July 2012 Update

The hot weather has arrived at last, just in time for the Olympics, but sunshine means I have some catching up to do in the garden, however at least the rain gave me an opportunity to do some work on my wheel.  

The last piece of the jigsaw dropped into place a few weeks ago and I am confident that this model will work. Oddly enough it was the failure of the mechanism to act as I wanted it to do, that led me to the final piece of the puzzle - and to the revelation of one of Bessler's clues that has somewhat mystified me over a considerable length of time.  I should know by now that Bessler habitually used his clues to either contain two ways to access them, or two different clues.  I am make an adjustment to the design which will create the movement I've been seeking.  I don't know how long it will take to complete, but not long.

There is a slight variation to the parts used compared to the last time I described them, but the basic concept remains the same, plus of course the secret principle which I'm not ready to share yet. 

So there are five mechanisms operating according to the way a swing works or 'kiiking' or parametric oscillation, if you prefer.  As I've mentioned before, this concept of using the mechanics of the swing was suggested  to me by professor Hal Puthoff as a way forward, some years ago and I subsequently found the idea introduced on the Besslerwheel forum by Scott Ellis way back in 2002, and if I'm proved right, due credit should go to them.  

The swing mechanics are only part of the solution and in addition to what I have called the secret principle there is also one more ingredient which is the one I have added in the last couple of months. So the mechanisms are almost all complete and testing should begin within a couple of weeks and any delay is down to getting the final adjustment right. Bessler himself commented that when he 'constructed my greatwork, the 6-ell diameter wheel (the Merseberg wheel). It revolved in either direction, but caused me a few headaches before I got the mechanism properly adjusted.'

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Bessler's stressed life.

I was looking at Bessler's portrait and I noticed the condition of his nails.  They all appear to be bitten down very short.  I assume this is an accurate portrayal and the poor condition of the nails is probably a symptom of the ever-present stress in his life.  At that time, some four years or so had passed since his first discovery of the secret of gravity-enabled wheels and yet he had nothing to show for it.  He had moved three times and built three wheels, and smashed them to pieces, and suffered the increasing attempts to have his reputation destroyed by his bitter enemies, Gärtner, Borlach and Wagner.

A brief search on the subject reveals that onychophagia, or nail biting, is a common compulsive habit.  It's believed to be a symptom of stress, and in severe cases is accompanied by anxiety attacks, palpitations of the heart, headaches, dizziness and sweating.

When paranoia is included, as seems to have been the case with Bessler, typically the subject has obsessive thoughts and will harbour suspicions and worries about other people.  They believe that something bad will happen, and that others are responsible, and although their belief may be exaggerated, the central thought which is present with paranoia is a sense of threat.

Bessler himself admits that he was sometimes depressed and axious and apparently anxiety and depression can act as triggers for paranoid thoughts in some people. If they’re anxious they are likely to be on edge and more fearful than normal. Depression can lower self-esteem, and make them more likely to misinterpret other people’s intentions towards them. They are afraid that their enemies, as they perceive them, mean them financial harm, stealing from them, damaging their property or tricking them into giving away their money.

I'm no psychologist but I think that is a close match to Bessler.

PS Update on my wheel building to follow soon.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune...are best ignored.

I wrote this to remind me of the heat of my angry reaction to the jeers and sneers I suffered in the early days - but on this day, in the cool of early dawn such gibes seem of little consequence and are best ignored.

I used to surf the net looking at comments about Bessler and it was clear then, and nothing has changed, that very few people know any details about him nor about the evidence which has convinced most of us here that he was genuine.  I read many comments to the effect that we were all wasting our time in trying to prove that he was not a con man.  Other remarks said that we had forgotten or never learned the true facts about gravity, force and friction etc.  But in fact I had a good education and since I left school I continued to learn and try to understand everything I could about the subject and yet I still believe Bessler was genuine because my training as an engineer convinces me.  So instead of merely claiming that Bessler was not a con man, I have tried to explain his success within current scientific laws.

I would describe the tenor of some of the comments as scornful laughter at our stupidity.  A common remark was that history is full of con-men like Bessler, attempting to defraud their investors and customers with promises of perpetual motion. At that time I used to be a regular on Jerry Decker's old keelynet forum, (http://keelynet.com/) one contributer called me a snake-oil salesman, a predictably offensive term but one I had to look up at the time, as I hadn't come across it before.  I checked and it's "a derogatory term used to describe quackery, the promotion of fraudulent or unproven medical practices. The expression is also applied metaphorically to any product with questionable and/or unverifiable quality or benefit. By extension, the term snake oil salesman may be applied to someone who sells fraudulent goods, or who is a fraud himself," thanks to wikipedia.  Frankly that is quite an offensive comment given that I am not trying to defraud anyone.

So when this is all over and the proof is out there for every one to see - that is, Bessler wasn't a fake and he really did have a continuously turning wheel - how many of those hardened sceptics will apologise for their contemptuous, disdainful comments which made myself and others who support Bessler's claims, feel despicable and unworthy?  Of course the answer is none, because they could only judge us on what they knew, and little of Bessler's work has filtered through and what has, has had to compete against the mainstream science which teaches us that Bessler's claims violate the laws of science.  But I look forward with tremendous enthusiasm and a certain amount of gloating, to the day when it becomes apparent that they were all wrong, and we are owed an enormous apology and a meek admission that they should not have been so patronising, smug and just plain obnoxious.

So I used to get all fired up by the nastier comments directed towards me but now I just let it pass me by and I rarely get into an argument with anyone because the only way to persuade them to see my point of view is for someone, anyone, to produce a working version of Bessler's wheel - and I think that will happen very soon.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Does size matter? And other questions about Bessler's wheel.

Bessler said, [paraphrased here] that he could make his machines in such a way that, big or small, he could make the resulting power small or big as he chose. He could get the power to a perfectly calculated degree, multiplied up even as much as fourfold. I was thinking about that and I guess the obvious ways to increase speed and/or power would include using more mechanisms within one wheel, or increasing the size of the wheel, and using more wheels on the same axle.  But I wonder what effect increasing the size of each weight would have?

Would it increase the wheel's speed or would it just provide more power or torque at the same speed?  More speed doesn't necessarily lead to more torque but more weight should increase it.

How would you increase speed without increasing the size of the weights?  Adding another wheel would effectively increase the size of the weights, but if you halved their size and used two wheels on one axle I wonder what if anything, the resultant change in speed might be?  Having double the number of mechanisms should have an effect on speed.

Increasing the size of the wheels but using the same weights suggests that the distances travelled by the weights within the wheel might generate more speed but would it produce more torque?  In theory yes, because the weights might be applying their mass at a greater distance from the axis. On the other hand although more speed might be possible would the greater distances travelled by the weights actually have a slowing effect when compared to a smaller version?

I realize we need to know what the design of the mechanisms were in order to know what the answers to the questions would be, but sometimes asking questions helps us make progress in discovering something about the nature of the mechanisms.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Do you show signs cognitive dissonance?

Yesterday at last, I managed to find some time to work on my project.  I am using my own interpretations of Bessler's clues, as will anyone who is trying to build Bessler's wheel, and those interpretations can be viewed as being highly subjective as opposed to objective.  By that I mean that these interpretations are in the end just an opinion whereas objective ideas are factual and provable.  But at some point my subjective opinions will become objective and true, I hope!  

Of course such opinions as I hold are biased because they are arrived at through a succession of revelations relating to the supposed clues I have found.  But because an objective piece of information needs to be factual and unbiased my view and the expression of my ideas can't be anything other than subjective.  So until I can either produce a working model or publish a complete explanation of my ideas, I can't give out any objective information until I've finished building my wheel.

Obviously I think I'm right or I wouldn't bother building the wheel, but discussing them here does not seem advisable as it would take too long to explain how I got to where I am. If I did try a shortened explanation it would miss the sequence of discoveries which confirm my interpretations are correct.  Some months ago I began to write a detailed document and I planned to put out a video with pictures and some filming to explain my reasoning, but sadly I haven't had time to continue with this but I shall get back to work on it as soon as possible.

As I have continued along this path I have discovered numerous additional clues which confirm what were previously just my interpretations of some clues.  When the full explanation comes out in due course I think people will amazed at the number of unarguable clues, found everywhere within his works, and I'm not only referring to the number 5.

An acquaintance who is a psychologist, told me that I exhibited typical signs of cognitive dissonance because on the one hand because I had been taught that gravitywheels were impossible and I believed it, but on the other hand I was trying to prove that they were possible and potentially valuable machines and this was causing me some conflict.  I had to look it up to understand what he was getting at.

Apparently if you hold two or more opposing ideas or beliefs it causes you discomfort.  Mountain climbers know the risk of death is ever present but they continue to climb; smokers continue to smoke even though they know it may kill them eventually.  To relieve the discomfort caused by these conflicting beliefs, we all attempt to reduce the dissonance by altering existing beliefs, adding new ones to create a consistent belief system, or alternatively by reducing the importance of any one of the dissonant elements.

That psychologist made me feel as if I was someone who suffered from some kind of weird rare psychological delusion and might be a step away from the madhouse!  But the fact of the matter is that I don't feel any discomfort with my apparently dissonant beliefs, so either I have succeeded in altering my existing beliefs or I've reduced their importance.  

I think the former has occurred, but it shows you what a load of old tosh these so-called experts spout from time to time. According to him we all show signs of cognitive dissonance! Of course there are some who think my attic's a little dusty....  

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Priorities

Little comment has appeared regarding the string of letters and numbers after my posts but several emails have queried their point and some good guesses have been made, so I have decided to explain their purpose - and I suppose in a way this is another clue.

In a letter to Leibniz in 1677, to try to ensure his priority in his work on calculus, Sir Isaac Newton,wrote:- “I cannot proceed with the explanation of the fluxions now, I have preferred to conceal it thus: 6accdae13eff7i3l9n4o4qrr4s8t12vx”.

The string of letters and numbers shows how many times each letter appears, which produces an anagram and once rearranged gives:- “Data aequatione quotcunque fluentes quantitates involvente, fluxiones invenire: et vice versa.” meaning, “Given an equation involving any number of fluent quantities, to find the fluxions, and vice versa.”

In 1610 Galileo Galilei, the Italian astronomer believed he had discovered two moons orbiting another Saturn.  He published the following anagram to ensure his own priority,"smaismrmilmepoetaleumibunenugttauiras". When rearranged, Galileo's secret message was, 'Altissimum planetam tergeminum observavi', and translated reads,"I have observed the most distant planet to have a triple form", which related to his mistaking the rings around Saturn for moons. 

So... in order to try to establish my own priority in this matter, I have decided to post my own encoded information regarding something I discovered about eighteen months ago.  This discovery is not a theory but a well-established and easily demonstrated fact which I have tested to my own satisfaction. I have verified that Bessler himself used it in his machines and published encoded informaton about it.  I do not know if it is his 'connectedness principle' however, although it could be, but I have alternative possible candidate for that.

I did not make the discovery by deciphering Bessler's clues but purely by a combination of frustration and desperation at my lack of progress.  I am not claiming that this is an undiscovered concept so much as an overlooked one in this particular application.  The following code has been slightly modified from the previous ones but the resulting plaintext is identical:-

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

JC

Any other applications for Bessler's wheel?

I suppose it's a bit premature to be considering such things but, there is a little negativity about how beneficial a working version of Bessler's wheel would be.  There is doubt about its capability to furnish an ordinary house with enough electricity to cover all its wants.  We won't know how practical that will be until we have a working one to play with, but there must be other uses which it would still be suitable for.  Here are some suggestions:-

Pumping water in arid areas where a low tech solution is needed.  Even without electricity, air conditioning might also be possible in hot climates, and commercial refrigeration and cold storage facilities seem obvious choices too.   Which leads on to my main point.  There must be other uses for the gravitywheel other than producing electricity for various uses. I wonder if it could be used to compress air?  Compressors are excellent alternatives to electricity for supplying energy to all manner of equipoment.

There may be a requirements for something to replace electricity either permanently or occasionally - something that used a relatively small amount of electricity but for extended periods of time - or moves very slowly and at length? 

Emergency lighting?  Conveyers? Irrigation? Ships? Trains? 

Any ideas or suggestions?

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10i1k12l3m6n14o14r5s17t1u6v5w4y4-3,1’1.

Maybe there weren't five mechanisms?

Bessler's clues, some of which I have indicated, both here and on my other websites, are not particularly open to accurate interpretation prior to one's gaining personal knowledge of the design of some features of the wheel.  This might indicate that his main purpose in leaving so many clues, was to give himself the opportunity at a later date, to point to them and explain them, in the event of a dispute about who discovered the secret of the gravitywheel first, thus proving his priority in the matter.

But even if this is so, it does not rule out the possibility that he intended someone to take the time to try and understand them, and his prescient comment about accepting post-humous fame if no sale was ever achieved in his lifetime, seems to support this conjecture. 

One of the things I have found recently, is that the discovery of a particular feature of the design that I suddenly comprehend with my own prototype build, that looks as though it might prove extremely useful, often finds support in a previously misunderstood clue of Bessler's.

I now have to admit that I might be wrong about my predilection for assuming that Bessler's wheel had five mechanisms.  A discovery only yesterday has thrown my mind into confusion because I believe I have stumbled upon the real reason for the ubiquity of the number five clues.  This does not necessarily negate my previous stance in believing that five mechanisms were a vital ingredient, but it does throw the whole issue into doubt.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10i1k12l3m6n14o14r5s17t1u6v5w4y4-3,1’1.

My Wheel Update

I've managed to find time to restart work on my own version of Bessler's wheel.  I say my version, but if it works it will clearly be recognisable as having been derived from Bessler's clues, many of which I think you are all unaware of, as I haven't shared everything to date - unless some of you are working on the same clues in secret!

There are five mechanisms each consisting of two equal weights and some levers.  There are no cords or springs, just levers and weights.   

The design still relies on the concept of parametric oscillation and I cannot see any alternative if you accept that gravity alone drove Bessler's wheel. I specifically chose the Estonian sport of 'Kiiking' to demonstrate exactly how parametric oscillation works and it's really very simple.

A parameter is a quantity or mathematical variable that stays constant.  So if you have an oscillator such as a swing with fixed lengths it will swing to and fro until it stops, because all the parameters such as length, weight and gravity remain constant.  But if you alter the parameters at each swing stroke, as a child does on a swing by swinging its legs at the appropriate point, you continue the swinging motion. 

To obtain a variable in the parameters of kiiking, theoretically the person swinging has to raise his weight at two points during each revolution - and the same goes for the gravitywheel.  However in practice only one lift is required and the return of the person's mass to its former position in readiness for raising it again, can take place with the aid of gravity as long as it occurs in good time time for the subsequent lift.

There is an extra factor or concept which I discovered about 18 months ago, which overcomes the objections to a gravity-only wheel, but I don't want to share it yet.  Suffice to say that it throws out the window all the arguments about the viability of such devices.  

JC

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