Bessler 's Curious Hand Gesture

I had considered posting the subject of this blog on the forum but decided against because of its length.  I have no objection to anyone taking the suject to the forum for further discussion.

Many years ago I commented on what I described as the poorly drawn hands in the main portrait of Bessler.  I wrote this because to me the hands looked unnatural and were therefore not well drawn. Subsequently I believed that I had discovered that the particular arrangement of the middle and ring finger being pressed together while the other fingers were held apart was a secret method of recognition among the Freemasons mainly in formal portraits.  I thought that this was probably not too surprising given the apparent involvement of Karl the Landgrave in the Masonic brotherhood. The subject of Freemasons has come up from time to time and suggestions have been made that perhaps Bessler was a Mason.   If the house of Hess at Kassel was deeply involved in Freemasonry then there is little doubt that Bessler was either made aware of it, or learned of it while he stayed at Hessen-Kassel.

Coincidentally the man to whom Baron Fischer wrote, in support of Bessler's wheel, Dr Desaguliers, Sir Isaac Newton's curator of experiments at the Royal Society, was, himself a keen Freemason and was mainly responsible for the upsurge in membership all over Europe. However further research indicates that Desaguliers was not connected with Freemasonry until 1719 and did not induct anyone on the continent before 1731 so I think we can dismiss any connection of Bessler to Freemasonry, at least while he was at Hess-Kassel.   Neither is there any evidence that Karl the Landgrave of Hess-Kassel was a member and anyway, it was too early for his involvement, although several of his descendants were.

As for Ken's findings on the subject of Bessler's portraits, I am neither supporting nor dismissing his work on deciphering the meanings he claims to have found - I simply don't know..  

In the main portrait Bessler's middle and ring fingers on his left hand, are held close together and anyone who wishes to research the significance of this in a formal portrait will find a wealth of information about the use of this symbol by the Masonic fraternity.  But I think we can ignore that information for the reason I have given above, so why was it used in his case?

The symbols shown in the portrait; the skull, book and jar are commonly used in art to denote the passing of time and our ultimate death and the words Memento Mori are ascribed to the notion.  It means remember, we die.  In my web site at http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/html/part_2_portrait.html I suggested a link to Mary Magdalene, Venus and the pentagram, which I admitted was highly dubious speculation.  In fact the answer is more prosaic.  I think that in addition to the alphanumeric cipher, as described on my website www.theorffyreuscode.com the two Roman letter 'M's in the bottom line below the portrait stand for Memento Mori.


But that still doesn't explain why Bessler used the curious finger gesture.  Around the year 1578 in Toledo or Madrid, Spain, the painter known as "El Greco", created a painting that is now called "El caballero de la mano al pecho" -- "The man with his hand on his chest."  In this painting the fingers , of his right hand are displayed as in Bessler's portrait except that Bessler has them resting on a book.  Space prevents me going into detail  about the various speculations about its meaning, but you can read a good review of the painting and its associated ideas at http://www.darkfiber.com/pz/chapter1.html

I should also point out that dozens of famous, and infamous people have had portraits done in which their fingers have adopted similar positions including Newton and Hitler, some are obviously accidental due to the position of their hands against their hip or leg..

My own take from this with regard to Bessler is this.  We know that in later life he published documents arguing for the unification of the Christian religions. I assume he included Catholic, Protestant, Jews and the Jesuits.  He spent a period of time in Prague meeting frequently with a Jesuit priest and Jewish Rabbi, and I suspect that it was there that he learned of the the hand gesture which is a type of Jewish secret sign that was used among the crypto-Jews (i.e., false Christians) of 16th century Toledo to recognize each other, much like a secret masonic handshake.  Bessler's gesture may originate from there, or another theory has it that the gesture was recommended by St. Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Society of Jesus, the Jesuits, in his Spiritual Exercises? There are also a number of paintings showing the virgin Mary using the same gesture while feeding the baby Jesus   The problem with all of these is that they place the hand on the chest or breasts as in the above picture.

I can imagine that Bessler might choose to use the Marrano gesture as it is called, but why not place it on his chest?  It looks to me as though his left arm originally came diagonally towards his chest ending up either with the hand at his chest or near to it.  The current left hand looks almost like a disembodied part simply placed there at the last moment.  Perhaps he intended to place it on his chest and then changed it at the last moment.  I wondered if the reason for his change of heart (pun!) was due to the fact that Loyola required that the sign be made against the chest for each sin the believer had committed, and I doubt that Bessler would have wanted such a public display of his sins.

I should also mention that there is a medical condition which causes a similar positioning of the fingers and as an alternative, the ancient art of dactylonomy may require a similar finger positioning, although I haven't been able find that precise one!

Any suggestions welcome.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’

Would Millions of Bessler's Wheels Affect the Planet's Rotation?

Previously there have been discussions on the BWF about the effects of having numerous Besslerwheels around the planet earth, all spinning and generating electricity (I wish!) and it has been argued that using weights and thus gravity, to drive all those wheels, will affect the rotation of the earth.  I assume the thinking is that with the force of gravity being used to continually drop and raise weights all over the world, the energy it spends in doing that is removed from the total sum pressing on earth?  It seems that some people think this would result in a slowing of the earth's rate of spin with some other, so far undefined effects?

What would the force of gravity be doing if it wasn't expending energy on moving Bessler's wheels?   It would be pushing or trying to push everything within its scope into the earth.  If some things are already in or on the earth does it still do work?  Yes. Does it lose some of its force?  No, because it's continuous. If a weight is driven around in a wheel by gravity, the energy is simply transferred to another form, first rotational and then electricity and then whatever electricity is used for.

I do not have an opinion on the likelihood of this action resulting in an effect which can be detected, and I'm doubtful that any number of Bessler wheels would have any impact on the earth's spin.  In writing this blog it occurred to me that, no one has proposed a similar result being caused by the millions upon millions of rotating engines all over the globe throwing weights around and around and up and down. All those pistons being exploded up and down and side to side.  What about elevators? Lifts in tall buildings going up and down, apparently the world's tallest skyscrapers are set to double in height after an elevator company developed a new super-strong 'rope' to haul lifts to the top.   Would a mass of 3 tons accelerating up and down the tallest building ( quarter of a mile) multiplied many time have any effect?  Seems unlikely.

Trains weighing thousands of tons travelling in excess of 100 mph accelerating and braking, or just shifting their mass across the surface of the earth; aircraft taking of and landing, moving their weigh from a runway and spreading it onto the atmosphere while travelling at many hundreds of miles an hour.  Huge cargo ships and tankers loading up and taking to the seas, spreading the load which was concentrated on a dockside onto the ocean. Aren't these kinds of activities just as likely to effect the earth's rate of spin as a hundred million Besslerwheels all rotating 24/7?

So the one difference between all of the above and Bessler's Wheel is that the latter will be driven by gravity, although many people believe that that is impossible and there is some other force driving the wheels, and that then puts it in the same category as those mentioned above.

I do not know if the concerns expressed here are legitimate or not, but I suspect the wheels will be produced regardless, if their existence proves commercially desirable.  That of course is another question which has exercised us over the years, can Bessler's wheel be justified as a generator of electricity? My personal view is that it could be.  To use an old English proverb, 'necessity is the mother of invention'.  In the Oxford Dictionary the proverb has been defined as – when the need for something becomes imperative, you are forced to find ways of getting or achieving it. And that is the key; if all alternative forms of energy creation become too expensive, detrimental to the planet or us, or unavailable everywhere then some one will take Bessler's wheel and use the concept which allows it to work without violating the standard laws of physics, and build a useful generator which can supply sufficient electricity for each one's needs.

For me the answer to the question posed in the title of this blog is - no, not at all and even if it did,not in any detectable way.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’

Breaking Down the Wall of Scepticism.

I have been immersed in Bessleriana for so long that I have become accustomed to the idea that it will only be a matter of time before we prove that Bessler was right and it is possible to extract energy from gravity.  Suddenly I realised I had got too used to the possibility and had forgotten what a bombshell that news would be should it come true!

The reminder came because I was rereading through Sir Isaac Newtons 'Quaestions' notebook the other day, and came across his brief comment about how perpetual motion might be possible if you could somehow shield half the wheel from the effects of gravity, when I sensed a subtext in his note. He wasn't suggesting that it was possible, what he was saying was that one way to achieve it would require the invention of a material which was utterly impossible.  In other words he was implying that it was impossible and you would have to invent an equally impossible method to achieve it. So even my attempt to vindicate my stance by suggesting that even Newton considered perpetual motion might be possible, was flawed!

But I do not accept that it is impossible, because I am completely persuaded otherwise by the huge amount of evidence in Bessler's work, but it does demonstrate very clearly the monumental task we have in trying to persuade anyone else of our conviction.  Newton has achieved an almost God-like status, and his work is taught world wide.  Other scientists of the era have also defined physical laws which still stand today, and every scientist, teacher and in fact anyone with even a little education knows that Bessler's wheel violates some law and is therefore inpossible, so how come we few are so convinced that we know better, that we are prepared to go against the tide and do all in our power to prove 99 percent of the world's population have got it wrong?

Call it instinct, intuition, a feeling, a hunch, a sixth sense, a gut feeling - whatever it is, it has been in the mind of man for thousands of years.  There was a magnetic wheel design in 8th Century Bavaria, and a design for another  perpetual motion machine by Indian mathematician–astronomer Bhaskara in 1159.  There are hints that they were being investigated as far back as the Sumerians, 5000 years ago. Somehow, we just know that it is possible to create a continuously turning wheel powered by weights, and therefore gravity.  In Bessler's day the possibility was discussed by the intellectuals but most of those who understood the argument were swayed by those who said it was in violation of certain physical laws which could not be argued with. The mere fact that it was so hotly debated suggests that the idea went against man's intuition.

The sceptic's argument was logical and those who espoused it were unable to find a concept which would allow such a device to work.  Phillipe de La Hire (1614-1718)  wrote that 'one would need to find a body that was both heavier and lighter at the same time', as equally daft an idea as Newton's gravity shield - and yet there is a certain truth in the statements.  La Hire's reflects Newton's idea too. Either the object changes weight or the effect of gravity on it varies; the end result is the same, the  amount of the perceived weight alters.

There is a scientific consensus that perpetual motion in an isolated system violates either the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics, or both.  The only question is this; is gravity an external force or not?  To me it is obviously external.  All physical bodies of mass are attracted to each other by the 'action at a distance' phenomenon hence the force must be external to the wheel - no question.  We can therefore dismiss the 'scientific consensus that perpetual motion in an isolated system violates either the first law of thermodynamics, the second law of thermodynamics, or both'. That consensus does not apply here, a gravity-powered wheel isn't an isolated system.

In the end, simulations, learned texts littered with illustrations, lectures - none of them will persuade the hard-liners; only a working model will convince them that after 300 years Johann Bessler's claims were justified.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’

Would Bessler's wheel be patentable?

This question seems to have surfaced again recently and despite reading a lot of patent advice I am uncertain if I can answer the question asked in the title of this blog. What follows is my take on the issue but it is quite possibly erroneous in some aspects, for which I apologise.

Let us assume for the sake of argument, that a means has been found to produce a continuously rotating wheel, driven only by the force of gravity.  This has nothing to do with Johann Bessler's work.  It seems safe to assume that this would be patentable, in the USA and many other countries.

However, suppose someone should come along and announce that the wheel in question is an exact copy of Bessler's wheel, and therefore it could not be patented.  This raises two questions, firstly so what? Bessler did not patent it so it's fair game for someone else to patent, and secondly how do we know it is an exact copy of Bessler's wheel; everyone knows that he did not reveal the secret of his wheel, so  we can never prove or disprove that as a fact.

The decision on the first point may depend on the outcome of the second point.  If it was proved that the new wheel did in fact copy Bessler's wheel exactly, would that negate the possibility of patenting it?  Personally I don't think it would, even if it was proved that it was exactly the same design as Bessler's.  Look at a patent today; it covers every possible alternative reading of an invention.  It tries to cover all eventualities because the patent lawyer knows that the opposition will read everything in the patent to try to find a chink which he can use towards a new patent application.  Bessler's clues leave the field wide open for similar patent applications

The fact that Bessler left sufficient clues to allow someone to reconstruct his wheel exactly would not, in my opinion, be enough to make any future patent application invalid.  The clues, such as they are, are so obscure as to allow the formation of numerous designs which 999 times out of every thousand will undoubtedly fail due to the fact that he wrote them deliberately obscurely to keep them secret, and as I said recently, I think they were only there to allow him to point to them post the sale of his wheel, to show how devious and clever he had been.

I am aware of only two people who believe that they have solved most of the clues and are close to achieving success, and expect a working device soon, either simulated or an actual build - myself and Ken.  Having said that, in illustration of the difficulties in deciphering these clues, both Ken and I have arrived at our widely differing solutions via completely different sets of clues.

I should also mention that there are others who also feel that they are making progress in the right direction although I'm not aware of any soon-to-be announced working models.

This blog raises one more point.  It has been said many times, that even if somebody succeeds in making the continuously-turning wheel there will be no way of knowing if Bessler's wheel resembled it in any way.  I would reject that argument utterly, my own design has borrowed extensively from Bessler's work and while I am unwilling to share anything until I have finished it, I am confident of success, but does that mean that Ken's wheel will fail?  I have no idea, but I have made mine without any springs and that he will see as a major error.  LOL

Finally, should any of us succeed and knowingly base it on the information Bessler left in his clues, would it be morally wrong to patent it without acknowledging Bessler's part?

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’

How will you choose a verifier of high repute?

Recent discussions on the Besslerwheel Forum have revealed a minor conundrum.  One member has assured us that his wheel works and as proof he will take a video of it running, albeit with covers over the sides to prevent us from seeing how it works.  As proof that the video is genuine he says that he will include other devices running at the same time. Leaving aside the question of trust, it seems to me that such a demonstration would prove pointless anyway.  If no one can see how the wheel works, how are they to judge it?  All that will be visible will be the speed and regularity (or not) of the spinning device. No matter how you try to prove the wheel is the genuine article there is no way to establish its validity unless someone can see it, understand how it works and vouch for it.

The question then arises, who might be the most suitable person to provide his assurance that the wheel is genuine?  It is critical that an independent examination is carried out by someone who has no personal interest in the demonstration and is seen to be impartial.  This rules out family connections, employment relations, patrons, friends, others with an interest in the device, potential buyers, financially interested people and the majority of members of the forum, including myself.  Obviously he would require expertise in the subject.

Johann Bessler had exactly the same problem.  He tried to prove the wheel did work as he claimed by demonstrating a number of tests that he and Gottfried Leibniz thought were compelling at least if not irrefutable.  He also sought the most reliable and trusted person possible, to validate his machine, a man of unblemished reputation and one held in the highest respect by other rulers and their subjects. Despite this, the modern world seeks to tarnish Karl the Landgrave of Hessen Kassel's reputation by casting doubt on his honour, trying, it seems to me, to find a chink in the armour of good solid, but circumstantial evidence in favour of Bessler's wheel.

At that time the most sensible suggestion was that another ruler hold a sum of money equal to the price Bessler demanded for his secret, in escrow pending the verification of the wheel.  An escrow is a deposit of funds, a deed or other instrument by one party for the delivery to another party upon completion of a particular condition or event.  That the suggestion failed was partly down to the chosen escrow holder taking offence at a related matter and partly down to the fact that Bessler did not trust anyone.

Even if the escrow arrangement had been accomplished, a reputable person would then have to be found who could verify or not the wheel's behaviour and then inform the escrow holder so that the money could have been handed over.  But one person of unimpeachable reputation had already given the wheel his seal of approval, Karl who insisted that he must verify Bessler's claims before agreeing to provide his patronage in the form of employment, room and board for Bessler and his family.

It seems to me that trying to do the same thing today would be just as fraught with difficulties as Bessler discovered. There will always be a feeling that some agreement has compromised the reliability of the verification.  There are however, some excellent forum members who I would trust absolutely, but perhaps like me, they would prefer not be involves in such an important role.

I should point out here, that I am completely against patenting the device because I think it's a waste of time and money.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Do we know, or are we Guessing, Speculating or do we have a Hunch about how Bessler's Wheels worked?

I sometimes wonder if Bessler had any qualms about publishing his Apologia Poetica and his Das Triumphans books.  Did he fear that he had provided clues that were too easy to decipher?  I know I am reluctant to give any hints about my current thinking for fear of giving anything away and I suspect most of us are of a similar mind.

However, I think he must have been pretty confident that the clues were too difficult to decipher otherwise he would never have published them.  But that raises the question are they too difficult for us too?  He must have thought that at some point people would work on his books in an effort to extract the original meaning he intended us to grasp; but that this should begin to happen three hundred years after his death was probably not something that occurred to him.

He published the books when he was at the height of his fame and confident that his wheel would be sold, in which case the books were just there to allow him to reveal that the clues had been there all along and only his own cleverness had kept them invisible.

I have been criticised in the past for publishing speculation without labelling it as such, thereby giving the impression that my speculations were factual. I hope I corrected that impression but I think there is a thin wall between what we think is fact, speculation, following a hunch and guessing.

Speculation is the consideration of some subject which leads to a conclusion or opinion reached by such contemplation. Often such speculations are impossible to verify, and one can say that it is the forming of a theory or conjecture without firm evidence.

Besides speculating, I have followed many hunches over the years most of which ended in a firm conviction that my hunch was wrong. Other hunches I chased have led me to believe they were correct or true, even though I did not have any proof.  Like all hunches these were based on a feeling or guess, based on intuition rather than fact.

Guessing combines elements of  hunches and speculation but is broader based.  For example you can guess the next roll of a dice but you can't speculate what it would be.  It won't be accurate at all because the dice has no memory of previous rolls, but you can speculate what the dice roll will be, based on, for example, looking at the statistical distribution of past rolls and so forth. But it just won't be very accurate.

So I think that speculation is an informed guess.   But a hunch is something extra; some unconscious conclusion about the way to the solution.  I often awaken in the night having had a sudden revelation about something I had been thinking about during the previous day or week.  Often it it proves unfounded in the cold light of dawn, on the other hand I have made some major discoveries which I was able to verify subsequently.

But some of the most interesting revelations have come to me as I was writing descriptions of my various discoveries. These have confirmed what I considered was hardly more than speculation at the time  and thus became facts.

So revelations can materialise out of the blue and I'm sure they stem from unconscious activity in a part of the brain which appears to be able to work unsupervised, independently and in a focussed way.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

The High Power Potential in Bessler's Wheel.

There seems to be a body of opinion among Bessler researchers that even when someone does eventually build a successful version of Bessler's wheel - a working wheel - that it will prove little more than a novelty item that will be of no practical use in today's world.

I have written of this before but I thought I'd try again to convince others that this opinion is not supported by the facts relating to the original wheels.

We know, for instance that three of the wheels rotated at speeds of up to 50 revolutions a minute.  We also know that the third wheel, as well as rotating at 40 rpm, also turned in either direction.  Added to that the fourth wheel turned at 26 rpm also in either direction.  Bessler also said that he could make the wheels turn slowly or quickly, lifting the same heavy weights.

So we have the knowledge that the wheels could be designed to run fast or slow, in one or both directions without loss of power or speed and yet all could lift at least the same weights, regardless of their outer dimensions.  This suggests that today we could design a wheel which ran faster than 50 rpm, in a larger scale and probably do so while coping with a much heavier load.

Electricity generators need to be able  to run at a certain speed and be able to deal with occasional heavy loads.   50 rpm does not seem fast enough but with appropriate gearing the right speed could be obtained.  Take wind turbines for example they turn at speeds of between 6 and 22 rpm. Their blade lengths vary - from 102 feet to 208 feet!  They produce between 1.3 MW of electricity to 3 MW and one produces 7.6 MW. and that's the biggest one. That one has its hub 443 feet above the ground! Even the smallest one's hub is 197 feet above the ground.

A megawatt (MW) is one million watts and a kilowatt (kW) is one thousand watts. Both terms are commonly used in the power business when describing generation or load consumption. For instance, a 100 MW rated wind farm is capable of producing 100 MW during peak winds, but will produce much less than its rated amount when winds are light. As a result of these varying wind speeds, over the course of a year a wind farm may only average 30 MW of power production. Similarly, a 1,000 MW coal plant may average 750 MW of production over the course of a year because the plant will shut down for maintenance from time-to-time and the plant operates at less than its rated capability when other power plants can produce power less expensively.

The amount of electricity consumed by a typical residential household varies dramatically by region of the country.  I found that in the USA, monthly consumption of electricity in residential homes varies on average from 610 kWh to 1151 kW each month, which takes account of areas using air-conditioning and others needing heating.  Roughly speaking, I'm told that one megawatt can power one thousand homes.

A large generator sufficient to supply all of the average home's need might need an out put of about 10,000 - 15,000 watts, at the most.  High fuel consumption would rule it out but not if the fuel was free as in gravity.  If 1 MW equals one million watts and the average residence requires one thousand watts per month we need a Besslerwheel generating one hundredth of the amount the smallest wind turbine can provide - and that is a theoretical figure as we saw above wind turbines only produce 30 percent of the potential power because of fluctuating wind speeds.

So given the enormous structures being built for the generation of electricity it seems to me to be perfectly possible to generate the same levels of power with Bessler's wheel with the latest technology but of far more compact proportions and with a considerably more appealing aspect and able to operate almost anywhere, unlike the wind turbines.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Bessler Wheel update, March 2015

On the besslerwheel forum, the enthusiasm, drive and ingenuity of the search for the solution to Bessler's wheel seems to have faded to a marked degree.  65 pages of thread titles and 5814 topics, 1663 users - and yet the most active topic is....'A working wheel is only days away!' with 2753 replies and not one millimetre of advance in almost two years of hot air, bluster and bragging.

The number of posts per month have dropped by at least 30 percent, from a peak in 2010. The same fall is reflected in the number of topics, down a similar amount over the same period.  The number of new users is way down too.  To what can we attribute this sad demise of a once fascinating and exciting field of research?  Well it isn't truly a new topic is it?  It seems to have occupied the mind of man, and not at all of woman, for at least three thousand years, and in all that time just one example of apparent success.

I say 'apparent' but it would be hard to ignore the overwhelming evidence that Johann Bessler succeeded...if only it wasn't for the fact that what he did is supposed to be impossible.  I think the birth of the internet spread the word about the legend of Bessler's wheel and attracted the attention of all sorts of people from all over the world, but that initial spurt of excitement and enthusiasm has kind of petered out, like an auto running out of gas.     The gas was the sudden spread of information about Bessler but that information is still out there and yet the car is about to stop.  There is some other factor having a braking effect and I think it is the result of too many people crying wolf, I don't exclude myself from this allegation and I understand all too well how it happens.

To succeed would be such an extraordinary achievement that each of us dreams of the esteem and approbation due to the inventor, and every so often a sudden revelation strikes one so hard with such conviction that it is almost impossible to restrain one's enthusiasm enough not to publicly announce success, even before a single mechanism has been put together.  In the course of our research most of us learn to restrain our enthusiastic urge to shout the news from the rooftops.

The other reason for the drop in new people coming to this subject is probably a result of the publicity it has garnered over the last few years and which has also inspired an even greater number of sceptics to air their own views to the detriment of the potential newcomer's intentions.  There is nothing like being the subject of scorn, derision, sarcasm and pity to put people off investing time in the subject.

I have to admit my own shortcomings at this point.  Although I have helped to spread the information about Bessler which I have gathered over many years, I'm aware that I have not revealed much of the designs I have worked on.  But I have endeavoured to put out as much information as I have been able to with regard to the encoded material Bessler left behind, but of course seeing the codes and even working out what some of them say, does not seem to advance us one tiny bit on our path to success.  So I promise that later this year I will publish all that I have found including the principle I discovered, even if my own wheel fails to materialise.  This will happen because of certain constraints upon my own situation which forces me to present my findings as soon as possible, with or without a working wheel.  It's nothing bad but I just need to get on with my research and present my findings while I am still (relatively) young!

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Bessler's Wheel and Inertial Propulsion Drive

Ever since I stumbled on the secret to Bessler's wheel, more than two years ago now, I have been trying turn it to my advantage, but knowing the basic concept and finding ways of using it are two different things.  Gradually, through trial and error and through occasional sudden revelations in connection with Bessler's clues, I think I am on the brink of success.  I noted down a brief description of the principle I discovered and jumbled up the letters and it has appeared under almost every blog since then.

I know there are many, probably 90 per cent, who think I'm suffering from premature perpetuation, (don't you just love that phrase!  I owe that one to Stewart of Besslerwheel forum fame.) but I am sure that when you know the principle you will share my enthusiasm.  The reason for this blog, is that I often get asked for more information on what I have discovered and I am hard put to reveal any of it in case I let slip too much information.  However there is a clue I can give albeit a vague one.

I am sure that this same principle will be available for another mechanical enigma which has entertained and puzzled us for many years.  I refer to the inertial thrust or propulsion engine, also known as reactionless drive.  I believe I'm right in saying that to date, no reactionless drive has ever been validated under properly controlled conditions.

The name derives from Newton's third law, which is usually expressed as, "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction." The Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster amongst other proposed sensible concepts have been researched but so far without success.

Without giving too much away I am convinced that the principle I have found will also be a significant inclusion in the configuration of any successful inertial thruster.  This means that there may be a reactionless space drive for the future and of course there is potential for ground a sea transport too.

When you consider it, if Bessler's wheel worked as we all believe it did, then what ever mechanical arrangement inside it must be transferable to an Inertial Drive Engine because in order for it to work Bessler's wheel must have overcome Newton's third law:- "for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction."

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Did Bessler use invisible ink?

Someone emailed me the other day suggesting that Johann Bessler might have used invisible ink either under his portrait, in Maschinen Tractate or even in Das Triumphirende or one of his other publications.  My first reaction was instant dismissal of the idea, but later I thought it might be interesting to investigate what was known about such things at that time just to see if it was even a possibility.

Surprisingly there is plenty of evidence that the subject was widely understood and used in particular by those in high office.  No lesser person than Mary Queen of Scots while in prison plotted to over throw Queen Elizabeth I and used invisible ink in her letters to her co-conspirators to convey her wishes.

The history of invisible ink goes back more than 2,000 years and was used by the ancient Greeks and Romans. The first record of it comes from Pliny the Elder in the first century AD, who mentioned using the milk of the tithymalus plant as an invisible ink in his Natural History. Invisible ink continued to be used during the Renaissance; statesmen used it in their letters, and Ovid references the practice in his Art of Love. Giovanni Battista della Porta, an Italian polymath, developed a formula for invisible ink.  Many others, including Roger Bacon and John Dee, were familiar with its use.

For our purposes one of the most interesting facts is that Prague was a hot bed of ciphers and codes and the constant ethnic tensions between the Jesuits and the Jews who lived there resulted in the need for secure communications between those on opposing sides who still wished to consult each other and invisible ink was a common method used.

Remember Bessler's account of his time in Prague when he conversed with the Jesuit priest:-

"You seem to be a clever, skilful and strong young fellow, and if you're interested we could join forces together with God, in the hope that He would let us make this discovery. Now as it happens, I know a wise man who, on proper reflection, could well help us, and it would be a good idea if you were to go to see him frequently, as it is no longer really fitting for me to do so, because I've been seen too often recently going into the Hebrew quarter, creeping to see some Rabbi or other. It doesn't take our Brothers long to sniff such a thing out! Since you and I seem to be at one in these matters I think you will be a perfectly satisfactory substitute for me on these journeys - we'll keep the whole thing a secret, shall we?"

It has always seemed to me that the two priests used Bessler for their own purposes besides helping him with his search for the secret of perpetual motion.  Later he wrote of the Rabbi:-

"He also taught me hieroglyphics, the language of Nature and the writings of the Angels."

Interestingly, in 1705 a mysterious female German alchemist seems to have been the first person to identify bismuth-cobalt as a valuable substance from which to make invisible ink. This alchemist was also the anonymous author of three books, including one with the alluring title 'On the Key to the Cabinet of the Secret Treasure Room of Nature', which included a discussion of the changing bismuth-cobalt colours.  That book title seems to ring closely with Bessler's 'language of nature', and given his extremely open and curious mind I am certain that Bessler was taught, or taught himself, the art of making and using invisible ink.

Given his obvious interest and extensive use of several different kinds of codes and his self-evident determination to provide many clues, some of which I know refer exclusively to the design of his wheel, it seems perfectly possible, after all, that he might have used invisible ink somewhere.

So it's not impossible that he might have written on some pages in invisible ink.  Unfortunately I no longer own an original manuscript by Bessler so any research into the possibility will have to be done by another.  I'm undecided about its use by Bessler, but I decided to fly a kite, to see if anyone thinks there might be something in this idea.

(To fly a kite, is a term used in politics in certain English-speaking countries to describe a tactic, whereby a politician, usually through the media and often by way of an intentional leak, raises an idea to gauge the general and public reaction to it.)

NB The mysterious female alchemist was thought to be Dorothea Juliana Walchin.  Her findings were supported by George Ernst Stahl (1659-1734) a well-known German chemist and physician.  I mention this because there was a lot of research being carried out at that time into the use of dies for writing, printing and painting - and invisible ink.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Bessler a Fraud? Prove it.

When our old friend Herman Helmholtz presented the original formulation of what is now known as the First Law of Thermodynamics, beginning with the axiomatic statement that a Perpetual Motion Machine is impossible, he was referring to the idea that a machine that had no external source of energy would run out fuel very quickly and stop.  Such a concept was and is obviously impossible. We, on the other hand, often, mistakenly in my opinion, use the words Perpetual Motion when referring to Bessler's machine, despite the very strong evidence that it acquired sufficient energy to run continuously as long as it was operating within a gravitational field - an external energy source and therefore not a Perpetual Motion machine as such as was discussed by Helmholtz.  He was describing a closed system.

This habit of calling Bessler's machine a perpetual motion machine is like putting our collective heads into the lion's mouth.  We are asking for our ideas to be shot down in flames, because as Helmholtz said, no one had ever invented such a machine therefore they must be impossible.  (Sorry about the mixed metaphors!)

That idea, that Perpetual Motion machines are against the laws of physics, has stayed with us, and it is a seemingly insurmountable wall that has included the Bessler type of machine.  For the purposes of this blog I shall refer to Helmholtz's Perpetual Motion as PM and Bessler's  as PM+G. In other words 'Perpetual Motion with the aid of Gravity'.  I came to this conclusion while trying to understand why everyone else on the planet knew with utter certainty that Bessler was a fraud.

Since Bessler's day people from all over the world have strived to duplicate his wheel, so far without success; and yet there are still only two reasons given why the claims must be false; one is that such machines break the laws of physics, and secondly, that if such a device were possible someone would have invented it.  To put it another way, PM machines must be impossible otherwise someone would have invented one already. Both points originated from Herman Helmholtz, almost 200 years ago. This reasoning is irrelevant if you accept that Bessler did indeed invent a PM+G machine.  That one fact destroys the second point, but only if you are talking about Helmholtz's PM machine.  The fact that Bessler succeeded obviously means that his machine did not break any physical laws.

Space prevents me from rehearsing the reasons why many people now believe that Bessler's claims were genuine and that he did invent a machine which ran continuously with no obvious external supply of energy. If people wish I can briefly go through them in a future blog, but all the information is out there especially on the besslerwheel forum, which you can find at http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/index.php There is more than enough evidence to show that he discovered a way of using falling weights in his wheel, therefore he used the force of gravity to drive his machine.

We are all aware of the many experiment carried out over the last 300 years to try to find the source of energy he used, on the assumption that there must have been some external energy supply, and yet not one single source has been found which would supply enough energy to duplicate the output of his machines.  It is quite clear that it was gravity and not one of the other more unconvincing sources suggested.  In which case if we assume that Bessler was honest it must be possible to make use of gravity without breaking the laws of physics.

There is no good reason why gravity may not be so used, and the idea - the premise - that gravity cannot be so used is wrong,  It is said that 'if the premise is true, then the conclusion must be true', but the reverse is also true, if the premise is wrong then the conclusion must be wrong.  When Helmholtz stated that PM machines were impossible, he was right, but he was not suggesting gravity driven machines were impossible, he wasn't even discussing them. 

The whole house of cards was started, even before Bessler's time, because no-one understood the force of gravity, and any and everything which suggested that something was a perpetual motion machine was lumped together with the PM+G machines as well as the more obvious PM machines whose secret of construction were still being sought despite the obvious fallacy in their design concept.  Despite my many attempts to reprogram people's thinking, the impossibility of PM+G is still lumped to together with PM and, as Mike Wech wrote,'Some things in life become ingrained in your psyche. You can't shake them no matter how hard you try. They're tattooed inside your skull, lying dormant, 'til the moment you need to draw from them.'

Knowing this I am absolutely certain that the sceptics will not accept this possibility until someone produces a working model demonstrating the use of gravity as a fuel and probably not even then.

However I don't see why we should do nothing about their demands - we are doing our best to prove Bessler's claim - so I say, if they are so sure that Bessler was a fraud, why don't they duplicate his wheels and the tests they underwent, but using only the materials and technology that was available then? They cannot use gravity because they say its impossible, but surely someone could have managed to build a fraudulent version in the last 300 years, if his was a fake - and if it was possible? 

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Our Archaic Measuring System.

During my research into the legend of Bessler’s wheel I quickly became aware of the many variations between apparently similarly-named weights and measures, across Germany and elsewhere. Eventually I sorted out the correct ones, and I came to the conclusion that all these weights and measure definitions must have originated from some identifiable source and one that provided a means of verifying a particular measurement.  It seems to me that resource which was once identifiable has been largely lost.

The lost resources were replaced by traditions that can seem amusing.  For example in the 16th century the lawful ‘rod’ was decreed to be the combined length of the left feet of 16 men as they left church on a Sunday morning.  I assume that they would be dressed in their best, including good shoes which might have been larger than their normal work wear shoes, to aid accurate measurement.  The rod in question  (or pole, or perch) is a surveyor’s tool, 5 and a half yards, which is equal to 16 and a half feet and that probably explains the use of 16 men’s feet as a rough guide. Another apocryphal tale records that Henry I decreed the lawful yard to be the distance between the tip of his nose and the end of his thumb.

Traces of those lost resources are still evident in some of our commonly used measurements. Degrees for instance; why are there 360 degrees in a circle?  

This question puzzled me as a schoolboy and the answers I have found over the years have been few and unsatisfactory in my opinion.

The usual suggestion is that it has come down to us from the Babylonians and before them the Sumerians, who, we are told, used a 60 base system of numbering.  They thrived some 6000 years ago and obviously had good reasons for using such a system.

It has been suggested that 60 was used for a base because it has so many divisors. 60 is the smallest number for which 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 are divisors – plus 10, 12, 15, 20 and 30. That makes it much better to work with than a 10 base, so yes that is one reason but is that really the only reason.  Bear in mind that they also used a 10 based system alongside the 60 base.

The Babylonians and their predecessors were familiar with the seasons and knew the earth’s rotation was about 365 days. They used the 360 day and added the additional 5 later. As we saw above 360 subdivides in so many ways.  Seasons included summer and winter, spring and autumn, 90 days each. They divided the 90 days into three lots of 30, making twelve months of 30 days each - all based on 60.

Each day was divided into two lots of 12 hours because that was the average of the summer and winter day lengths. Each hour was subdivided into 60 minutes and each minute into 60 seconds. Each day is equal to 1 degree of the earth’s annual orbit around the sun so 360 degrees for a full circle made perfect sense. At midday in midsummer the sun was overhead so they could mark the middle of the day as noon, and call after noon, well, afternoon! That gave them 6 hours on either side.  

With all these divisions and sub division, they could measure how far the earth rotated in, say, 1 hour or even 1 minute or a second.  1 day = 360 degree rotation and that is also 24 hours, so the shift per hour is 360/24 = 15 degrees /hour and 1 degree = 4 minutes.  Today we know that each degree of latitude at the equator equals nearly 69 miles; each minute of latitude equals just over 1 mile; and each second of latitude equals a fraction over 100 feet.

You can see that the 360 degrees that the earth moves can also be used to measure the angle of arc but the Sumerians also knew that the perimeter of a hexagon is exactly equal to six times the radius of a circumscribed circle, in fact that was probably another reason why they chose to divide the circle into 360 degrees.

I mentioned the ‘rod’ in connection with 16 left feet – why the left feet?  Perhaps it was common knowledge that, contrary to popular belief, the left foot is 80% of the time, the larger foot and 80% of the population is right hand dominant. Anyway, getting back to the rod, the rod is useful as a unit of length because whole number multiples of it equal one acre of square measure. The 'perfect acre’ is a rectangular area of 43,560 square feet, bounded by sides 660 feet by 66 feet long – clearly another pointer to the base 60 system. 

The Sumerians gave us base 60 and thus the analogue clock.  Time is measured in hours, minutes and seconds, all base 60.

Minutes of arc (and its subunit, seconds of arc) are also used in cartography and navigation. At sea level one minute of arc along the equator or a meridian equals approximately one Nautical mile (1.151 miles). A second of arc, one sixtieth of this amount, is about 30 meters or roughly 100 feet. The exact distance varies along meridian arcs because the figure of the Earth is slightly oblate.

Positions are traditionally given using degrees, minutes, and seconds of arcs for latitude, the arc north or south of the equator, and for longitude, the arc east or west of the Prime Meridian.

There is so much more to say about these ancient measuring systems, but there are some who have suggested that the rotation of the earth was only 360 days in ancient times, and was forced into a larger orbit by the close bypass of large asteroid.  This would explain the Sumerians choice of the 60 base even better and there are other related factors.  Perhaps the alterations in orbit might have led to a re-jigging of the distances I mentioned above to a more precise and accurate total.  So each minute of latitude might equal exactly one mile, and each second of latitude equal exactly 30 yards.  This knowledge would provide a constant source of verification of various measures.

One more thing; before the UK went decimal we were used to some old coinage.  12 pence to one shilling, 240 pence to one pound, four crowns to one pound - a distant echo of the 60 base numbering system?

So the old resource which allowed the precise determination of, say 1 foot, or 1 yard, by anyone, then they must have measured the earth, which begs the question if in fact the above is true, how did they know the earth’s size – exactly?

JC

John Collins is 70 today!

I'm seventy years of age today and in this year, I'm determined to show a proof of principle wheel or how to configure one - and soon.  I am confident that I have the whole solution and it has only taken me 55 years to get here!

I was about 15 when I first read an account of the legend of Bessler's wheel and I spent much of my youth doodling designs which I now know were way off the mark.  When I was about 30  I came across the same book I had read when I was 15 and it re-inspired me to look again into the mystery of Bessler's wheel. I remembered my own scepticism about the assumption that Bessler was a fraud and why, and I determined to get to the truth.  The book was the famous, 'Oddities', by R.Gould and it has served to re-inspire me over the years.

I sought original documents from all over Europe and the USA.  It took years and even when I had copies I couldn't read any of it because it was mostly in German.  I knew I would eventually get it all translated but I did not realise how expensive a task that was going to be.  In the end I advertised in a local paper for someone who was prepared to translate 18th C. German documents for free.

I had about eight replies and although I gave samples to all the respondents, only one stood out. Mike Senior with degrees in 18th C. German - and ancient Greek, astronomy and botany of all things!  He also reads Latin and can quote verbatim from memory, from the ancient Greek texts - and of course speaks fluent German. He is a member of Mensa and regularly has letters published in various science magazines.  Mike has done all my German translations and when he asked me if I wanted a literal translation or did I prefer something more readable that conveyed the spirit of the what the author was trying to say, I chose the latter.  I never realised at that time how Mike's words would be pored over, criticised and sometimes dismissed as inaccurate.  We had no way of knowing that future researchers would seek out clues from the very words used and perhaps I should have stuck to the literal, but it is what it is.

I'm pleased that so many people around the world now have Bessler's words, drawings, thoughts and clues and I hope that they will soon lead to the solution.  The worst thing would be for his work to be lost and for another 300 years pass before the solution was found again.  I really don't think that is going to happen!

So I'm of going out today with my wife and two daughters to celebrate my 70 years and then tomorrow I shall return (at last) to work on my Besslerwheel and finish it!

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Springs? Not in the way you mean.

Many researchers are convinced that Bessler's wheel contained springs for some undetermined use and I agree that there probably were.  Bessler stated that there were no springs such as are used in clocks and all the usual uses for which his opponents implied.  They suggested that without the springs the wheel would quickly come to a stop.  I have noted many times that Bessler suggests that there might have been springs but they were not crucial to the wheel's operation.

In my own work on this project I have noted that there are situation where a spring could be useful. If you have a lever with a weight on the end and the wheel is rotated by hand to a position where the weighted lever is ready to fall, it has reached what I shall call, the pre-fall position.  At that point you hand-rotate the wheel one or two degrees and the weight falls, right?  But in a real time scenario the wheel is rotating, let us say, under its own steam, or you have given it a push so that it rotates, the weighted lever does not fall just after the same pre-fall position that it did when you hand-turned the wheel.  It goes on for perhaps another 10 or 15 degrees before it grudgingly falls.

In this instance I have placed a weak spring with a fairly long amount of travel in it for the weighted lever to land on and compress.  It is, as I say, very soft and when the wheel and its lever continues to rotate to the next pre-fall position, the inclination for the lever to fall is activated more immediately because the load holding the spring compressed weakens as the lever approaches the pre-fall position, giving  it a little push to bring about the fall.

This fact is due to the wheel's rotation while the lever is about to fall.  When stationary the lever responds to the next incremental degree of rotation and falls; when the wheel is already in rotation the combination of wheel travel and lever-tipping is merged so that the lever is actually falling while its position on the wheel is also falling.

Another way to engender a faster response in the fall of the lever, is to find the pre-fall position first, and then set the lever forward a few degrees so that it begins its fall ahead of the pre-fall point at which its position on the wheel begins to fall.  This does of course limit the amount of travel available for inducing overbalance, but even the smallest difference should be sufficient to overbalance the wheel.

My apologies if this is difficult to explain but it is a genuine problem and solution.  I suggested many years ago that the amount of travel by the weights would  prove to be limited for just this reason. Those who sought success by designing weights to move a maximum amount from inner to outer would be sure to suffer failure in a working model.

As a committed hands-on builder, I am sceptical about simulation software revealing the above facts and so I continue to build.  I am sure that many will jump to the defence of simulation, but I am sure that such niggles will prove invisible unless the input includes such variables.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Update - I am right and everyone else is wrong?

Having spent three weeks away recently, I was looking forward to returning to work on my latest version of Bessler's wheel, but this intention has been thwarted by several illnesses in my family.  My family comes first so I have managed to spend less than half an hour there, since before the Christmas holidays..  I had hoped to prove my design for my own satisfaction very soon but it looks as though it will have to wait.

This is a little frustrating for me as I wanted to get the model tested before completing it.  How can I test an incomplete model?  I think that if two mechanism work as I predict they will, then the rest is plain sailing.  I just have to complete the other mechanisms.

One of my recurring concerns is reading about other people's theories about what this or that clue meant.  The authors sound so confident and yet when I read about how this or that design is supposed to fit in with this or that clue etc, part of me wants to show them the errors they are making, because I know how it is supposed to work.

I understand that everyone has their own pet theories and there can't be two which apply equally if they are different, so why should mine be any more likely to lead to the correct solution?  I made a major discovery, possibly as long as two years ago now, and yet I have only recently worked out how to apply it and that after several false starts.  I made this important discovery and subsequently found out exactly what Bessler was intending to convey in his various clues.  Finding further support for my conclusions became a matter of rereading everything, relating what I found to the clues themselves. This being so I am unceasingly surprised at claims similar to mine but which are clearly no way the same as mine. I read their explanation and the temptation to show them why they are so far off the correct interpretation is difficult to resist.  But perhaps it is me who has got the wrong end of the stick, or is it the other guy, or are we both wrong?

What I do know, and this is the vaguest of clues, Scott Ellis founder of the Bessler wheel forum put me on the right track many years ago although I did not recognise it until recently.

For what it's worth, I do not find anything of value in designs for Bessler's wheel which include the use of springs, magnets or temperature variations, I am satisfied that it all hangs on gravity and it will be shown that there is no conflict with the laws of physics.  In fact it has to be gravity and it can't break any physical laws.

My feeling is that my understanding is correct and everyone else is wrong.  It’s very hard to be a lone voice in the wilderness, as we all are. It’s difficult to feel, know, and speak your truth and be greeted by either the dull thud of indifference or the resounding bellow of opposition, scorn and even anger.

The way you respond says a lot about your character. Do you fold up, shut down, or otherwise retreat from speaking your truth? Do you fight back until you wear yourself out? Do you try to prove that what you are saying is right, and that what everyone else is saying is wrong? But one thing is clear: if the upstart perpetual motionists prove to be right, and the others were wrong, what a day of celebration!  So despite opposition and competition I shall continue to seek the solution until I succeed.

 May this be an inspiration to you.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Perpetual Motion in Nature?

It has been suggested many times that the secret to discovering how to make a perpetual motion machine will be found in Nature.  One immediately thinks of gravity, but usually it is thought that that is not what those who expressed such an idea had in mind.  They implied that if examples of perpetual motion did not exist in nature then it wasn't possible. 

They declared that history shows that we (mankind) have found a way of obtaining usable motion from the force of the wind and of moving water etc. but for perpetual motion there had to be another  force available to tap and since all forces were known and already utilised there could be no such device otherwise it would have already been invented.

It has been assumed that they sought some kind of mechanical action in nature.  Examples such as the spinning of a sycamore seed as it falls to earth; the way grass and weeds could force their way up through concrete; the expansion of water as it freezes, breaking glass and pottery utensils; the rising tide lifting boats that were grounded at low tide; the expansion of steam in a boiler.  All these actions and their causes were clearly evident and ways could be found to make use of them, but not gravity apparently.

Yet gravity is a force of nature.  Without it the sycamore seed would not fall;  the tides would not rise and fall.  In fact none of the actions in nature  mentioned above that have been observed have led directly to an invention.  Of course there are examples of single-bladed propellers, not dissimilar to the sycamore seed, but that was not the first design derived from such an idea but was developed for other reasons later in the history of flight.  I doubt that the windmill derived from observation of the effect of the wind on trees and falling leaves.  It is more likely that initially the use of sails on sailing boats  led to the use of windmill sails made of canvas, such as were and are used all over the middle East.  Sails probably developed from seeing sheets of cotton or dyed materials, drying in the wind on lines, So although the action of forces on material things was observed and ways of using them discovered, finding ways of using gravity other than for falling weight clocks, not a continuous process such as was sought, was deemed impossible.

So what Bernouille and Boyle, for instance, were saying, was that we needed to find a force in nature to power the perpetual motion machine; not necessarily a specific mechanical action observed in nature.  Of course perpetual is an ambiguous word; if a machine ran for ten years it would be as good as a perpetual motion machine; a windmill could be described as a perpetual motion machine as long as the wind continued to blow, but neither are perpetual in the literal sense of the word.

It has been assumed that looking for the answer in nature meant finding an example of perpetual motion in action rather than simply an available force such as gravity.  Gravity is obviously that force and is really the only one left to us that might accommodate our aim - and it's entrance into the world of continuous propulsion is imminent.

In describing perpetual motion as being acceptable if it only lasted ten years, I omitted to point to the spinning of our planet earth as a perpetual motion machine, which has been spinning for a lot more than ten years; perpetual motion is all around us and is clearly continuous as far as we are concerned even if ultimately it stops.

JC

 10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Happy New Year and my Resolution.

I have a very good feeling about this year - I am certain that the solution will be revealed!  That's my new year's resolution to achieve!

I'm working on a slightly smaller model at present because my previous one used levers which were too large and I was unable to build in the fine detail required by the mechanism, which resulted in it being too stiff and ungainly to move easily under gravity.  My current model measures only 3 feet wide, two inches thick, and will weigh about 5 pounds, although that may increase if I need heavier weights.  The levers are thin and light and work much more smoothly

I'm not the best engineer and builder and I'm finding the task quite demanding and I am considering alternative options should my limited expertise be insufficient for the job.  I could call upon someone who is an accomplished engineer and a willing collaborator but unfortunately he lives far away, and I'd prefer to find someone in the England if possible, so that we can work together more easily - some of our discussions may involve adjusting certain details to conform to what I believe is the solution, and this would be difficult to achieve if we were too far apart physically; or I might seek out an accomplished animator so that I could produce a video explaining in detail why the design is as it is and how it works; or perhaps I could share what I have with someone who would be prepared to sign an NDA, and could then take on the task for me.  These are merely options due for consideration if I can't complete this task

But my priority is to try to finish it myself, even if it is not very attractive nor efficient, as long as it does just enough to prove the principle, I shall be content.

So back to the workshop!  I work slowly and intermittently and this means it may be a while before I get to make a decision on my next step, but that is how things stand at the moment.

JC

Merry Christmas and a Happy and Successful New Year!

This may be my last post until after the New Year so I would like to take this opportunity to wish every one a very Happy Christmas and a very prosperous New Year.  I know I say this every year but .... will next year, 2015, be the one in which Bessler's secret is at last discovered?

In 2012 I placed a countdown clock here in the hope it would spur people on to find the solution to Bessler's wheel in time to celebrate the 300th anniversary from its first public exhibition.  We missed it but it doesn't matter if we do it next year instead. 2015 would be a good year to celebrate.  1715 saw the introduction to the world of the Merseburg wheel, the first which could spin of its own accord in either direction thus refuting  the accusation that it was driven by clockwork.   Perhaps a successful wheel in 2015 that would be a fitting 300 year anniversary present?

I am trying to finish my current model before Christmas but things are a bit hectic so it may have to wait 'til next year before I find out if I'm any closer to the finishing line. I'm going to Florida for Christmas and hopefully the weather will be much better than here - how can it not be?! It is so relaxing not to have to run around getting ready for Christmas here, we can just chill out in Florida and enjoy the warmth!  We'll be swimming in the heated pool on Christmas day or possibly sitting in the spa with a glass of something.  

I dreamed the other night that there was a headline in a British newspaper which proclaimed, "70 year old retired British engineer discovers the secret of Perpetual Motion."  What a disappointment when I woke up and realised it was just a dream! I'll be 70 next year and I think it's high time I succeeded. I guess we all have those kind of dreams from time to time and I think they spur us on to try and make it come true.  

So will we succeed in 2015?  Any one of us could be the one and I believe we all want it to happen soon or we'll be too old to enjoy it!

There's  a book I came across the other day entitled "Wrong: Why experts keep failing us" by  David H. Freedman.  His 'experts' are, scientists, finance wizards, doctors, relationship gurus, celebrity CEOs, ... consultants, health officials and more.  Briefly he describes how, for instance a medical journal might publish the results of a study which indicate a particular finding, which is seized upon by the media and hailed as a triumph of scientific research.  Often only months later other results are published which call into question the original claims.  For reasons unclear these latter publications are ignored or treated as irrelevant and the public advised to dismiss such evidence as unreliable.

These studies were presumably carried out in a rigorous manner and designed to obtain data which  would allow careful analysis and result in the replacement of the conjecture and careless assumptions which had preceded it.  So just because some inconvenient truths emerged there was no need to ditch them in favour of the first one.

This reminds me of the assumptions made by our old friend Hermann von Helmholtz that "the perpetual motion has been demonstrated by experiment to be impossible".  How do you prove an impossibility?

Good luck in 2015!  Remember "Science is a commitment to a belief in the ignorance of experts." - Richard Feynman.

JC

 10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

"When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." - Sherlock Holmes

There are often comments, both here and on the besslerwheel forum which strive to cast doubt on various pieces of evidence in an attempt to explain away Bessler's achievement.

For instance sometimes it is an accusation that Karl the Landgrave, was somehow implicated in a plot to lend credit to Bessler's claim to have invented a perpetual motion machine, when all the time, it is said, he knew such devices were impossible.  I have presented all the evidence in my book, "Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?", and I have no wish nor room to present it again here, suffice to say, read my book and you will see that Karl had no desire or intention to be involved in such a plot, he was an honourable man and recognised as such and he had too much to lose if he was found to have been taken in by a fraudster.

Another accusation suggests that either the witnesses to the wheel tests were a bunch of gullible fools, or else were participants in the same scam described above.  Again, a read of my book will give details of all the most important and influential observers  present at the examinations and it becomes obvious that they were astute and competent witnesses perfectly capable of making up their own minds about the validity of the tests.  Many of them were determined to prove that Bessler was a fraud but ended up supporting his claim.

One suggestion is that Bessler fooled everyone over a period of more than ten years and none of the witnesses, including Karl, realised that they had been duped and that the whole thing was a fake.  The thing people should ask is, how was that achieved?  How did the wheel keep turning for 54 days and nights in a locked and guarded room, without any means found through which someone (who?) might turn the wheel from an adjoining room (they had all been searched prior to the long test) and leave no trace of their presence?

How did Bessler manage to hide any connection to another room, when he showed the wheel on two separate sets of open bearings mounted on separate pillars, changing positions as often as the examiners requested?   There is much more but despite all the evidence in support of Bessler, I sense a certain desperation in these suggestions of fraud, based on no evidence whatsoever, other than that which we have been taught - that it is impossible.

Because people believe, without a trace of doubt, that a gravity-driven wheel is impossible, they search for another explanation - but there isn't one.  Bessler said that the weights formed the perpetual motion itself and there was no connection to any other source of energy other than that inherent in the weights themselves - their weight.  Even those who believe in Bessler still seek alternative energy sources because they simply cannot accept that gravity alone can be that source.  In his book, Das Triumphirende Bessler spoke clearly about the source of the energy his wheel used and he gave his patron Karl, a copy of the book, and clearly he must have known that the Landgrave might read it and question anything which he found deceitful, fraudulent or inaccurate.  

 "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."   The truth is that gravity will prove to be the energy source and the sooner people realise that and accept it, the sooner the solution will be revealed.

JC

  10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Intuition and Instinct versus Education and Peer Pressure.

I've been researching and building Bessler's wheel for so long, I no longer consider how extraordinary is the thing I will achieve if and when it works, or anyone else who hopes to be successful, instead of me!  For an extraordinary thing it will be, make no mistake - inventing a machine which requires naught but gravity to feed it!

I understand why the prevailing consensus of opinion rules strongly against such a concept and yet man's instinct is that this   will   work!  It is that same intuition that informed us that a heavier than air machine could fly, when experts predicted it wouldn't.  "Radio has no future. Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible. X-rays will prove to be a hoax." -- William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, British scientist, 1899. Probably the largest source of wrong predictions today, concern global warming, but I'm not even going there!  On the subject of erroneous scientific predictions, I think that the presumption that gravity-driven machines are impossible will become one of the most famous.

Scientific misconceptions are usually accepted beliefs that were founded on inaccurate arguments that sometimes have little basis in actual scientific fact. Scientific misconceptions can also refer to preconceived notions based on religious or cultural influences. Many scientific misconceptions occur because of faulty teaching styles and the sometimes perplexing nature of true scientific texts. Some topics, like evolution are hamstrung with so much moral interpretation that the truth is rarely revealed and the majority of common knowledge regarding the topic is erroneous.

What is so curious about the Johann Bessler case is that he went to great lengths to prove his claims, improving his wheels, inventing and reinventing new tests to prove that he was not a liar.  All who attended the tests believed him, how could they not?  The evidence was so irrefutable; the tests so conclusive; what else could he have done - other than show the internal workings? But science ignored Bessler's claims and even ignored the word of a man of proven integrity who knew the secret too, confirmed the inventor's claims and supported him.

The key to understanding why it was thought impossible in Bessler's time, lies in the difference between what we mean now by perpetual motion and what they meant 300 years ago.  Because the word gravity, as I have said many many times, simply means heaviness, it was not recognised as a force but rather as an intrinsic feature of all things on earth.  Heaviness did not convey the feeling that one could tap into it as Bessler claimed.  Since it was not separable from the thing having heaviness, how could it be used separately? 

Sir Isaac Newton said that any two bodies in the universe attract each other with a force that is directly proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them.  Note that word "force"; in physics a force is any interaction which tends to change the motion of an object.  According to Voltaire, at the time of Newton's death in 1726, even "after 40 years since its publication, his ' Principia' had not 20 readers outside of England", so it is little wonder that any suggestion that gravity might provide the necessary impetus to rotate Bessler's wheel was misunderstood or not believed, and yet Newton himself drew a design for a gravity-driven wheel, so he must have considered the possibility.

So in Bessler's day, perpetual motion meant something which would run continuously without any additional force being added - a closed system.  No wonder the scientists of the day dismissed it; a closed system that needed no energy input and yet kept running and doing work! Perpetual motion as a closed system is pointless, even if it were possible. Today I think of Bessler's wheel, not as a a perpetual motion device, but as something which will run continuously as long as it is fed energy, energy such as the force of gravity, or the energy we obtain from burning fossil fuels in cars, planes and ships.  There is no difference and yet we don't deny those latter devices will run continuously as long as they have fuel to burn and don't break down, but they are not what we understand as perpetual motion machines.  There is of course the small but important detail, can gravity be tapped in the same way that gas can?  Science says no - Bessler says yes!

JC

 10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.