Bessler with a view to checking out his claims, he must have made it clear to Bessler that in order to take advantage of the Landgrave's patronage, he would be required to reveal the secret, under an oath of silence of course, of the wheel's construction. Clearly this was a highly contentious issue for Bessler and yet he was persuaded to accept, the issue molified to some extent by the promise of 4000 thalers for the privilege.

So before Karl could even consider such a proposal he had to verify to his own satisfaction that Bessler's wheel actually worked, and since the Kassel wheel would not be finished for several months, and the previous, Merseberg wheel, had been destroyed, the wheel Karl saw must have been the small model mentioned two or three times elsewhere.

This small model may have been Bessler's first fully working model or even one which showed some rotation without providing enough to drive another device and it could only turn one way. It may have been the same one that was found in pieces after his death, and the same one that Jean-Pierre de Crousaz wrote somewaht sarcastically about. So when Karl described its simplicity he was probably describing the basic concept and not the interior of the Kassel wheel.

It is evident that Karl was heavily involved with matters of State and probably never took time to view the interior of the larger wheel, so one might conclude that although the concept appeared extremely simple to Karl, as he examined the model wheel - and that idea was born out by Bessler's own fears that any potential buyer might think he deserved his money back once he knew the secret, in fact the actual working model might have been considerably more complicated.

By complicated I mean that, whereas I have always maintained that Bessler indicated that five mechanisms were necessary to a fully functioning wheel, there might have been as few as two in his model version - a very simple concept and an ideal method of constructing a proof of principle version.


Monday, 11 July 2011

Principle of connectedness, and is five necessary?

Interpreting Bessler's principle of connectedness is a bit like knitting smoke. You can see it but you can't seem to grasp it. I thought I'd got it before, but now I think I really have! But have I? I think so but who knows at this point.

You can read the words 'principle of connectedness' and surmise that it refers to a degree of connection. Is it a vaccilating connection, sometimes fast and sometimes loose? Is it a flexible connection only capable of connection in one direction? Might be. There are several possibilities, but I think I understand what he was referring to now and if I'm right it doesn't in fact refer to the way the actual connections are made, in my opinion refer it refers to something else. I once thought I had found a feature of gravitywheels which no-one else was aware of. Then I met a guy who had come from Australia and had dropped into meet me and we discovered we were both aware of this oddity. I have seen comments which come close to what I'm thinking of but no one seems to have accurately described it. Of course it might not be as mysterious as I'm thinking, but I'm going to write something on the subject and post if for comment.

The other thing that concerns me - am I right in thinking that Bessler was indicating five mechanisms? I still think so, but testing five mechanisms on a wheel takes so much longer because I have to build each of them and attach them, whereas if I just wanted to test the hypothesis with two it would be so much quicker. But Bessler said "If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in the machine it revolves very slowly...", so will my two produce enough mechanical advantage to at least provide proof of the principle? Another rhetorical question for which the answer must be, try it and see.


Tuesday, 5 July 2011

When Bessler's wheel is reconstructed it will match his design exactly.

Recently, a blog or so back, I mentioned that I had found additional confirmation that my design was correct, in one of Bessler's clues. This led me to consider my other interpreted codes and I found further examples which consolidated my view that I was on the right track. Ruminating on this while on holiday I was struck by the curious lack of interest in Bessler's codes, and I realised that as far as I can tell, there are few who support my work on this subject.

I know that the interpretation of these kinds of codes is highly subjective and prone to being influenced by personal prejudices. In other words, I may appear to be guilty of interpreting the facts to fit the theory, or finding what I'm looking for by ignoring equally valid alternatives. Where I have thought that this was possible in some of the interpretations I have posted at, I have admitted that this might be the case, and have said that the results are more speculative. In other cases I have had no doubts and have said so too.

In which case I am surprised to see comments from time to time, on the besslerwheel forum posing possible solutions to apparent codes for which I have already offered my own interpretations and which I am satisfied are correct. Of course they may simply disagree with my views, but sometimes it seems as though other people are unaware of my work in this area and perhaps I should be doing more to broadcast it. Those who follow my progress (or lack of it!) in reconstructing Bessler's wheel might think that I should get on with finishing it, rather than encouraging people to read my decoding efforts just in case they get there first. But I am trying to cover all outcomes including one where I am stuck, or unable to finish the wheel for some reason beyond my control.

I have another website at, where I have published everything I have found which may lead to the decoding of Chapter 55 in Bessler's 'Apologia Poetica'. It seems to me that my descriptions of my work in deciphering that extraordinary document are certainly a step towards full decipherment, yet no one has commented on it and as far as I know, no work is being done on it.

The methodology needed to recognise and decipher these numerous clues is straight forward. It should be obvious by now that I have deciphered far more than the limited amount I have revealed on my websites so I can say with a considerable degree of confidence that what is there is genuine, unless I have said that it is speculative. When I have more up-to-date information that requires additions or amendments to what is there I have added it.

I am writing a long document detailing the additional information concerning both the concept and the design revealed in Bessler's clues, and it will be published once I have succeeded in reconstructing Bessler's wheel. This will prove to those who say that we shall never know whether any new design is in any way similar to Bessler's, that they are wrong and that my design configuration is exactly the same as Bessler's.  I am confident that the design will match Bessler's because of the information I already have. 


Sunday, 3 July 2011

A simple design and a parallell course?

I returned from Spain and found that there were 450 postings on Besslerwheel forum in my short absence! But here's a confession; I am so convinced that I know exactly how Bessler's wheel worked that I have kind of lost interest in other people's theories, and I couldn't face the prospect of going through all 450 postings, so I just looked at the subjects that seemed most attractive to me. I may have missed some interesting comments but it is my impression that most of the ideas which surface there have been discussed previously and more than once.

I suppose this sounds egotistical, but its just a subjective feeling and if I think I'm right then I guess I'm going to think that way. I shall continue to read most of the posts and be interested in any that appear to be closing in on my own ideas, and I'm not so conceited as to think that no one else is working on a parallel course to my own.

Now I'm back I need to concentrate on finishing my proof of principle wheel. It's not as simple as Karl seemed to think, not to build any way, although I'm sure the equivalent of a carpenter's boy today, could make it if he was allowed to study the design for a few minutes. If you can see a finished mechanical system laid bare so all its parts are visible, then I'm sure that in most cases it is easy to understand how it works, but devising the best mechanical arrangement with nothing more than the basic concept to guide you is not so easy. Where in the length of a lever is the best point to attach a pivot? How wide should the angle be that a lever moves through to gain the most mechanical advantgage? Is there a point at which the advantage gained is cancelled out by other reactions? But if all this has been worked out correctly and results in a working model, then to an observer studying the movement, it might indeed look simple and easy to copy.

I have no fear that anyone will gain any insight into my design from the above rhetorical questions, although they apply to my design I don't think that anyone will just stumble on the correct configuration from those few words - unless of course they are on that parallell course!


Wednesday, 22 June 2011

Leave no stone unturned - or the wheel will remain unturned!

It is a strange affliction that drives us to seek the solution to a device which science tells us is impossible. This obsession has driven me to visit places I would never have otherwise gone to; visiting museums, libraries, archives of ancient books, historic sites, demonstrations of ancient machinery, and communicating with as diverse a bunch of people as it hard to imagine. I've given lectures on Bessler at a crop-circle convention, inspected ruined windmills of many kinds, attended an opera based on the life of Bessler, met people from all walks of life and from different countries, done several radio interviews, the most bizarr being one for the palace of the paranormal! I've assisted in an attempt to remotely view Bessler's wheel, allowed someone to try psychometry on a book handled by Bessler, dowsed for his hidden grave and been invited to a spiritualist church in case he had a message for me - he hadn't!

My obsession (I don't think anyone could call it just an 'interest'!) has led me down paths I doubt I would have been interested in or even become aware of without the need to find the key that unlocked the secret - the Jesuits, the Masons, the Pythagorians, the Jewish Kabbalah, Bible codes, alphanumerics, Trithemius' codes, etc etc. This journey led me to the discovery of Bessler's codes and the interpretation of many of them. I was aware that I had discovered some for which I was unable to find the key; I was also aware that I was doubtful about my own interpretations in a small number of cases, but there was one in particular that I was convinced that I had extracted everything there was to find in it.

But....I was reviewing my latest construction and comparing it with my conceptual drawing based on the coded information I had found and I had one of those too rare flashes of inspiration. I was considering an alternative interpretation because of a single tiny apparent superfluity which had bugged me for a long time and for which I had made up interpretations to explain away. As someone on Besslerwheel forum said, manipulating the facts to fit my theory instead of the other way around. So why was this extra little bit there? Once I had asked myself this question, looking at my drawing at the same time, it suddenly became clear why the extra bit was there and it was at that moment that I realised that Bessler had alluded to it several times and I had missed it.

So my wheel is complete, only it doesn't work. The reason being that everything is there except for the inclusion of the connectedness principle which I thought I understood, only I didn't get the whole picture! It is so easy to fool yourself that you think you understand something and yet there is always an element of doubt without the vital unambiguous instructions to inform you. I slipped up, but now I understand what should have been obvious to me some time ago, as it has been in front of my eyes for several years and since I have been posting my discoveries on my web sites, also in front of everyone else's.

So, I can do no more for now because I'm off to sunny Spain,. More when I get back.


Sunday, 19 June 2011

Wheel update

I completed the 'improved' version of my wheel and I thought I'd got it, as it began spinning of its own accord . It completed five turns before stopping and reversing a little. I found one of the mechanisms had 'overshot ' its stop and become locked. I freed it and repeated the experiment and it turned the five or six turns before it locked again. My design concept seems ok but delivery is not so hot. I'm redesigning the way the mechanisms work. They will accomplish the same end in the same way but the rotation of the mechanism allows to much lateral sway and the stops don't always capture the moving levers and stop them.

I know you haven't the faintest idea what I'm talking about but I thought I'd let you know that it still doesn't work, but I'm on the case and confidence remains high!

I've lost count of the number of times my workmanship has proved not up to the task required, but this time I took my time in assembling the parts, but sometimes less haste is difficult to maintain and I admit I rushed the final assembly and to my chagrin, the quality has been less than adequate.  Karl's comment on the simplicity of the design may give the impression that it was easy for a carpenter's boy to make, but it does not preclude the possibility of a ham-fisted mental genius cocking it up, not that I am that either - a mental genius.

If all else fails I will, in the end either publish my design or probably get help in making it, but I haven't reached that stage yet.


Sunday, 12 June 2011

Musings on Gravity

Trevor's comments about Besslers' wheel being a closed system got me thinking (thank you Trevor). I have posted an article at entitled, "Musings on Gravity". Any comments welcomed.


Friday, 10 June 2011

Wheel update and Karl's comment

I'm working on the wheel again and I think (I hope) I know what was wrong with the last design and I'm reconfiguring the mechanism accordingly. I've found a way of making the correct weight rise upwards very quickly, at the right moment. This is something that is crucial in my design and also something that Bessler commented on.

There are other aspects to this design which have to be taken into account when arranging the actual range and position of the parts and this is something that Karl would have seen but almost certainly not recognised for its importance. Hence his comment that it was very simple. I have taken on board my own comments about sphexishness and tried not to make any assumptions in designing the new mechanical arrangenment, with the result that I have discovered that there is a variable which I had not appreciated before. I don't want to talk about it yet, but I will bring it up on the forum at a later date to get some feedback.

Finally to answer a couple of questions emailed to me, this rearrangement or reconfiguration of the mechanics does not mean I have abandoned the concept I have been working on, quite the opposite. The original concept is valid and unarguably the same as Bessler's, but there are variations possible within the design which improve the way it works and that is what I'm engaged on at the moment.

Regarding Karl's view of the machine's simplicity, I think someone commented similarly to my own view on the besslerwheel forum, that perhaps he had not appreciated how complex the design had to be; not complex in appearance, but requiring some very specific arrangement of the mechanism.  This I believe I know from my own work on this design and from the helpful hints given by Bessler.

I gave a small clue recently with my comment about opening windows.


Friday, 3 June 2011

Wheel progress update

Doug made the point that 'A lot of scientific discoveries have been made by accident and even more thru trial and error. Did Bessler design a genuine perpetually turning wheel by trial and error, by accident, or by a dream in the night? Or did he realize the sphexishness of his efforts? Did he then design wheels that would convince everyone they were genuine, even though they weren't genuine?'

It's true that trial and error have played a part in scientific discoveries, but I think Bessler told the truth about his dream giving him the information he needed. I have had those kind of dreams as have others working in this field. But discovering the concept which may lead to the solution is usually followed by a bout of trial and error and might even involve sphexishness!

My own current construction has proven stubbornly stationary. Yesterday I finished the latest prototype and it failed miserably. However I know why and also what to do about it, so I won't be revealing anything just yet. The problem can best be explained by considering a horizontally opening window.

Imagine that it is wide open at 90 degrees from the closed position. The hardest effort to close it is at the start and then it become progressively easier to close . The same thing is happening to my mechanisms. They are slow to begin the move and then they slam into position, but too late. The solution appears to be to reduce their range of movement. It would be like only opening the window half way, to 45 degrees. Easier to close then.

This causes another problem which I also know how to solve - the range of movement of the main weight is reduced to the point of ineffectiveness. I must therefore increase the range of what I call the initiator, so that is what I shall be working on. Bessler described the weight as flying upwards and that is vital in my own design as it has to start and complete its range of movement within a fifth of a turn of the wheel itself, as there are five mechanisms.

I don't feel disheartened by this latest failure, as the end appears to be in sight.

Wednesday, 1 June 2011

Sphexishness in Perpetual Motionists?

I'm indebted to Murilo, a regular on the besslerwheel forum, for the following link to an article about'sphexishness'.

It got me thinking. If, in response to a familar trigger situation, we follow an internal rule or command, maybe ignoring alternative paths to follow, is this an example of 'sphexishness', if it is then I would argue that we are all, to a small degree, infected with this same set of internal rules.

From the above link, briefly, "scientists have coined a word for a certain type of behaviour named "sphexishness", after the female digger wasp, the 'sphex'. She will sting and paralyze a cricket, stash it in a hole in a tree and lay her eggs on it. When the eggs hatch, the baby wasps have fresh cricket to eat. But sphex also has an internal rule. When she brings a cricket to the opening of the hole, she always goes inside for a look around before she drags it in. If the cricket is moved a few inches away while the sphex is in the hole, she will repeat the process, bringing the cricket back to the opening and going inside for a look. As often as the cricket is moved, the wasp will repeat the behavior. Her internal rule calls for her to look in the hole before she drags the cricket inside, and that is what she will do, ad infinitum, every time the cricket is moved."

It's fun to observe sphexishness in animals. I used to have a labrador dog and it amused me that she always turned around a couple of times before settling in her basket. I was told that this was an instinctive action inherited from her forebears, related to trampling down grass to make a bed. This was an internal rule unconnected with her present circumstances but impossible for her to ignore. Even when she grew old and arthritic and barely able to walk she still managed a turn or two before collapsing into her basket. Instinctive behaviour - or inherited? What's the difference?

"The trick, of course, is to be able to recognize it in ourselves. What behaviors do we humans senselessly repeat over and over because of some unquestioned internal rule? What entirely avoidable loop of stupidity are we stuck in?"

True, we seekers of new ways of producing energy do try to envisage new approaches to the problem at each step along the path to the solution, and yet how many of us, on our individual paths, make assumptions commanded thus by some unquestioned internal rule. This rule could be based on some learned behaviour or 'fact' instilled in us from our earliest experiences - or an inherited instinct. But it's not necessarily one rule, whatever that may be, it's the trait of sphexishmess which lies behind our thought processes. To paraphrase a question from the article, What behaviors do we perpetual motionists repeat over and over because of some unquestioned internal rule? What entirely avoidable loop of stupidity are we stuck in?

We have been told that the secret of Bessler's wheel was simple, right? Right! And we know in our hearts that we cannot realistically expect to discover a new unknown law of physics which will allow Bessler's wheel to operate - well I don't anyway! And lastly we, at least, know that Bessler's wheel did actually work. So if we haven't discovered the secret of such a simple device which complies with the physical laws as we understand them - we must be being steered by sphexishness and being guided (misguided?) by some internal rule. We often use phrases such as, "think outside the box", apply lateral thinking", but these concepts still don't allow us to recognise and ignore certain rules inherent within our makeup. How do we circumvent these cast iron cognitive processes?

I think we have to take each step as if we were ignorant of the outcome of every possible configuration of mechanical parts. We must not assume anything, so all bets are off - the situation has drastically changed. Any guarantees, implications, or assumptions regarding its outcome no longer apply.(Thanks to

Then maybe we will find what Bessler found. In the mean time I continue to struggle to find the time to complete my own version of Bessler's wheel. If I'm right then the other method described in this blog, (also known as trial and error) will not be necessary as I think that Bessler did leave enough information behind him to build his wheel. But it's not so easy as just copying what you see in his drawings, but the clues are there.


Friday, 27 May 2011

Wheel update - cylindrical weights for me!

Yesterday was my granddaughter Amy's eighteenth birthday so there was no wheeling done then, and on Monday we are holding a big get together for the whole extended family so I shall have to hide my work from prying eyes! There are some members of my family (not many!) who think I might be on to something and they always come to see how I'm progressing. But on Monday they'll be nothing for them to see.

The weights I've used for the last few years are not suitable for the current construction so I've bought some new fishing weights, made from non-toxic lead. They are ideal as they are round discs.

The problem has been that the former weights were cut from a length of solid steel squared rod, so were rectangular in shape. I drilled a hole through the middle of each one, but slightly off-set and this has worked fine until now! The part of the mechanism to which they attach needs to be able to move freely, but the weights always try to hang downwards which is fine for some positions.In the current design, during rotation the weights continue to try to hang downwards and this causes them to interfere with the mechanism. I can't fix the weights without fixing the mechanism. The answer is simple. I need to use round or cylindrical weights, that can turn without affecting the mechanisms and remain balanced. Cylindrical weights! Sounds familiar.

I know I could use heavy flat washers but they too have problems. The only ones I can find have holes in the middle which are too large. But fisherman's weights are perfect. I only had to drill a hole in the middle to attach them and they are really heavy.

I am using ten weights and I can imagine that with the Kassel wheel containing two systems, one the reverse of the other, Bessler would have used twenty weights, and at 4 pounds a weight that comes to 80 pounds plus of course the weight of the wooden wheel.  This is just my opinion and not to be taken as factual, although I'm convinced!


Wednesday, 25 May 2011

"The clues are there." as David Frost used to say.

Some readers are getting impatient for results but unfortunately other aspects of life have a way interfering with our best intentions. I continue to work on finishing the wheel as and when I can but as I've said before, I sometimes get a few minutes and that is all. My mother-in-law was in hospital but is now in a respite home for a few weeks. We visit her daily for a hour or so, but it is a 40 minute drive each way and we therefore lose a big chunk of each afternoon from our free time. So - time is tight..

What I can say is that the clues continue to support my view that I am on the right track and I will repeat that the best place for getting confirmatory information is the 'Toys' page - MT.138-139-140-141. The problem with this page is that unless you have already arrived at the right design, the page is almost meaningless. What the drawings on that page do, is help to refine the final design. That is what I'm engaged in when I can get the time.

Every drawing on that page supplies information, but they do not represent actual physical designs. As an example I can point out the slightly longer uprights on 'D' compared with 'C' - this is important information and without it would cause a problem which is only discernable if the right design is in front of you. Having said, that I worked out the solution to the problem when I saw it but it was good to have the confirmation that it was why Bessler had drawn the figures in that way and it was deliberate and not an incidental variation.

Monday, 16 May 2011

Bessler's wheel worked by simple mechanics - no fancy physics required.

Now that I know how Bessler's wheel worked it has become a source of some concern to me to see so many people trying promote their own theories about how it worked. There are as many pet theories out there as there are people, I think, and each is as certain as I am that we are right.

Most people agree that it cannot violate any known laws of physics, therefore we must have erred in some way or perhaps be missing some crucial detail about the way gravity works. Perhaps, others have speculated, we need to involve a second natural force such as CF, or ambient temperature variation or some other such extra piece of energy to help our wheel complete just one rotation. In fact it could not be more simple. There is indeed no need to call for some new kind of physical law or even a new interpretation of the existing laws, because Bessler's wheel worked quite readily, getting its energy from the force of gravity (via falling weights Trevor ;-)) with nothing more than the same understanding that we have all been taught. Karl understood that and that is why he was surprised that no one had discovered the solution before.

I know that we have all touched upon the solution and have moved onwards without considering how we might overcome any obstacles that appear to be insurmountable, and that in my opinion, is why Bessler succeed.  Having ruled out all other possibilities he returned to basics.

Friday, 6 May 2011

Websites being revised to include new information about Bessler's wheel.

I've temporarily removed everything from my websites at and -t hey will be updated and republished as soon as possible, but I am completely rewriting them as I have made some significant progress in my research into how Bessler's wheel worked and how it was constructed. Some of the content on the websites needs to be cahnged. This does not mean that everything on the websites was wrong, but there has been some over-complication of the principle, which seems now to be very simple. In fact I cannot understand why I ignored it for most of my life.

The truth is that I think we have all been on the right track at some stage but have not had the advantage I have recently had of being able to study Bessler's clues to the point where I now understand all of them including a lot that I don't think anyone else has noticed, (although I may be wrong about that, as I have no idea what others know or are working on!)

It has become clear to me as I have been building my latest construction, just how many clues there are which are overlooked simply because there are so many of them and they are therefore not suspected of being clues. It is also becoming increasingly obvious that Bessler's claim that 'no one else could have succeeded because no one else took so much trouble to try every possible variation', was nothing more than the simple plain unvarnished truth! As my latest construction progresses I notice small details in his papers which guide me and also cause me to make some corrections to what I'm doing, and to be honest without those clues I wouldn't have chance of succeeding. I probably won't anyway, but I like to think I will!

One detail I was working on, the design of which is revealed by Bessler, seemed to me to be wrong as it appeared to be counter-intuitive, but I thought I'd try it anyway as things weren't working out, and it turned out to be the solution to my problem. This has proved something to me - if and when a gravitywheel is succesfully made and is working, some people have questioned whether we will ever know if will be the same design as Bessler's - my answer is that if mine works I shall know and can prove that it is identical to Bessler's, apart perhaps from some possible minor variations in the sizes of the parts.

As I have now said several times, I shall publish all of this information whether the wheel works or not. I can do this because I know that the clues I've understood are real and apply to the wheel but it is also possible that I have neglected some detail that prevents success. Maybe someone else can complete the task, but first I want to have an attempt at a successful PoP.

Friday, 22 April 2011

My Final POP Prototype? ... Again!

I'm just coming to the end of the construction of my latest design for Bessler's wheel. I've maintained my belief in the same concept which makes his wheel possible for some considerable time as, for me, it is the only explanation for his success. The number of ways one can achieve this is limited but does not rule out severl variations, each of which is designed to move a weight a sufficiently large distance, quickly.

I have always born in mind his comment about the importance of incorporating his 'connectedness principle' within the design and although I had an idea what this might refer to, it wasn't until I saw the first completed mechanism on my new wheel, working, that I realised why he referred to it in this way.

As I was carefully assembling the pieces that made up the mechanism I was musing on the problem I might have in describing my interpretation of his 'connectedness principle' and I realised that it was a very good description, if you had to do it in two words, one of which was 'principle'. 'Connectedness' may seem like a made-up word but it is perfect for this situation.

I hope to more or less finish this version in a day or so, working around visiting familes, because it's Easter, but there will be some minor adjustments to make before it is completely finished. I know this because the connectedness principle requires some adjustments, the precise amounts of which, won't become obvious until the wheel's mechanisms are finished and fitted and shown to be working properly.

I'll let you know what happens, but even if it should fail to rotate I am convinced that I am on the right lines - the only lines to success.


Friday, 15 April 2011 updated again

I have updated again. It occurs to me that perhaps not many people understand why I have continued to search for clues among Bessler's works when I should be trying to build working model of the wheel. The truth is I do both.

Even as I construct a new design, I continue to ponder on Bessler's clues. I cannot ignore the strong hints that Bessler left regarding clues to the wheel's workings. He left textual clues which were designed to both intrigue and mystify. He left pictorial clues which achieved the same result and if all he wanted was to mystify, then it might appear to be a hopeless task to try to make sense of what he left.

But I'm convinced that he wanted us to learn his secret. Consider this. He demonstrated his wheel over a period of at least eleven years during which time it was thoroughly examined by a host of people intent on proving him a fraud - and no one ever found reason to disbelieve his claims. He allowed one person to observe the inside, who was known as a man of utter integrity, who said the claims were real. Even after he left this man's patronage Bessler designed a variety of machines some of which were based on his wheel. He never ever gave up, and maintained his innocence of any suggestion of fraud, 'til his death.

Given the above one must assume that he was telling the truth. It seems to me to be absurd to give up trying decipher his clues when he made it so clear that he wanted posthumous fame as the inventor, if he couldn't have it while he lived. To achieve fame after he'd gone he attempted to ensure that sufficient clues were left beind to help someone to replicate the wheel. The clues had to be obscure or someone might have deciphered everything while he lived, so it was never going to be easy.

Consequently he flooded his published works with clues of an intriguing nature, which by themselves, were of little help in actually building his wheel. He did everything in his power to make people understand that the solution was there if they looked. But so far few people other than myself have researched the possibility that the answer lies encoded within his publications.

My self-imposed task has been to underline any and all clues that I find, but so far they are merely eye-catchers which interest and intrigue us but don't provide the answer. But they were designed to lead to that answer and that is why I list every piece of code I find, with my interpretation of the meaning behind each. That is what my web site at is for.

There is no doubt that we are in desperate straits searching for a new form of energy, if there is a half a chance that Bessler's wheel will answer, than we should be doing all in our power to solve it, replicate it and use it.


Saturday, 9 April 2011

Will Bessler's wheel be a practical solution, if it works?

I wonder hown practical Bessler's wheel wll turn out to be, if it ever gets re-invented. How will the world react to the news that Bessler's wheel had been replicated and proven to work?

80 per cent of electricity globally is produced by steam powered turbines - an amazingly old-fashioned concept when you think about it. These massive generators can produce 2,000,000 hp or 1,500,000 kW. They are huge beasts and I find it hard to picture what size Bessler's wheel would have to be to achieve the same output, and yet George Westinghouse was able to scale up Sir Charles Parsons' original steam turbine, which had already been increased from a 7.5 kW set up to units of 50,000 kW capacity, by some 10,000 times. I'm sure that a similar exercise could be applied to Bessler's wheel to generate enough electricity for individual consumption.

Bessler mentioned the possibility of constructing a number of wheels in series and if they were all mounted on one axle it is obvious that one could scale up a wheel of unrestricted depth, mounted on an axle of say, 50 foot, with similarly enlarged weights operating in the same way as in the original design. But is this the way it would develop? There could be a massive reduction in demand from the centrally placed power generators if there was an equally large uptake of individual designed home electricity generators.

So how much electricity does the average home consume? Hard to answer because different homes use different methods for heating and/or air conditioning but if one wanted to eliminate the need for oil and natural gas then you would require Bessler's wheel to produce more than enough electricity to power everything.

It has proved difficult to obtain a figure but I found a site which suggested that the average American house uses approximately 12,000kwh per year which is about 32 kwh a day. Of course that figure may be wildy out, but as a guide it will do. There are a number of generators currently available, producing that kind of output, some cost more than $10,000! However these do of course include the very expensive diesel engines required to rotate the armature and the replacing of that with the much simpler Bessler's wheel would reduce the price considerably. I'm sure that given the amount of competition, improvenments in design and sheer quantity of entrepreneurial manufacturers, the price would drop just as it does in the world of improving TVs and computers.

This drop in demand for centrally produced electricity could go a long way towards making the nuclear/fossil-fuelled power stations almost redundant. I guess there would still be a need for limited amounts of electricity from a central location for distribution to industrial manufactureres, and those who have not been able to take advantage of the new devices. Perhaps those larger power generators might still be able to adopt an enlarged Bessler's wheel.

I know this is just a dream, but it could happen.


Thursday, 31 March 2011

"No" to more nuclear power. Free, clean, safe energy = Bessler's gravitywheel

The news that the Tokyo Electric Power Company will completely write off four of the six reactors at the crippled nuclear plant, suggests that the time is up for this expensive, potentially hazardous way of generating electricity. Many countries are reviewing their plans to build more 'improved' reactors and perhaps a halt will be called to further developments. I suggest that coal-fired electricity generators would be preferable to the nuclear option. I looked up the comparative costs of the options in the UK and found that one nuclear power station costs about £1.2b to build. A coal-fired one costs a little less at £1 billion. However the coal-fired one has the latest emmission cleaning technolog that reduces pollution to almost zero. The on-going cost of dealing with spent fuel rods from a nuclear reactor are almost limitless.

By comparison, an offshore wind turbine is rated at 3MW but only reaches about 40% of that capacity because of wind conditions. This means that you would need 1166 wind turbines to equal the output of a nuclear reactor! The cost of building them is estimated at £10.4b and would take up 406 square kilometers!

Why are we even considering wind power? It doesn't make economical nor ecological sense. Better to have coal fired power than the other options. However there is a snag. The cost in lives of coal mining is prohibitive and it is impossible to guarantee absolute safety even in the most advanced pits. So what's left?

What's the solution? There is one of course! Above these options Bessler's wheel would rein supreme as the
cleanest,cheapest, safest option.

Am I being presumptive and too naive in suggesting that such a system is even feasible let alone possible? No, the evidence that such a device was designed and built and demonstrated almost 300 years ago in Germany is so well established that it is regarded as a potential solution to the energy crisis in some quarters and is accepted as fact among a few in the higher echelons of the world of physics. We can, and must, continue our investigations into this phenomenon in order to present the world with this c lean, free, safe form of energy.

We have been taught that such a device, driven purely by gravity, is a violation of the laws of conservation of energy. Unfortunately there is an absolutely vast majority who continue to believe this and ignore the evidence. There is sound evidence that Bessler's wheel required no other force than gravity to drive it. What I find extraordinary is the lengths many of those who accept that Bessler's wheel worked, will go to, to explain why it works, summoning additional energies that in my opinion simply won't suffice. For me the truth is blindingly simple, gravity will do the job on its own and there is no conflict with the laws of physics. There is no need to imagine extra impetus from other forces, gravity will do the job. Bessler's wheel proves our teachers wrong and if it is wrong then it is up to we few who know the secret to build a working model, publish the how and the why and spread the information with all possible speed to stop any more of these toxic nuclear generators bringing forward the early demise of the human species not to mention the myriad other forms of life. It could happen.


Thursday, 24 March 2011

How many wheels? How long 'til success?

Someone emailed me recently asking how many wheels I had built. This is a hard question to answer, because you must first define what is a new design and what is a modification of a current design.

I've no idea how many wheels I've built over 36 years, but possibly over a hundred. I think I've modified every single one of them, by adjusting the lengths of levers, and increasing or decreasing the numbers of parts and adjusting the weights and altering the fulcrum points etc, etc. However the number of different designs or concepts by which each wheel was originally designed to work, must be fewer. I did sit down and try to draw rough diagrams of all the different designs I had built over the years but I gave up after I had done about 30 because I kept remembering others and some were so similar at first sight that I wasn't sure how or even whether, to define them as different. I guess that were between 80 and 100 completely different designs, but it could be more, I simply don't know.

In the end I came to the conclusion that I have built over a hundred and possibly two hundred wheels, none of which worked. I say none 'worked' and I mean that although some showed promise, none of them turned for more than about a minute.

The evidence that Bessler's wheel was genuine is so firmly established in my mind now that I cannot give up on my attempts to replicate it. It's like a puzzle that you turn over and over in your mind, you cannot solve it and yet you can't leave it alone, because it looks so simple, but must spend your waking hours worrying at it like a dog with a bone. You might think that I'd want to give up building the models by now, but this is unlikely to happen, unless I become incapable of building them. The truth is I feel as if I'm within a hair's breadth of success. This is because my own successes in decoding Bessler's hidden information has given me some very strong insights into the actual design of the mechanism. I have already worked out why it worked without coming up against the problem of the conservative force of gravity and I've given some strong hints at how this can be. I know that no one accepts my theories any more than I accept anyone else's. So...there is everything to play for and I am determined to prove I'm right by building a working wheel.

I know what has to be done to access the energy of gravity and if my latest model doesn't work I know how to adjust it to make it work. The design as it stands, is set to maximise the effect I have found - but within that design there is a negative reaction which may need reducing so that it doesn't overwhelm the excess force generated. I see it as a delicate balancing act to get just sufficient leverage without compromising the effect generated by the leverage.

I am well aware that there are dozens, perhaps, hundreds of others who share my feelings of confidence, so I'll just wish all of us good luck and hope that someone succeeds really soon.


Friday, 18 March 2011

My wheels are too small!

My efforts to replicate Besslers wheel have been delayed over the last couple of weeks by a medical emergency in the family but I'm back on it now. I had got fed up with constantly finding that my mechanisms got entangled with each other because I made them too large and/or placed them too close to each other. This is a problem that has beset me frequently in the past. However, I'm sure that if I place them slightly further out and therefore less close together this will not reduce their effect ... if they work!

To put it another way, if they would have worked where I originally placed them, then in theory they should work in the new position and the worst that might happene is a reduction in power. We'll see!

The reason it has taken me so long to make this change is due to my habit of using and reusing the same pieces of material to make the mechanisms even for different designs,and fixing them to the same size wooden discs. I had a several of these discs all the same size and the pieces of steel I used were also of a certain length and I only altered them reluctantly.

This crazy false economy led to the mechanisms often being just a little too large for the space they occupied, with the result that they frequently got entangled with the adjacent one or locked up. The various pieces are so full of holes anyway, that if I continue to use them, they will just fall apart, and this also applies to the wooden disc that everything is mounted on. I finally accepted that I needed everything on a bigger scale and with more space to operate.

It is probably thought that making the mechanisms the right size from the start is an obvious and simple thing to achieve, but the trouble is that usually I do not know how much leverage it will take to lift a weight for a particular design, until I build it, and then to discover that there is not quite enough room to accomodate the length of lever required, means either redesigning another part of the mechanism to reduce its size, or enlarging the space available by using a larger disc.

I had made a partial move towards new material but using the same sized disc still limited the space. I now have a much larger disc and I'm using some new aluminum and steel for the mechanisms and hoping that this time everything works without locking up. Of course it may not drive the wheel but at least it should operate as I designed it.


Wednesday, 9 March 2011

More Bessler findings at

I used to be in a small research group called called BORG, which stood Bessler Orffyreus Research Group. We thought we might succeed where others had failed in finding the solution to Bessler's wheel by trying to brain-storm a solution. For a while it was stimulating and exhilarating and we thought we might succeed, but as time went by, one by one, we began to drop out. The enterprise eventually ran out of steam and we went our separate ways. Unfortunately I lost everything to do with that episode due to a computer malfunction

One member of that group was a guy called Mikey Ned who has been a long time researcher into this subject. He has recently updated it at and it has some interesting things to say about the measurement scales used in Bessler's drawings.
I have always been puzzled that no one appears to take any notice of Bessler's most widely known drawings. I refer to those which appear in Das Triumphirende. Each drawing has a purpose and they are stuffed so full of clues of an obvious kind, that it seems, to me at least, equally obvious that there are other clues of a more subtle kind.

I could mention for instance the presence of the pendulums (or pendula if you want the correct term). No witness ever recorded seeing them although they were mentioned by Bessler. Their presence was explained by a rather weak rationalsation which was really unnecessary. The reason for their presence is obvious to me even if it isn't to others. If you zoom in on a good scan of the drawings it is possible to see the great care taken with every line in each drawing.

It's interesting for me to see what someone else has posted about their own studies into this area of research because I sometimes think I'm the only one who has tried to make sense of the drawings which Bessler clearly laboured over. Those drawing are not just decorative they hold a wealth of clues and if we can only extend our knowledge of what is in them there is just a chance we can solve this puzzle that way instead of trying to do the way Bessler did, through a mixture of intuition and trial and error.
Good job, Mikey!

Sunday, 27 February 2011

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 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.


Saturday, 19 February 2011

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.


Tuesday, 15 February 2011

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.

Copyright © 2011 John Collins

Wednesday, 9 February 2011

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.


Saturday, 5 February 2011

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

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.


Friday, 28 January 2011

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.


Tuesday, 18 January 2011

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.


Saturday, 8 January 2011

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, 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.


Wednesday, 5 January 2011

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 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.


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.

Monday, 27 December 2010

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


Wednesday, 22 December 2010

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...... 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!



Friday, 17 December 2010

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. 


Saturday, 11 December 2010

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, 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!

Thursday, 2 December 2010

Addition to

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 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.


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

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