If at first you don't succeed....try, try, try again

Recent poems posted here prompted me to write something last night.  I write them for myself usually, although there is one of my earlier efforts at the beginning of my Bessler biogrpahy, 'Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?' - and it's also on my web site at http://www.free-energy.co.uk/html/my_poem.html

Here it is:-

You think you've found the right solution

To continuous revolution,

Without the need for energy,

except of course for gravity.

It's common to the likes of us

Who like to think Orffyreus

Was genuine, and not a crook

Who fooled us all with gobbledygook.

But we get fooled ourselves you see,

When ideas, new, convince us we,

Have found the secret to the wheel.

We tell the world we will reveal,

The details of our cherished notion

That we found perpetual motion - 

But then we find we were deceived

And it was wrong which we believed.

The wheel stayed still, it didn't turn

We smash it up and let it burn.

But soon we're back with a new concept,

The disappointed tears we wept

Forgotten in the blinding light

Of revelation in the night.

This time for sure the wheel will spin

Endlessly - but who will win?

JC

The weights on Bessler's wheel describe a path similar to the letter 'R'.

I noted a comment on the besslerwheel forum by jim_mich, while I was away in Spain, that I had at one time espoused a belief that the movement of the weights in Bessler's wheel followed the path shown in the avatar, I use on the forum, the Yin Yang symbol.  I used to think the weights moved on a path similar to the double curve which runs across the middle of the circle.  It's true that I did cherish this idea for a time and indeed I discussed it in my book 'Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved'.  But I came to the same conclusion that Jim did, that there was no way to incorporate such a design within any of the wheels I was working on, and I no longer subscribe to this idea and have not done so for some time because conflicting evidence appeared to suggest another design altogether.

People must be aware of other 'coded' information I have discussed and in particular the alphabetic substition of Bessler's name and his adoption of two extra forenames.  (see www.theorffyreuscode.com) He was born Elias Bessler and added the Johann Ernst at some point before he became famous, so that E. Bessler became JEE Bessler.  Given the alphabetic substitution to turn Bessler into Orffyre and thence to Orffyreus, I pointed out that JEE became WRR. 

Now I could understand the doubling of the letter 'E', given his (and mine!) obsession with the number five and 'E' being the fifth letter to give two fives - and I could also appreciate the inclusion of the 'W' in the subsequent alphabetic substitution, which also provided two fives in the form of double 'V' - but before the alphabetic substitutions of 'W' he had an apparently meaningless 'J' and after the alphabetic substitution he had an equally meaningless 'R'.  To what purpose could these two letters of doubtful value be attributed?

I assumed that he simply fancied the name Johann and with alphabetic substitution, the inital letter gave him the useful 'W', and the equally valuable 'E' gave him the 'R' and that, it seems to me must have been of equal importance since he incorporated it in every logo he signed all his letters with .  I reproduce two examples of the logo below so that you can see it.  I am convinced that the letter 'R' mimics the paths of the weights but it has to be interpreted correctly, which I believe I have done.  So there is your clue for today.

JC

It's five mechanisms, not four or eight.

I discussed the importance of the number 5 to Bessler, here last year (see my web sites at http://www.besslerswheel.com/  and http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/ )  In my opinion there is so much information to be had from Bessler's books that just stress the importance of this number that I fail to see how anyone can argue with the obvious fact that Bessler intended to convey something of importance to do with the number 5.  I am therefore astounded to be told from time to time that I have imagined all of it, or that I who has become obsessed wit it!  

The only thing we don't know for sure is why.  Well I do, but until I finish my wheel I cannot prove it, but I have worked out why it is necessary to have five mechanisms and why equal numbers of mechanisms won't work, at least not with this design.  

Fischer von Erlach described hearing the sound of 'about eight weights landing gently', etc.Why was he not sure about the number of weights he heard?  He was a widely respected and talented architect and engineer and seems to have tried to carry out a thorough examination of the wheel, yet he had some doubt about how many weights he could hear. 

Let us suppose that Bessler covered a weight in one mechanism with sound-deadening material - he mentioned that he used felt in an earlier wheel - so the other weights made a heavy knock as they landed, but the remaining weight made some kind of soft thud or perhaps it landed silently on a spring and made no noise at all. Did Erlach hear another sound but as it wasn't the same as the others, he attributed it to some other action and therefore concluded that there were about eight weights, whereas I argue that there were ten - five for each direction the wheel rotated.  The only suspicion he might have had was that there was a gap in the regular rhythm  of sounds he heard, but when you take into account the sounds he must have heard from the reversing mechanism which might not have been evenly synchronised with the forward moving ones you can see how he might have had doubts.

So guys, forget the eight weights or the four weights, it's five for each direction - and they operate in pairs.

JC

A belated expression of thanks to my first customers - and on with the show!

I've been looking for some old stamps for my grandaughter who has decided to start collecting them and I came across a huge bundle of envelopes I received from people all over the world when I first published my book. I have almost 400 stamps from so many different countries.

I'm amazed at how many I have and I think I should belatedly publish a word of thanks to all those people who took a chance on sending me a cheque to buy my book.  There was no PayPal nor anything similar back in 1997 and it must have seemed a risky purchase to send a cheque from one side of the world to the other.  The cheques themselves took six weeks to clear if they were in any denomination other than Pounds Sterling, which most of them were, but I couldn't leave people waiting all that time so I just sent the books and hoped the cheques would clear.  They all did and for that I'm extremely grateful.  

So I'd like to offer a belated thank you to all those people who risked a sum of money, with very little information about myself.  I guess we have grown older and wiser since then and are  much more aware and wary of internet scams than we were back then.  The internet was a new and exciting toy whose dangers most of us didn't fully appreciate.  Not only are we now much more clued up on the dangers of the internet but we are more cynical unfortunately.

My Spanish holiday gave me some much needed thinking time and I discovered some more information which has enabled me to produce a more accurate picture of the precise proportions of two parts of the mechanism.  I'm constantly amazed at the amount of information Bessler managed to secrete in various places under our eyes, without our noticing.  Anyway back to work, time marches on!

JC

300th anniversary approaching and no sign of success .... so far!

We're almost at the 300th anniversary of Johann Bessler's first exhibition - and I've a feeling it's going to be a bit a damp squib!  No sign of success either here or elsewhere although that may change very soon.  

I'm going away to Spain for a couple of weeks very early on Tuesday morning and I'll have to close the comments facility, but as soon as I get back it will be open again and I'll be back at work on my own wheel, unless of course someone has beaten me to the winning post and published their own working model!  I won't close the comments 'til Monday evening.

There have been a number of people who have said that they will have a working model by the 300th anniversary, myself among them, but I suspect that they won't materialise (mine won't).  My own work has gone well and I think that I have the right design if only roughly, and getting it perfect has proved more difficult than I anticipated.  But as I continue to build, adjust, build and adjust I learn more and more (about how to build a stationary wheel!).  I know that certain people will say I'm just fooling myself and my design will never work (I don't need to name you guys!) but I have something up my sleeve that may astound you once you know.

I'm taking a small computer with me in the hope of finding free wi-fi and I may post something if I can.

So good luck to all of you who are building or designing and I'll see you again soon.

JC

Divide the toys page into five parts.

I feel that the clues I have published may be too subtle for some to accept. This puzzles me, but of course I've had many years to study them and get inside Bessler's mind.  Obviously some people think I may be fooling myself but I have good reasons for thinking the clues are deliberate and real.  I never intended to give anything away when I published the clues and therefore by themselves they may seem unimportant, but I hope to explain why they are helpful in discovering the solution to Bessler's wheel.  I won't publish any more as I shall be away for a two weeks and will have to close the comments facility until my return.  I am taking a small computer with me and if I can find a wifi hotspot somewhere then I'll try to write something.  So, in the mean time....

3 days to go - 7th clue.  The items in the Toys page in MT, numbered 138, 139, 140 and 141, are labelled A, B, C, D and E (1, 2, 3, 4, 5).  There is an additional hand-drawn item, a spinning top, which includes in the notes attached to it the number 5 (five again!). You can rather neatly divide the drawing labelled 'A' horizontally into five equal divisions.  You can run the horizontal lines across to the left and find that they match well with item 'B' and further across to the stork's bill/lazy tongs.

It has always seemed clear to me that the items labelled 'A' and 'B' are the same things - and with the five divisions in place, show they are also five repeated versions of items 'C' and 'D'.  'A' is shown with the five mechanical arrangements labelled 'C' and 'D' in an open position, and 'B' is the same but closed.

But item labelled 'E' is also similar - you should think of it as 'C' and 'D' linked together.

In other words, as I said in another post, the drawings are not what they appear to be, at first sight.

One more thing.  I could never understand why Johann Bessler added four numbers to the bottom of the page and I assumed that it was to show which pages he had omitted.  In fact this doesn't make sense because this is the last page and followed on from 137, which would have been the last page before he added the toys page. But four numbers doesn't relate to the five (or six) drawings he labelled, but here's an idea - 138, 139, 140 and 141 totals 558.

JC

Bessler's pendulums are not just pendulums.

Only 5 days to go  -  6th Clue. It seems that my suggestion that the pendulums are more than mere decorations is considered highly doubtful, so I shall have to try to convince the sceptics with some more clues.  I would like to convince most people that the secret lies in "taking various illustrations together and combining them with a discerning mind, it will indeed be possible to look for a movement and, finally to find one in them," - Bessler's words, but I couldn't have put it better myself.  

He published the Merseberg drawing in its original state in 1715, in Grundlicher Bericht, and the MT was not completed with the Toys page until about 1723 and yet in Apologia Poetica, also published in 1715, he had already hinted in quite strong terms that he had left a number of clues behind in case he died before the secret was out.

I'm surprised that I'm having to say this but perhaps I should point out here that the pendulums, as shown in his illustrations, are not to be taken literally, in other words they are not what they appear to be.- that would have been far too obvious  For instance, it's no good calculating their period of swing.  They weren't there as speed limiters or modifiers, but they were inside the wheel, but not in their current form.  If you think about it for a moment you realise that it would have been crazy for Bessler to put anything which was easily read and understood correctly as a clue; it had to be opaque, even to the serious researcher. 

I am not going to add any drawings here, but if you are interested, take a look at the Merseberg wheel illustration in Das Triumphirende.  Two hints here, firstly you all know the main wheel includes a pentagon aligned on the rope that passes behind the wheel, the sloping hatch marks are to help fill in the missing parts for one of the pentagons, of which there are two.  Why is the pentagon important?

The second hint is that there is clear evidence that the wheel facing you should be drawn larger than it is shown. Check out the tops of the two right hand pendulum pillars numbered 12, they're higher than the others for a reason, but the two wheels in the picture are the same height. The enlarged circle includes the outer end of the left side of the horizontal weight and also coincides with the right edge of the picture. I leave it to you to decide how one might make use of this.

More clues in other drawings to follow.

JC

The real purpose of Bessler's pendulums.

Work on my wheel has stopped, currently, due to unexpected developments within my family circle.  I may have to leave things 'til my return from holiday.  Unfortunately I will be away on the 300th anniversary, and because finishing the wheel will be delayed, that means my intention to publish everything will also be delayed, but I will get back to work on it as soon as I can.  

I'm sure there may be some who think I'm welching on my promise to share what I've been working on and in order to try to satisfy those who think that way, I will post a few more clues before I go on holiday.  Upon my return I shall try to finish the document and the video asap and publish both freely.

It has often been said that we won't know if a successful wheel was the same as Bessler's or not.  But I think we will know.  I, for one, have based my design on some drawings he left and it will become very clear which ones.

Johann Bessler left dozens of clues about how his wheel worked and  expected that someone would eventually work out all the clues and make a working wheel.  But there have been mistakes, and incorrect assumptions and mostly a complete dismissal of his clues.

(5th clue)

The commonest error is the belief that his comment on the front of His Maschinen Tractate applied strictly to the drawings it contained.

“N.B. 1st May 1733. Due to the arrest, I burned and buried all papers that prove the possibility. However, I have left all demonstrations and experiments since it would be difficult for anybody to see or learn anything about a perpetual motion from them or to decide whether there was any truth in them because no illustration by itself contains a description of the motion; however, taking various illustrations together and combining them with a discerning mind, it will indeed be possible to look for a movement and, finally to find one in them.”

In fact only the toys drawings in MT contains useful information.  There are additional hints in MT137 and in the letters 'A' which he used in MT, and there are hints too in some of the illustration numbers.  The remaining drawings he was referring to are the four which appeared in his Das Triumphirende and of course Grundlicher Bericht and in a small way the one at the end of Apologia Poetica.  These four drawings which contain the infamous pendulums also hold almost everything you will need to build his wheel.

It is a source of continual amazement to me that no one seems to have grasped the real reason for the presence of the pendulums. They are there to help you construct Bessler's wheel as he designed it.  I can't put it more plainly than that.  Now I have suspected this for almost the whole time I've been studying Bessler and I have a feeling that I'm not alone.  I think that the others who, like myself, have suspected the true purpose for the pendulums have kept quiet in the hope that they might succeed through tireless experimentation of the many many variations available using the visible clues.

NOTE

No pendulum was ever described by a witness.

Bessler said that they were required to even out any inconsistencies in the rotation of the wheel, but the truly equable nature of the wheel's rotation was commented on in writing more than once.

I suggested that the pendulums were there to make the rather dull illustrations more interesting, but even as I wrote that I in 1997 I was already convinced that the true reason was so that someone "with a discerning mind etc etc."

I have other clues of a more specific nature concerning the drawings which I will post in the next few days.

PS There is a copyright notice at the bottom of the page but I have no objection to these pages being commented on elsewhere and the material copied and pasted as long as proper acknowledgemetn to me is given.  A reference such as  http://johncollinsnews.blogspot.co.uk/   will suffice.

JC

Gravitywheel - Catch 22?

I note recent comments suggesting that all designs should be shared, so others can study them and build and experiment with them.  I have promised to share mine if the wheel works or fails, but in my experience designs are dismissed by the majority and maintaining that you are right only leads to calls for a proof of principle wheel - is that a catch 22 situation?  Design is ignored without a PoP model but you can't build a PoP model unless you have the correct design.

The definition of catch 22 in the book of that name (Joseph McLennan) is "a situation in which a person is frustrated by a paradoxical rule or set of circumstances that preclude any attempt to escape from them".  

Now that has a familiar ring to it.  Our situation requires us to build a wheel which uses the force of gravity to move a number of weights causing a wheel to rotate continuously.  Unfortunately we are frustrated by the paradoxical rules which say that what we wish to achieve is impossible, even though it has been done before.

"Begging the question" is a type of logical fallacy in which a proposition is made that uses its own premise as proof of the proposition. In other words, it is a statement that refers to its own assertion to prove the assertion.  I think it was Helmholtz who said that perpetual motion machines must be impossible because  no-one had ever succeeded in building one that worked. Therefore, such machines must be impossible. If they are impossible it must be by reason of some natural law preventing their construction. This law, he said, could only be the law of Conservation of Energy.  That is also, ironically, a circular argument.

JC

'I found the solution where every other intelligent person looked.'

The Third clue expanded upon.

Bessler said in Apologia Poetica, "These foolish ravings of my enemies will be held up to total ridicule by all intelligent people, who, with true understanding, have sought the Mobile in a place no different from that in which I eventually found it."

I would paraphrase the above and reduce it, as 'the words of my enemies will be ridiculed by all clever people who have already looked for the solution where I found it.'  Or to put it another way, 'I found the solution where every other intelligent person looked.'

I described this a clue, but it seems almost no clue at all, it is so innocuously presented.  Bessler must have had a piece of information in mind when he wrote the sentence, so what would he have found useful for his wheel in the previous designs which had never worked?  What possible feature might he have been able to take advantage of?  The most obvious fact is that the wheels did not rotate. Regardless of how the weights were arranged and could move, the wheels remained stationary.  How might he have found the answer with that knowledge?

JC 

Gravity, gravity - all you need is gravity!

This isn't really a clue, it's just common sense.

If you are one of those who, like myself, believe that Bessler told the truth then you will know that what follows is demonstrably true.  Whether you include two, three, four or five weights or more, on your overbalancing wheel you will have discovered that it still ends up with the wheel in perfect balance, stationary.  When the wheel comes to rest it will have either a single weight at six o’clock, or a pair of weights on either side of six o’clock.  That is a fact.

The problem lies in the design.  If it requires that gravity makes the weight move from the inner orbit to the outer orbit, thus inducing overbalancing and limited rotation, the wheel will come to a stop after a brief rotation.  If you want to make an overbalancing wheel spin continuously, then yes, you must  arrange for the weight to fall into an outer orbit on one side of the wheel... then you have to find a way to lift each weight back up to its original position at least once during each rotation so that it can fall again.  You don't have a choice. It simply won’t work if you design it so that the weights only move outwards, under the influence of gravity, as the wheel turns.  It is not enough to think that the fallen weight will be raised as the wheel turns and somehow fall inwards again at some point. You need an additional force to lift the weight, or move it back inwards again - Bessler didn't exactly say so, but he implied that that additional force was also gravity too - but a separate packet of it.

JC

One bit of work done by gravity, is one packet of energy used.

I have been asked to clarify what I mean by the phrase, 'a packet of energy' used on my website at http://www.besslerswheel.com/html/conservative_force.html

If I drop a book on the floor I say that its fall has consumed one packet of  gravitational energy.  If I drop two books on the floor at the same time there will still be only one packet of energy used, but if the two books drop one after the other then two packets of energy have been used.  If a very heavy dictionary and small pocket diary fall at the same time only one packet of energy has been used.  So the number of packets of energy used depends purely on whether they happened to fall  together or separately.

If I drop a bag of billiard balls on the floor, I can calculate how much energy was used by weighing the bag of balls and measuring how far they fell -  weight times vertical fall gives us a figure indicating the work done by gravity.  I could also weigh the bag and each ball separately and work out how much work was done for each item.  If I then added those figures together the resulting total would be the same as for the bag of balls. So it doesn’t matter how far they fell or how heavy they were - all we are interested in knowing is whether they fell together or separately and that is why I call the amount of work done by gravity, a packet of energy consumed.

The reason I use this phrase is to try to explain how one half of a pair of weights can move the other half without coming into conflict with the conservative nature of gravity. Their falls do not happen at the same time and therefore their new positions can be used advantageously to rotate the wheel.!

I realize of course that this phrase is normally used in connection with photons or gravitons but in this instance there is no direct connection with that concept.

JC

The Bessler-Collins gravitywheel.

There was a comment on here and I've had some emails asking me why my wheel is taking so long.  People have said that it sounded very complex - maybe too complex to be similar to Bessler's wheel.  So with only 21 days left 'til the 300th anniversary I'm sharing some of the details of its build although I doubt you will find it very illuminating - it's not meant to be - yet!

I think I shall finish it in time but I'm not quite there yet.  I am committed to being away for a couple of weeks at the beginning of June so I may save the result 'til I return - or I may not - it probably depends on whether it works or not!  I'm disappointed to be away on the very day we should be remembering Bessler's first exhibition but it can't be helped. Families make arrangements without considering the possibility that they might clash with an important date in my Bessler calendar!

The backplate on which it's all mounted is three feet wide.  There are five mechanisms for reasons I understand but which are not immediately obvious at first sight.  Each mechanism has ten parts plus two weights, so in total the whole wheel has 60 parts, plus the axle.  I wish it had eleven parts per mechanism then it would total 55!

The axle runs all the way through the wheel - for those who have suggested that it didn't.  The mechanisms employ the 'kiiking' principle and the wheel is designed to turn in one direction only.

There are no springs employed in my version although I could find a use for them if required, but the scissor linkage otherwise known as "stork's bill", or" lazy tongs" is present.

The method of working is readily apparent to a casual observer however longer study would be necessary to appreciate the finer points of detail without which it would fail.  If it works, the wheel will begin to spin spontaneously as soon as any brake mechanism that might be applied is released.

The main reason why it has taken so long is that although I had the basic principle, there were some parts of the mechanism whose precise design arrangement was open to interpretation so I had to test each configuration to determine which worked the best.  I have now got the mechanism arrangement I think works best so all I have to do is complete all five and test the wheel. 

I'm convinced that even if it doesn't work the principle is sound and will lead to someone succeeding in making a working wheel. Watch this space.

JC

Gravity lies at the heart of all movement on the planet.

In yesterday's post I was trying to say that the traditional explanations of why gravity cannot be used to drive a wheel continuously, must be wrong because the evidence that Bessler's wheel was genuine is so compelling.  I wanted to get away from the oft-parroted words we learn from text books, wikipedia etc., and think for ourselves. 

I have tried the well-tested route of analogies, one of Eric Laithwaite's favourite ways of explaining things, but people still get side-tracked into irrelevant details.  They simply don't get the allusion to gravity being analogous to the wind.  The origin of the wind is always introduced no matter how many times I say 'you have to look at this as a local effect'.

Instead of trotting out the same old stuff, why don't we think about the problem and use our commons sense?

Gravity is continuous, we know that because when we drop something it falls to the floor - it happens every time!  

I can pick up a book off the floor and replace it on a shelf and restore the potential energy lost in sending the book to the floor.

Let's say I fire a rifle horizontally, the bullet hits the ground 500 yards away at a point level with the ground I'm standing on.  At the same time I drop another bullet from my hand level with the rifle and both bullets hit the ground at the same time.  Gravity was only responsible for making the bullet drop to the ground.

Those are the features which define a conservative force.  It is a continuous force; energy lost by it is capable of being restored by reversing what happened; and it is not necessary to take into account the path of a fallen object when calculating the work done by gravity.

Now it is always said that for those reasons gravity cannot be used as we wish to use it.  But each of those definitions can apply to wind and water currents, so why separate them from gravity?

Yesterday the sun was introduced again.  My fault, I mentioned it.  The thing is that the features of a conservative force mentioned above must be applied locally.  We don't know where gravity originates so we just need to look at how it manifests itself here on earth.  I tried to accommodate those who wish to include the sun in their argument by fixing on the fact that air is affected by gravity just as everything else is.  We know that the air is more dense closer to the earth's surface because of gravity.  It is analogous to the oceans of the planet.  If you dived to the bottom of the deepest ocean you would be crushed by the sheer weight of water above you, and a small bubble of air would escape from your flattened lungs and shoot towards the surface of the water.  

As it rose the bubble would get larger and larger.  Air at the surface of the eath is like that and as it rises each molecule gets larger and less dense.  

Yes the sun affects the air currents but gravity holds it down and would do so without the sun.  Solar energy may be responsible for the winds that blow, but gravity enables them to rise and fall, and create varying pressures. Gravity acts on molecules of whatever is with its field whether it's air, water or lumps of lead. The conservative force of gravity lies at the heart of all movement on the planet.

I wish everyone would accept Bessler's statement that the weights are themselves the PM device, the ‘essential constituent parts’".  Then we could go about trying to explain why that can be so.  I have tried and will continue to try to find the solution but sometimes I feel as if I'm banging my head against a wall of taught science.  No-one thinks for themselves any more but takes everything they are told for granted - parrot fashion.  I'm not saying that people don't understand what they have learned but sometimes it is easier to assume that that is all there is to the facts; there are no other factors to be considered, when perhaps a little lateral thinking might help us to understand how to solve the problem.

JC

The Elephant in the Room.

I think we are due for a sea change or should that be a paradigm shift?  A paradigm shift occurs when axioms, long trusted as self-evident truths, gradually get weakened by contradictory evidence previously ignored as being anomalous. The result usually involves a new way of thinking which accommodates the anomalies.  A sea change, in modern parlance, tends to indicate a complete change from what was thought to be true in the past, but it seems to be more of a transformation than a change.

It seems to me that there is an elephant in the room!  If an elephant was in a room it would be impossible to overlook; thus, people in the room who pretend the elephant is not there have chosen to avoid dealing with a looming big issue. There are certain inescapable facts attached to the Bessler legend which are ignored or circumvented, the result of which is that the possibility of using gravity as an energy source has been dismissed.

One, Karl the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel validated the wheel.  It is inconceivable that he would be involved in fraud.

Two, no evidence of fraud was ever found, and Bessler never stopped declaring his innocence.

Three, Bessler stated that "these weights are themselves the PM device, the ‘essential constituent parts’s".

Four, there are no other forces sufficient in either speed or strength, to react quickly enough or strongly enough to assist gravity in turning the wheel.

Conclusion, Bessler's wheel was enabled to turn by the force of gravity alone.

So let us suppose that the wheel was genuine and it depended on gravity alone.  We are told gravity is a conservative force and therefore incapable of supporting continuous rotation.  Why should that be so?  Wind is conservative, so is a stream, but they support continuous rotation.   I used to liken the action of  gravity to the wind, or a stream of water but people get too hung up on where the wind comes from, what causes it, the action of the sun etc., to consider the implications of that fact.

I think the sun is not the ultimate cause of the wind, gravity is.  Air can be warmed by volcanic action or man's actions so not necessarily the sun, but gravity is essential.

The passage of air molecules (mainly a  mixture of nitrogen oxygen and carbon dioxide)  from a higher pressure area to a lower one, is discerned as wind.  The lower pressure air results when its molecules are warmed and it expands and rises, leaving the surround molecules to rush into the potential vacuum which would result. When the air warms it expands and becomes less dense.  The higher you go the thinner the air becomes until there isn't enough to breathe. Why is that?  The simple reason is that the air is subject to gravity the same as everything else is.

Air close to the surface of the earth is at its densest with the molecules most tightly packed together.  When warmed the molecules move further apart so become less dense.  They also rise, squeezed upwards by the denser cooler air at ground level. 

In Bessler’s wheel the lead weights were composed of lead molecules.  It doesn't change shape unless heated to melting point so when used as a weight it is uniformly heavy unlike the more volatile air molecules. Gravity lies at the heart of  the motion of the air molecules and the sun is only responsible for warming them.  Without the action of gravity on our atmosphere there wouldn't be any wind - there wouldn't be any air either!.  Gravity enables the air molecules to move continuously creating the air currents which drive windmills.  And it’s gravity that enables the weights in Bessler’s wheel to rotate it continuously.

The air molecules which, in the wind drive the windmill and in the lead weights can drive the gravitywheel,.are each driven by the force of gravity.

JC

Gravity is a conservative force

I see the old controversy about whether gravity is a conservative force or not, and what that means, continues to rage on the besslerwheel forum. I have my own opinion about that but it seems to me that however you define it, it was what enabled Bessler's wheel to work.  There are some senior members who don't accept that his wheel derived its power solely from gravity and that is the orthodox view.  I know some readers on this forum also share that opinion but I hope to change their minds soon.

What interests me is the question of what drives the wheel if it isn't gravity.  We can see that it uses weights and it seems logical that if it requires weight then the wheel won't spin in the gravityless conditions of outer space so if it isn't gravity alone, what additional force is used to complete each rotation?

I've seen and considered suggestions such as ambienmt temperature changes, static electricity, magnets, the  Coriolis effect, centrifugal force, springs, air pressure, electromagnetism, inetial thrust changes etc etc. I'm sure I've missed some out but it seems to me that these are inadequate for the task being either too slow to react, too weak or simply too difficut to employ in what was reportedly a simple design.

So we are left with gravity - I think what we have been taught is correct but there is a simple way around the problem which I explained on my website at http://www.besslerswheel.com/html/conservative_force.html

I think we have to accept Bessler's word that it was the weights which providd the energy to drive the wheel and they required the presence of gravity to work.  No one has come up with a credible alternitive force in my opinion.

JC

Memo to self: working model only - no paper designs!

Almost since I published my first book, I've had the privilege of being asked for my opinion on other people's designs for gravitywheels, and I have been perfectly willing to take a look at each one.  I have always warned the person in advance that I might not accept that their design was valid but that I could be wrong.  I have so far never received anything I thought held promise and even after receiving both warm thanks and not so warm ones, it wasn't that which decided me against looking at any more.  I have been working on my own design ideas and building model wheel since I was in my 20s and that was a long time ago, and realised that if I was given a design to look at and found that it was similar to one I was currently working on, how could I prove that I had come up with the design myself - and had not taken the idea from anything anyone sent to me?

Once that thought took hold I decided against looking at any more designs, partly to avoid giving people bad news, and I am the first to admit I could be wrong, but also to avoid getting into priority disputes and ensuing accusations and counter-accusations.

However I fell into a trap of my own making this week by over-reacting to comments made on this blog, and my resolve not to consider another person's design  weakened temporarily. The result is that someone who has their own cherished idea of how the wheel worked feels slighted simply because I disagreed with them, even though I could be wrong.

This episode has highlighted something I should have been all too well aware of by now and have frequently urged others not to do - it's no good posting designs for gravitywheels because no-one will accept anything except a working model. So regretfully I have decided against sharing my design for now and will continue to try to build my own working version because I know from bitter experience that no one will accept my design without the proof of principle that validates it.  

I apologise for taking this decision but it seemed to me that I was about to do what I have urged people not to do too many times to count. I can't believe I almost fell in to the same trap I have warned others against so many times!

But my personal opinion remains the same, my design will work!  I had planned to finish it on or around the 300th anniversary but if it's a few weeks late it's only my own reputation that will suffer and the wheel will make its appearance when it's ready.  It isn't that the wheel does not work, but that the mechanism isn't quite achieving what it is designed to do and there are a number of variations available which have to be built in order to see which is the most effective.  I'm happy that the basic concept is right as is the overall design.

Once this current build (which has been going on for months!) is tested and found wanting I will share the information, but I cannot give up the construction of  potentially successful wheel now, just because the anniversary is nearly here.

JC

One Pound plus four Pounds equals five pounds.

Fourth Clue - yeah, I know I said 'no more', but I might as well keep going.  I'll try to make them more interesting ... after this one!

Most of you are aware of the evidence for Bessler's apparent obsession with the number five and fifty five.  I know the reason for it and I will share it later, but for now consider the following extract from his Apologia Poetica.

"He shall be called a great craftsman
who can easily/lightly throw up a heavy thing,
and when one pound falls a quarter,
it shoots up four pounds four quarters. &c.

Two clues here; firstly a heavy thing is thrown upwards - and secondly if one pound falls a quarter and in doing so causes four pounds to rise four quarters, that is another way of saying when a pound falls a quarter it causes another pound to rise a quarter followed by another three each rising a quarter.  Bessler is reiterating that there are five (one pound plus four pounds) pounds falling and rising. Clarification to follow.

JC

6th June 2012 draws ever closer!

With 6th June fast approaching I've been reflecting on what might or might not happen.

If my own model works, then I guess the news will spread quickly and who knows how things will develop.  Whether it turns out to be of any use, I don't know and I doubt anyone can possibly know, until people have built models for themselves.  At least it will be a interesting curiosity if nothing else.

If my model fails then I am even less sure of the future.  I have always said that designs on paper will never convince anyone and only a working model will do that, so my fondly predicted solution, because it's on paper, will probably be nothing more than a damp squib.  However I think (hope?) that perhaps a few of those members of the Besslerwheel forum and those who read my blog, and others of a similar ilk, will read it and understand why I am so certain that I am right, even if I am unable to get the mechanism's proportions right.  One or more among them may achieve what I failed to do, using my own insights, I hope.

I put a time limit on my research as the 6th June this year, and now that that time is nigh a part of me is regretting tying myself down to a date, but I made a promise and I shall stick to it, just in case I am theoretically right and am merely holding up progress towards a working solution to Bessler's wheel by some other more perceptive engineer.

Due to personal circumstances entirely unconnected with Bessler I will not be writing anything for two or three weeks after the 6th June.  As I say, this has nothing to do with anything connected with Bessler so please wait for two or three weeks before assuming anything has befallen me, good or bad.

JC 

LONDON Olympics 2012 - and my clues to be explained.

Many years ago,I used to be something of an athlete, and also did four London marathons, and I always hoped that one day the Olympics would be held somewhere closer to home and I would be able to attend some of the events.  This year it's happening right here in little old England and will I be attending? No.

I would love to be there but getting a seat is harder than winning the lottery. But anyway, I believe that the tickets only give you a four hour slot to watch the events you've chosen, so my dreams of sitting there all day have blown away.  No surprise, given the huge demand for seats.

But actually I shall be sitting at home watching on TV and I'll get a better view than any seat could give me - just the crowd atmosphere that will be missing, but I'll enjoy it where ever I am.

BTW, just received some emails asking if I will be explaining the clues at some point.  So yes, the clues I post will be referred to and listed again, closer to the publication day, and the relevance of each one will be explained.

JC

Bessler found the answer where everyone was looking.

Third clue.

Bessler said in Apologia Poetica, "These foolish ravings of my enemies will be held up to total ridicule by all intelligent people, who, with true understanding, have sought the Mobile in a place no different from that in which I eventually found it."

To paraphrase the above, Bessler said intelligent people had already looked for the solution where he found it.

In hindsight this clue reveals something so astoundingly obvious that I find it hard to believe that no one has independently thought of it - I certainly didn't.  The history of overbalancing wheels shows that the same designs are repeatedly 'discovered' by each person who comes fresh to this subject.

JC

Parametric oscillation holds the key to working Bessler's wheel.

Second clue.

A swing has its centre of gravity below the pivot, unlike a perfectly balanced wheel whose centre of gravity lies at its axle or pivot.

With a child standing on the swing's seat,  the centre of gravity is lower and is closer the seat.  If the child bends his legs he lowers the centre of gravity even more and if he straightens them he raises it again.  If he rocks the swing a little he can make it move back and forth a greater distance by timing the straightening and bending of his legs

But the swing moves to and fro whereas we seek a solution in which the swing moves only in one direction, around and around the pivot. There is a sport known as ‘Kiiking’ in the native language of Estonia where it is practised as a national sport.  In kiiking the ropes are rigid steel bars, enabling the swinger to build up his swings until he passes over the top of the pivot - his feet are of course attached to the seat.

Yes, I know, another elementary clue, and yet a vital ingredient in making Bessler's wheel work.

JC

No wheels exist in nature.

Throughout history, most inventions were inspired by the natural world. The idea for the pitchfork and table fork came from forked sticks; the aeroplane from gliding birds. But the wheel is a one hundred percent homo sapien innovation. As Michael LaBarbera—a professor of biology and anatomy at the University of Chicago—wrote in a 1983 issue of  "The American Naturalist", 'only bacterial flagella, dung beetles and tumbleweeds come close. And even they are “wheeled organisms” in the loosest use of the term, since they use rolling as a form of locomotion'.

Thanks to the Smithsonian, there's a lot more there. -

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/A-Salute-to-the-Wheel.html

The Ouroboros is an ancient symbol depicting a serpent or dragon eating its own tail.  There is an ongoing hoax about the hoop snake which is supposed to exhibit similar propensities.  It is reputed to be able form itself into a hoop and roll after its prey at speeds up to 60 miles an hour! They can alter their shapes as they go, and even roll up hill.  This reminds me of Fletcher's post on the besslerwheel forum about suggesting to Bessler that he tried out that idea with his own wheel to see if it would roll uphill.

JC

To enable a gravity-wheel to rotate.

First clue.

To make the gravity-wheel react to gravity you need to create an overbalanced situation.

You can do that on a clockwise rotating wheel, by placing each weight further outwards at some point between twelve o'clock and six o'clock, and closer in, between six o'clock and twelve o'clock.

To make the wheel continue to overbalance you need to bring the weight which is further out, back in again, at or close to six o'clock.  Then you have to make it move out again, between twelve o'clock and six 'clock. Elementary my dear Watson.

JC

Bessler's wheels, out-of-balance and set to spin spontaneously.

There's been some talk about whether Bessler's wheel was out of balance and if it was balanced when stationary.  It seems obvious to me that because the first two one-way wheels began to spin spontaneously as soon as the brake was released it must have been out of balance while stationary and it was only the brake or lock or ties which held it motionless. 

I ignore suggestions that the wheel was stopped at an opportune moment so that at that point it was out-of-balance.  It would be too difficult to arrange for those who tested it to stop it at that particular spot - if there was one.  And anyway many people commented on the evenness of its rotation and any unevenness would indicate flat spots and high spots which would be suitable for stopping in an unbalanced position.

If you suspend an object from any point, let go of it and allow it to come to rest, the centre of gravity will lie along a vertical line that passes through the point of suspension. The centre of gravity will generally lie below the suspension point.

So if we wish to make the overbalanced wheel continue to turn, then we have to find a way of raising that point which generally lies below the suspension point. 

JC

A wheel is a circular component that is intended to rotate on an axle. (thanks to wikipedia)

I've moved my half-built mechanisms onto a slightly larger MDF disc as they were protruding from the edge at one point and catching on the supporting frame. I have continued to use the same disc for some time and really it's a bit too small for my design. I find that getting relative sizes right can be a problem.  I have the design on paper but there are often compromises to be made when the actual build begins.  Sometimes parts that ideally work within certain parameters don't always obey my requirements!  Just kidding, actually I did not anticipate just how much range of movement a certain part would be capable of until I built the mechanism, off the supporting structure.  The result is that I need a bigger supporting structure, which is not a problem as I had one prepared for an earlier version.

Despite my fear of my wheels being judged as of inferior quality, I shall post pictures of both failed and/or successful current and future models, should I build any more.

I'm going to post some comments about my theory and perhaps some hints on the design.  I know that as these appear some critics will dismiss them out of hand and others will argue logically against them, but I would like to suggest that until the complete picture or at least more of it becomes available, it might be thought better to refrain from at least completely dismissing them, because I have one or two surprises to post later on which might just convince otherwise.

JC

My last wheel build?

I've been actively persuing the solution to Bessler's wheel for many years but I haven't felt it necessary to publish pictures of the many, many failed models I've made over a number of years.  

To be honest I would be ashamed to put them on public display given the professional-looking models I see other people post.  Mine are made out of pieces of MDF, used and reused over and over again until they are so full of holes I fear that they will fall apart; pieces of mild steel amd aluminium; stiff-nuts so used and reused that they are no longer capable of holding fast; some bolts cross-threaded so I have to clamp them in a pair of pliers and force the nuts round to get them past the crossed threads; weights of various materials, mostly pieces sawn from a mild steel bar, or bunches of steel or lead washers; levers of mild steel only a quarter of an inch wide or thicker pieces of aluminium and also so full of holes that they too are fast approaching their demise. 

The axle is a length of screwed thread with two nuts on it clamping the MDF sheet.  This rests in a couple of plastic fixings meant to hold copper plumbing pipes to the wall, which are screwed onto two upright wooden pillars which in turn are screwed to a base board - it works, don't knock it!

So, do I buy more new material and set to work again building and rebuilding new designs?  Or do I just share what I know and hope that someone else finds something useful in my work and goes on to achieve the success I looked for?

In a way this is an 'aha' moment a small revelation, because if I do share what I know, instead of having to continue to build I can just keep posting my ideas here and let someone else do the work!  No contest!  But I'll just finish this last model.

JC

UPDATE

I've received several emails asking why I'm leaving everything 'til the 6th June before revealing what I've been working on.  Originally I planned to reveal my working wheel and an explanation of how I got there, timing it to around that date, but writing everything out is taking far longer than I anticipated and now I just want to finish it and put it out for people to see and comment on, whether for or against. 

The explanation is long and complex because I am explaining how each feature relates to a clue from Bessler's huge collection. I'm also justifying each one to the best of my ability and including explanatory drawings based on Bessler's originals.  I will transfer what I've written to one or more websites and include a downloadable pdf of the same, I'll try to make a video of it too, to put across anything that does not come across clearly in the other publications.

Immediately following publication I may be unavailable for a couple of weeks, I need some sunshine!  And perhaps it's just as well, I can let the dust settle before responding!  I'm not naive enough to think that everyone will be completely convinced by my work, but hopefully enough serious students of Bessler's wheel will take notice and look into what I have to say to either verify it or explain why they can't.

In the mean time, in between times, I'm working hard to finish my model made according to my design and based on what I believe Bessler did.  Whether or not my model works, the other stuff will be published.

As I'm going to share what I've done so far I might as well put the occasional clue from my work on my blog from time to time.

JC    

Bessler's wheel as an electricity generator

This can be no more than speculation until we know what kind of potential output Bessler's wheel might generate, but when his wheel is proven and accepted, I think there will be many versions appearing, offering home electricity generators.  I don't know how large a wheel will have to be constructed but I guess that something powerful enough to provide all domestic requirements will have to be quite big.  Bessler's wheels were built very narrow but he did say they could be built with more than one on an axle, so we can imagine something with a lot more width on a single axle. The question then is what size of generator would be required to fulfil all of one household's demands, then we might have some idea of the size of wheel needed?

I found it difficult to discover  on the internet, how much electricity a home needs.  I realize of course that there are many variations in how much we use so some kind of working average would suffice.  I note that to calculate it you need the total square footage of living space, disregarding open porches, garages, and basements or attics, plus you  must list all electric appliances, including any AC, or heating, and the voltage and load of each in amperes or wattage.  As a short cut I looked at standby electrical generators suitable for home use.

For about £24000 you can get a unit which will power a complete house of 4000 plus square feet, weighing about 8141 pounds and providing 200 kVA.  I'm sure there are smaller cheaper units available but that is one I found.  Its length is 11 feet, width four feet, and height about seven feet, a pretty big beast. We don't know how much a suitable Bessler wheel would weigh but its cost could be lower due to the simplicity of its design, compared to a diesel engine.  On the other hand its size could be equally daunting and weight probably similar to traditional generators.

I know that some disagree with me, but let's consider what we think we know.  The only weight described was one from the Merseberg wheel which was estimated to weigh about four pounds. That wheel turned in either direction and I remain convinced that it had duplicate mechanisms, one for each direction.  In which case we can discard half the width and half the number of weights.  Against public opinion I am also satisfied that there were five mechanisms and Bessler said the weights worked in pairs, so lets assume five pairs of weights at four pounds each.  

We are left with a twelve foot wheel of six inches diameter, and ten weights of four pounds each, totalling 40 pounds, capable of turning at 50 RPM.  To bring the total weight/power ratio up we can increase the width but we don't know if it is possible to increase the mass of the individual weights.  We could extend the width of the wheel to say five feet, so multiplying the six inch width by ten and increasing the number of weights by ten gives us a total weight of 400 pounds rotating at 50 RPM.  In the traditional example quoted above, it includes the alternator so we'd have add that to the wheel which would make the comparative sizes roughly the same, although the weight could be less.  Even so I think the comparison works quite well and I think a wheel turning at that speed with that amount of weight would be more than capable of producing enough electricity for our individual needs.

I have deliberately ignored any flywheel effect possibly inherent in Bessler's two-way wheels as we know too little to form any judgement on the likely outcome. 

JC     

The answer lies in Gravity, a source of energy that's free.

Bessler stated that the 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".

I don't see how anyone can deny the obvious truth here, that the machine required only the presence of gravity to operate continuously. I have spent many years researching the facts about gravity and I remain utterly convinced that, despite the strongest remonstrations from scientists, teachers and other experts, not forgetting most Bessler fans, there is no reason for thinking otherwise.  I have read all the arguments,and I understand the reasoning and I still disagree with their findings in this regard.  There is a way to use gravity alone - no other force being required - and I know what it is.

It seems strange that gravity is dismissed in this way.  Historically mankind has instinctively known that gravity could provide the answer and yet science has outlawed it as a potential energy enabler.  I have offered numerous analogies to explain why it is a possible and they have been disregarded.  No-one seems to get it, that an analogy is an alternative way of explaining something which is not clear. You don't actually apply a microscopic analysis to an analogy, you just get the general picture. Professor Eric Laithwaite, who I once had the honour to meet, suggested that analogies were the the best form of explanation.  He  loved to use the art of analogy to explain awkward scientific concepts.

A simple example of an analogy is to liken the heart to a pump, or plumbing to electricity - every one understands that when we say electricity running through wires is like water running through pipes, it is an analogy and not to be taken literally.  So when I say that gravity is like a current of water or wind, carrying everything along with it that isn't fixed, there is no point in directing my attention to the fact that wind is generated by pressure changes in the atmosphere, or that flowing water originated from the sun's action causing evaporation, condensation, rain etc.  These things are irrelevant to the analogy.   

As many will know, I have been claiming for a long time that I know the secret of Bessler's wheel and I will share the information as soon as I have tested it out on a prototype  - before the 6th June this year.  I will publish the details, even if I can't make it work for me, because I know without a doubt that I have the secret and if I can't prove it with a working model, then perhaps my efforts will result in someone else succeeding and that people will recognise my original input. But even more I hope my prototype works.  The design of the mechanism is drawn from Bessler's text and images.  In my forthcoming publications, website and video, I will explain everything, where the clues came from and what they mean and why I am so certain that I'm right.

I do not know what will happen when I publish the details but I am content to await the outcome, whatever it may be, after thee hundred years it's time.

JC     

I wouldn't patent Besslers wheel if I had the chance.

There are many who will strongly disagree but.....

I've discussed the issue of patenting Bessler's wheel before, both here on my blog as well as on the besslerwheel forum, but since the question has arisen again I have decided to restate my own view.

I know and agree with all the arguments for patenting the device, but there is one overwhelming reason why it shouldn't be patented.  Any government that sees this device as harming tax revenues from the sale of oil will be tempted to bury it under a secrecy order.  Have no doubt, it will affect them in time and maybe sooner.  

It will also have an impact on all the alterntive energies being so expensively researched.  The solar panels so assiduously promoted even in our own fog-bound island will suffer a sudden decline in sales, possibly throwing people out of work and closing firms down.  Plenty of temptation and plenty of excuses for a government to kill it quickly.

And don't even apply for a patent even if you intend sharing it freely afterwards, because a patent application can lead to a subsequent secrecy order.

OK, so what do we do?  As others have advised, share it freely across the world by internet, video and other public media.

How to get remuneration?  The media will come knocking at your door offering wads of cash for your story - take it or leave it, the choice will be yours and even if you do take it, it will still be a seven day wonder and then they'll forget you.

Don't patent, the risk it too great that it will be taken and buried.

JC

Farm Studio's Italian documentary about 'Orffyreus' on youtube gets almost as many hits in one week as my seven websites get in a month!

I was pleased to be contacted by one of the three other people interviewed on the Italian documentary about Orffyreus.  I look forward to some exchanges of views, and my recent experience in Rome has shown me  what friendly, open-minded people the Italians are.  In fact I have seen a distinct swing towards Italians buying copies of my books since the documentary aired on RAI 2 on Monday 12th March, and it certainly shows that the film has attracted more attention in one week than all my years of publishing information about Johann Bessler (Orffyreus) on a number of web sites, radio interviews and magazine articles.

Some years ago a radio interviewer described my efforts as like 'a voice crying in the wilderness', and went on to compare my attempts to persuade the world that Bessler was genuine, to Galileo, because when he stated that the sun was the centre of the solar system, he too, was a voice crying in the wilderness. Most people thought he was crazy or evil, or possibly both. I hasten to add that I am not to be compared in any way with Galileo nor the original subject of the quote - and I don't think I'm crazy or evil.....I admit I have sometimes felt as though I was banging my head against a wall but I never considered giving up.  

But it does go to show the advantages of putting the subject out on TV, the potential audience is vast and if they decide to produce the same film with English and other language subtitles the whole world will come to learn about Bessler and his gravity wheel.  In my opinion the more who know about Bessler, the better the chances are that someone will succeed in reproducing Bessler's wheel and everyone will benefit.

JC

Sir Isaac Newton misrepresented by the false Frank Edwards attribution.

A lot of people have repeated what they believe to be a famous Newton quote, "Sir Isac Newton once observed that the seekers after perpetual motion are trying to get something from nothing."  Now I have always been suspicious of the authenticity of this attribution for three reasons, firstly, it doesn't fit with Newton's early notes about the potential for a gravity-enabled perpetual motion machine, see my blog on Monday, 12 March 2012.  I spent a lifetime researching documents relating to Bessler and in particular, anything connected with professor Gravesande's letter to Newton on the subject of Bessler's wheel.  In all the years I looked I found just one reference to perpetual motion as a potential machine and I have commented on that in the above blog.  There is absolutely no documentary evidence that Newton said anything else about the subject either in writing or as a reported conversation.

Secondly the language is completely un-Newtonesqe.  By that I mean the language phrasing and style is entirely unlike anthing that Newton is quoted as saying elsewhere.  Here are some well-known examples of his words:-

"I do not know what I may appear to the world; but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself in now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me."

"If I have seen further than certain other men it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants."

"I keep the subject of my inquiry constantly before me, and wait till the first dawning opens gradually, by little and little, into a full and clear light."

"If I have ever made any valuable discoveries, it has been owing more to patient attention, than to any other talent."

There are dozens of websites providing examples of Newtons words, and these prove the point.

Thirdly, the first time I came across the quote was in Frank Edward's book, "Strangest of All", in which he recounts the legend of Bessler's wheel, with one or two additional inventions of his own.  Because recently this quote has resurfaced I decided once and for all to either verify it as genuine or prove that it is nothing more than a piece of artistic license - Artistic licence is a colloquial term, sometimes euphemism, used to denote the distortion of fact, alteration of the conventions of grammar or language, or rewording of pre-existing text made by an artist to improve a piece of art. [thanks to wikipedia]. 

We already know that Frank Edwards invented the story about Karl seeing pegs in Bessler's wheel and rushing away to write down a description of what he saw, so it is perfectly reasonable to attribute the quote he ascribes to Newton as in fact another of his own creations.

In order to check out my theory I have searched through many, many web sites looking for every Newton quote available, and there is nothing remotely similar to the one being discussed.  I have also sought other sources for the quote but everyone is almost word for word the same as the one in Frank Edward's book and none of the ones I have seen pre-date Edward's - in most cases the quotation is prefixed with the words, 'Sir Isaac Newton once observed....' a perfect match to Edward's words -  or 'Newton is reputed to have said...'

There is no such quotation mentioned in the earlier book on Bessler, R.T.Gould's book, 'Oddities', yet this compendium of legends is replicated in its entirety in Frank Edward's version, and obviously formed the basis for his book.

It seems that before there was Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell and George Noory, there was Frank Edwards of the Mutual Network, with one of the earliest late night national radio talk shows exploring mysterious topics. He called his program, "Stranger than Science," and covered everything from Bigfoot to UFOs. If the story lacked impact then I guess a little poetic license could  spice it up.

I was fascinated to discover how widespread this quotation has become, thanks largely to the internet.  Even the arch-critic of perpetual motionists, Donald Simanek, [see http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/home.htm] uses it.  

If you put the whole sentence, "Sir Isaac Newton once observed that the seekers after perpetual motion are trying to get something from nothing." in inverted commas into google you get nothing, if you remove the words (or the quote marks) Sir Isaac Newton once observed that, you get about 217 pages, but if you put Sir Isaac Newton's quotes you get 223,000 pages!  The 217 are merely copies which originated in Frank Edwards book.

It may be that Edward's was confusing Leonardo da Vinci's comment, "Oh, ye seekers after perpetual motion, how many vain chimeras have you pursued? Go and take your place with the alchemists!", but it is not the same thing at all and hardly of equal literary value.

JC

Sir Isaac Newton's Perpetual Motion machine.

This is in the interests of trying to correct misleading information relating to Bessler/Orffyreus

Since posting information about Floriano's website at www.orffyreus.it, I've received a number of emails questioning the sketch which, according to him, was done by professor Willem 's Gravesande, and sent to Sir Isaac Newton.  This sketch was actually drawn by Sir Isaac himself. about 24 years before Gravesande was born!  In my first book about Bessler (Perpetual Motion, An Ancient Mystery Solved?) I included the drawing, shown below, because it indicated that Newton considered that a perpetual motion machine could be possible when interacting with gravity.

I wrote that, 'It is a little known fact that in his early notebooks under the heading "Quaestiones"[sic] Newton speculates that gravity (heaviness) is caused by the descent of a subtle matter which strikes all bodies and carries them down. "Whither ye rays of gravity may bee stopped by reflecting or refracting ye, if so a perpetual motion may bee made one of these two ways." Adjacent to these words, Newton added two sketches of perpetual motion powered by the "flux of the gravitational stream".

In full he wrote,

"Try whither the weight of a body may be altered by heate or cold, by dilatation or condensition, beating , poudering, transfering to severall places or severall heights or placing a hot or heavy body over it or under it or by magnetisme whither leade or its dust spread abroade, whither a plate flat ways or edg ways in heaviest, whither the rays of gravity may bee stopped by refecting or refracting them, if so a perpetuall motion may bee made one of these two ways.

The gravity of bodys is as their solidity, because all body{s} descend equall spaces in equal {times} consideration being had to the Resistance of the aire &c"

Now people may well have come to the conclusion that such machines are impossible but it seemed to me then and I remain convinced of it,  that if Newton himself considered it possible and actually drew his  ideas on paper why should subsequent thinkers dismiss it?

In the lower half of the above drawing, Newton also shows his thoughts on using magnets too.

 "Atraction Magneticall

1 The motion of any magneticall ray may bee knowne by attracting a needle in a corke on water.

2 Whither a magneticall pendulum is perpendicular to the Horizon or not, & whither iron is heaviest when impregnated, or when the north pole or southpole is upmost. Coroll. A perpetuall motion .

3 Whither magneticall rays will blow a candle move a red hot copper or iron needle, or passe through a red hot plate of copper or iron

4 A perpetuall motion .

5 Whither a loadestone will not turne around a red hot iron fashioned like wind mill sailes as the wind doth them. Perhaps cold iron may reflect the magn: rays with that pole which shuns the lodestone."

He never published an opinion later on whether he believed such devices were possible or not.

For the modern rendering of Newton's Quaestions" notebook see  http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00092

JC

More Orffyrean related websites

I often get sent ideas and details of other websites which might be of interest to me and recently I received two more.

This email came from a long time correspondent in Italy, who incidentally gave my name to the Italian documentary makers, so thanks for that Floriano, and he has just published a website with his own take on Bessler's wheel.  In it he says that he has decided not to go for a long explanation but preferred to keep it simple to gain and keep people's attention.  This seems to me to a good idea, as I am currently writing an explanation of how I believe Bessler's wheel worked and had intended to publish it either on the occasion of the 300th year since Bessler's first exhibition, or when and if someone else published definitive proof that their wheel works.

I now think I might publish a shorter version at the same time.

Floriano has a web site at www.orffyreus.it and it has some interesting ideas, none of which I must hastily admit, bear any resemblance to mine.  Take a look and see what you think.

On the subject of other websites with an Orffyrean connection, there is also one at www.oldrichnos.com which contains some of the most beautiful drawings on it, other than yours John Worton!  The website has been around a while but is till worth a look and is often added to.

JC

If not gravity-driven then what else drove Bessler's wheel?

I'm continually surprised that Bessler's wheel is still regarded as a fraud.  52 years ago (approximately) I read the maid's account of how she supposedly turned the wheel and I immediately knew it was wrong.  How could a piece of mechanism turn the twelve foot wheel through the bearings?  How could it reach a top speed 26 RPM in just three turns?  How was such a mechanisms hidden in open bearings? How was it hidden during the change over from one set of bearings to another? If it was a fraud and the maid was simply mistaken or fooled into thinking that was how it was done , how else could it have been done?

Which leads us to pondering what force was accessable internally which could be used to turn the wheel?  I have seen the suggestions of ambient temperature changes and I dismiss it with the same gut feeling I originally had when reading about the maid's version of events. Later consideration only added weight to my original conviction that it would not do. I am convinced, satisfied and know that it could only have been gravity supplying the weights with the necessary force and therefore energy.

Instead of shooting us gravity-driven wheel proponents down, I wish the shooters would offer alternative theories which were at leastt as acceptable as the gravity-only ones.  We need theories which offer the same quick response, allowing speedy acceleration of the wheel.  My personal belief is that there isn't one, but if people wish to dismiss gravity-driven wheels and yet find no fault in my argument that the wheel was not fraudulent, then they must offer some kind of suggestion of what force would suffice.  It's no good saying that the wheel was genuine but gravity cannot be used in this way but they can't think of anything else.

It's as clear as daylight to me that gravity provided the energy source, Bessler said so too, and there is no alternative anyway.

JC