More on the dual-directional wheels and the single directional ones.

In my previous blog, I suggested that it made more sense to try to replicate Bessler's single-direction wheels than his later, admittedly more difficult to make, dual-direction ones, and I forgot to add that my comparison was to the Kassel wheel, which rotated at 26 RPM, unloaded.  The previous, Merseburg wheel, rotated much faster at 40 RPM, despite being dual-directional.

At first sight this may seem to damage my argument about two mirror image windmills rotating at half the speed of a single one, but I still think they would if their components were identical in all size respects, but what it does also do is back up Bessler's contention that he could design wheels which could revolve faster or slower and with more power or less as required.  He also suggested that a wheel of 20 ells could be built - more than 40 feet in diameter!  At that time, John Rowley, Master Model-maker and engineer to King George I, designed and built a tidal wheel for pumping water into the Royal Palace at Windsor measuring "twenty four foot diameter and twelve foot broad; for the new brass engine with brasses to the crank, forcing rods and a new crank."  So that kind of size was not inconceivable.

My point is that what ever size and speed and lifting power was possible, we cannot make any assumptions about the mechanism inside the wheels other than to reflect on Bessler's own words about the Merseburg wheel:-

"I constructed my great work, the 6-ell diameter wheel. It revolved in either direction, but caused me a few headaches before I got the mechanism properly adjusted. Why did I make this wheel, you may well ask, and so I will now give you my answer. During my stay in Obergreisslau my detractors put out the cunning falsehood (in order to deceive the world) that my device, like a clock, needed to be wound up. This caused me to make some changes to the mechanism so that all intelligent people would appreciate the falseness of such a proposition. People then began to believe - and they freely admitted it - that the wheel did not require winding up."

The dual-directional wheel was more difficult to make than the single-directional one so logic suggests that the first one would be the place to start.  However I know there are many people out there who are still convinced that there is more to making the wheel dual-directional than simply adding  mirror imaged mechanisms to the same axle, as I described in my previous blog.  In further defense of my belief in keeping it simple by concentrating on the first two wheels, I shall point to the fact that the first two wheels measured 4 inches and 6 inches in thickness, respectively; but the second two were nearly a foot thick, so twice that of the second wheel, and the last one was eighteen inches thick.  This implies the extra thickness was needed to accommodate two sets of mirrored mechanisms.

JC

 10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

The simplest wheel to reproduce will be the one-direction wheel

I'm sure I've written on this subject previously but it bears repeating I think.

 

I have noticed that some people on the besslerwheel forum describe their ideas for reproducing the two-directional wheel; this seems to me to complicate finding the solution.  Bessler's first wheel could only turn in one direction and he only introduced the ones which could be turned in either direction, to answer the accusations that his machine was driven by clockwork.  He says that it was  a very difficult task to accomplish.

In looking for the correct path it seems sensible to take a look at the simplest machine, which was the one direction wheel.  This had to be locked to prevent it spinning, because it was in a permanent state of imbalance.  I know there are some who have dismissed this claim by Bessler and have suggested that the wheel had to stopped at a certain point where the weights would tip over and begin the rotation s soon as the brake was released.  I see no reason for adding speculation to the words written by the inventor himself; "these weights are themselves the PM device, the ‘essential constituent parts’
which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force indefinitely – so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity. To this end they are enclosed in a structure or framework, and coordinated in such a way that not only are they prevented from attaining their desired equilibrium or ‘point of rest’, but they must for ever seek it,"

I have emboldened the critical words; the weights keep away from the centre of gravity, followed by this comment, they prevented from attaining their desired equilibrium or ‘point of rest’, but they must for ever seek it.  What could be clearer?  The machine is continually out of balance, hence the need for the brake.

 

I performed some experiments a few years ago, with a Savonius windmill and a large fan.  I first spun the windmill with the aid of the fan and noted its speed.  Then I mounted a second Savonius windmill onto the same vertical axle.  This second one was designed to turn the other way.  I drove the two windmills with the fan and noted that although they turned in opposite directions their speeds were still similar to the first run with the single windmill.

I then linked the two windmills together.  Whereas before, the two windmills had begun to rotate spontaneously  as soon the breeze from the fan hit them, now they remained motionless.  But when I gave the joint assembly of both windmills a gentle nudge in one direction or another, it began to turn slowly at first but reached full speed in about three turns.  The speed reached was half that of the single windmill - exactly the same result as demonstrated by Bessler's two-directions wheels.

OK, this is not an unexpected result but it shows that the two-direction wheels were also performing as expected - and it also shows that the one-direction wheel also performed a expected; starting spontaneously

So we should be studying the one-direction wheels and trying to find a way to make them always out of balance.  

PS Forgive the unintentional links to the boy band One Direction!

JC

 10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Wheel update - two mechanisms for proof of principle....again!

It's funny how you can think you know everything there is to know about your design and how it will act and react when in a particular configuration.  My latest design did not react as I had designed it to, but instead of causing me extreme chagrin, it surprised me by acting in an unexpected way.   I knew from the start of this configuration that there were potential variables to the way I finished the design, and I was prepared to substitute those alternatives that would still comply with the initial concept.

Imagine my surprise therefore to discover that the reaction which I had designed to occur within my planned configuration was not only prevented from happening but actually reversed itself and I realised subsequently, it turned out to be the right one!  The correct path of the movement of the weights within my wheel was not intuitively obvious, but actually it makes perfect sense.  How on earth Bessler was able to design them to work as I have now think  that they should work, is just amazing.  I have very briefly imagined that configuration in the past but have dismissed it with scarcely a thought, as being impossible to achieve in a simple mechanical arrangement.

My task now is to remake the wheel with those actions repeated ad infinitum.  I am very doubtful if I can make it with five mechanisms as I have always assumed, so will have to try it with maybe just two. I'm 'fairly' confident that this is the right path, but haven't we all been here before - too many times to dwell on!

Bessler said that when he first tested his wheel it could scarcely turn with just one cross.  This word 'cross' has been a bit of a thorn in my side for many years.  Beside describing a cross as in an X or a plus sign, it can also be used to describe the crossing of a road for example or a level-crossing, as long as the word can also be 'crossing' anything related may apply.

So the phrase seems to imply that the wheel did turn with only one crossing, albeit very slowly and/or unevenly.  In which case one crossing will do, but what does a single crossing consist of? I am unconvinced that one mechanism could achieve a full turn so I am suggesting a minimum of two were needed.  Bessler said that his weight worked in pairs so two mechanisms might comprise one crossing.

I thought that the obsession with the number five suggested five mechanisms and that this number represented the total number of mechanisms possible on one side of the wheel and he had already hinted that more than a single cross was better. So I'm going to make two--mechanism wheel, one on each side, and include my new configuration and hope for success. I should add that my original principle, encoded below, is still the mainstay of my design as without I am certain no success will follow.

One more bit of news; I received an email from a literary agent with the news that a German publisher wishes to translate my book into German and publish it before the end of this year.  Fingers crossed that this time the book appears.  I had a similar experience several years ago but nothing was published then so I am less inclined to get excited about these occasional flurries of interest from the media.

There was the Italian film which was made about Bessler which seems to have sunk without trace after one broadcast; and I'm still waiting to hear about the English documentary promised for this year too.  It looks as if I'm just going to have wait for somebody to invent Bessler's wheel again before anyone really gets excited about the subject.

JC

 10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Update on Bessler's Code

This is a general update on my efforts to decipher Bessler's codes.

Everyone is surely familiar with his first code which involved using the simple substitution cipher from the Hebrew 'atbash' system to convert his name, Bessler, to Orffyre, and thence to Orffyreus. He intended future researchers to ask why he did this and provoke them into looking for further examples in the rest of his publications. His second example included the drawing of his wheel which he published in his first book, 'Gruendlicher Bericht'.  The drawing contains a number of extremely clever clues, but the first and most easily found is the hidden pentagram defined by the rope passing behind the right hand wheel.  There are a numberof numerical clues included as well as evidence of the use of the Golden Mean or Golden ratio, 1.618.  This was produced before his most intriguing work his Apologia Poetica, which was published between 1716 and 1717. At the bottom of the page Bessler writes the date of publication as 1716, two dashes and 1717. The dashes could be construed as just decoration, however the existence of several more similar dashes in part two of Apologia, suggests that the blanks represent the word ‘zu’ which means ‘to’. Adding together the 17, 17, 17 and 16 totals 67. add the u/v from zu which represents 5 and you get 72, the main pentagon number; 5 times 72 =360. The coded information which litters this work is so numerous and varied that it would seem impossible that no one has so far deciphered at least some of it.

In this publication (AP) there are the numerous 'ec's which in the Fraktur font look like 'x's.  'ec' stands for et cetera in German printing, but still their sheer ubiquity (684) draws attention to them and seems to be asking us the examine their presence and find out why they are there, since they don't appear at all in his other two publications.


The abbreviation for et cetera, ec, which looks like x.

The final page of Apologia Poetica contains a simple diagram which appears to represent the wheel.  It too contains a number of ingenious clues which again point to the pentagon.  Above this illustration is a quotation from the Bible, in which Jesus asks of his disciple, 'do you still not understand?'  Another hint that we should be looking for understanding, and elsewhere Bessler states that the answers can be found in his Apologia Poetica.  The quotation itself takes the form of a chronogram. Chronograms were particularly popular in Germany in this period and were often used on buildings to establish the date of their construction.  In this case there are several Latin uppercase letters D, I, D, V, C, C, V, V, D and I, from within the quotation, and assuming they also represent Roman numerals, added together they total the figure 1717, the year of Apologia Poetica's publication. The final line of the paragraph contains two blanks as if words had been omitted, but it is simple to add them as the whole book is in rhyming couplets and the missing word, Teufel contains the U/V alternatives which in Roman numerals represents the number 5.  The sheer number of encoded 5's, V's or their numeric/alphabetic equivalents such the letter E for being the 5th letter, is so overwhelming that one has to assume that the five and all things associated with it, such as the pentagram,  is of prime importance.

The last Chapter in the first part of Apologia Poetica is numbered 55, no surprise..  It contains 55 rhyming couplets, but just these 55 are rhymed ABAB rather than AABB as the rest of the book.  The same 55 verses contain 141 Bible references.  Research indicates that these have no relation to their actual quotations and in some cases the verse numbers exceed those actually present in any of the numerous Bible extant at that time. The references consist of the Book, the Chapter and the Verse.  My ongoing research indicates that verse number indicates the line in which a coded letter may be found.  This implies that the lines must all be numbered up to 220 (55 x 4).  However, as I have explained elsewhere, there are four empty lines which will throw the numbering out if the blank lines are not counted.

The bible book quoted has one upper case letter, the first one, and the others are lower case.  The first letter can be deciphered using the 24 letter alphabet, and its alphanumeric equivalent.  The books are all abbreviated so that there only a few letters indicating which book is meant.  These lower case letter must simply be counted and added to the numerical equivalent arrived at from the first letter.  So 'Matt' for 'Matthew' would be M=12, plus 'att' = 3 and therefore 12 plus three equals 15, thus 15th line.  As the verse number has already given you the line in question, the Book gives you the position on the line of the required letter.  You will see that the abbreviations vary and this is so that each required line can easily be indicated despite the fact that Bessler can only use a limited number of the possible books available, and also because there are more than 24 letters in most of the lines - usually around 30.  I have found that some lines require counting from the end rather than the beginning and I am sure there is an indicator which tells us if it should be done this way but so far I have not found it.

There is also an indicator that the letters should be Caesar-shifted back by five, so that the letter 'A' becomes equivalent to the letter 'V' but I'm not sure at this point whether the numerical equivalent is meant or simple the alphabetical substitution.

The so-called 'X's, that I mentioned at the start may indicate a line which contains a letter for deciphering and the possibilities which I have not yet exhausted include equidistant letter sequences (ELS) relating to the number 5 again.  I was not aware that this method of encoding information was familiar to anyone in those days, other than in the Hebrew Bible, but it turns out that it was widely used by Francis Bacon and John Dee among others and so it cannot be ruled out.

This blog scarcely scratches the surface of the encoded material and I shall return to the subject at a later date if there is sufficient interest.

JC

 10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Wheel update - precipitation, inundation, electrocution, procrastination and birthday celebration!

I included the word 'birthday' before anyone jumped the conclusion that I had succeeded in reconstructing Bessler's wheel - ridiculous thought!

Well I had hoped to be nearing completion but the interminable rain has put a bit of a damper on progress. "The deluge that has engulfed southern and central England in recent weeks is the worst winter downpour in almost 250 years, according to figures from the world's longest-running weather station.

The rainfall measured at the historic Radcliffe Meteorological Station at Oxford University in January was greater than for any winter month since daily recording began there in 1767, and three times the average amount."  Excerpt from the Observer newspaper.  Saturday 1st February.

This is definitely down to climate change although the jury is still out on the cause- man-made or a natural . The increased concentrations of  gases, especially carbon dioxide can cause global warming. There is apparently significant scientific evidence that points to human activities, such as burning of fossil fuels, as being mainly responsible for the current increased levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.   

On the other hand, changes in solar energy can affect global temperature. Thousands of years ago, global temperature changes were driven by solar and orbital variations. The Royal Society, the National Academy of Science in the UK and the Commonwealth confirms that solar activity contributed to changes in global temperature in the early 20th century.

Either way the rain is falling and I have a leak in my workshop; the rain is actually cascading down the outside wall of my house which in this case forms one wall of my workshop!  I've managed to move everything away from the leaking area, but I can't move the electrics so I've had to turn everything off until I can fix the leak.

So I'm 69 today and I had hoped to finish this darn wheel but hey-ho, what's another few days after 50-odd years!

Although I am unconvinced about the cause of climate change I can see its happening and strange to relate it might just be causing a delay in the Bessler wheel solution - that is if I am on the right track and who knows for sure?  I mean this flood is causing me a delay in finishing my wheel but perhaps it's nature showing us how puny our efforts to control her are.

There are some who might be tempted to suggest that there is an element of procrastination in this delay and on previous occasions I might well be persuaded to admit that.  Let's face it as long as the wheel isn't finished I can go on maintaining the belief that I am about to succeed, but if I finish it and it still doesn't work, what then?  I admit to failure and reveal all that I know (or think I know) and let others search for a nugget of gold in my mental meanderings.  But this time I can say, hand on heart, I am so eager to finish this wheel , that I was prepared to risk electrocution until my wife and son-in-law stopped me, thank goodness!

JC

 10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Update - will this one work, or will I have to share what I know?

My wheel is taking shape but I realised that because of the other attractions over Christmas, I had not looked at it for about three weeks and had forgotten that I had made a small error on drawing in the mechanism and had turned the wheel over to start my drawing again.  So on my return I was somewhat puzzled to know where I had got to - this is what happens as you get older, the memory starts to fail you! Fortunately I eventually turned the wheel over again and saw my error and was able to put it right on the other side.  

Because I (believe I) have now got the complete design with angles and lengths and of course the secret principle, I am actually drawing it out on the wheel, and I can then drill holes measure levers etc., and fit them exactly where they should go and all the stops are located in their proper places.  The hold-up occurred because I missed out a vital calculation which resulted in the levers being drawn on the wheel but incorrectly placed.  

I have to confess that a younger person would probably have finished the wheel by now but I am aiming to finish this one in a week or so and thank goodness!  It's been a long haul to get to where I am now.  I have always said that if my wheel fails I will share what I know and I guess that moment is approaching, so I'm keeping my fingers crossed for this one.  I shall be 69 next Wednesday, 5th Feb, and that would be a good day to succeed but it could be a few days after.

If it doesn't act as I designed it to do, there is one more additional movement to make which I suspect I shall have to incorporate which I think (hopefully) complies with Bessler's comment about 'connectedness' or as I prefer to say 'interconnectedness'.   If these fail then I shall finish the document I have been writing and publish it and await the reaction.  If my previous 'revelations' are anything to go by then a fairly muted response can be expected because no one accepts any theories without a working model, I know I don't.

But there will be one thing in the document which will hopefully get a more excited response, however I'm jumping the gun here - the model's not finished yet and I'm kind of optimistic about this one.

JC

 10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

When is a Conservative Force Not a Conservative Force, Answer - When it is the Wind.

I mentioned recently their seeming reluctance to expand on the answers to some questions I had put to my teachers many years ago, when I was trying to understand why Bessler's wheel could not work.  I had received the standard physics tuition and understood what I was taught, but there were still questions bothering me which related solely to Bessler's wheel, and I have never ever been able to get a satisfactory response, not once in the intervening 50 odd years.

I shall try to be as succinct as I can.  The laws of physics were designed to describe as accurately as possible each possible action and reaction, but sometimes they remind me of a legal document.  They describe the simplest of actions in the most accurate terms possible and in the event often obscure the precise meaning they try to convey.  It can sometimes help to look at the broader picture to get an idea of what is happening.

I'm assuming that we all know and understand the definition of a conservative force - and that gravity is conservative.  It's not path-dependent and it can store or regain potential energy, unlike non-conservative forces.

For the above reasons we are assured that Bessler's gravity wheel did not work - except that it did. If gravity is a conservative force, what non-conservative forces are there?  Well actually there aren't many.  Oh they will point to friction and springs and some magnetic attractions. and the like, but it seems that it is difficult to identify non-conservative forces, because they are so few and not really relevant to our cause.

Now it is a curious fact that when discussing conservative and non-conservative forces no mention is ever made of the wind as a force.  I've searched everywhere for a statement which affirms the wind's status as either conservative or non-conservative, but it just isn't there.  Occasionally you will find a brief reference to the wind as being non-conservative within some other calculations but nothing else. I have maintained for many years that the wind should be identified as a conservative force and because it is capable of driving rotatable machinery i.e. windmills; then gravity too should be capable of driving a wheel continuously, but of course wind is non-conservative isn't it?  No! This assumption is wrong and provably so.

All you have to do is compare the defining criteria for a conservative force as applied to gravity with those of the wind. Gravity is path independent, the object moved from A to B can travel by any path and this applies to the wind as it impacts on a windmill's blades.  Gravity can store mechanical energy as demonstrated when one lifts a fallen book back on to its shelf; a balloon can be pulled along into the wind and held there with the potential energy of the wind available to carry it away.  There are a number of similarities which confirm the wind's status as a conservative force and I have no idea why this fact has not been picked up by the establishment.  I assume it is because the conservative nature of the wind does not raise questions the way the gravitational force does. We understand how the wind is generated and why it flows in a particular direction at any one time.

If the very idea that the wind is a conservative force disagrees with your own impression of it, consider the opposite side of the coin; if it is non-conservative how does it turn a Savonius windmill, or an anemometer?  How could you even measure the strength of the wind because non-conservative forces are of brief duration.

I mentioned looking at the broader picture when considering conservative as opposed to non-conservative forces.  I think of conservative forces as enduring forces, not explosive actions of extremely limited duration which non-conservative forces tend to be.  Enduring forces conserve mechanical energy, non-conservative forces expend their mechanical energy and the energy released dissipates as heat etc.

JC