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

Will Bessler's wheel have a place in today's world?

The simple answer is yes, but why?  First of all it has investment potential and therefore it could be profitable. Today there are thousands of investment companies looking to invest in new technology, but imagine that, 300 years ago, in Bessler's time, a group of investors had sought something to put their money into, they would have been advised to put it in coal because the steam age was fast approaching; but that would only have happened after  the arrival of Thomas Newcomen and his coal-burning water-pumping engine, and  later, James Watt with the first steam engine that produced continuous rotary motion, which led to the railways and steam ships.  They would also have attracted investors first..

150 years later, they would have been  looking at oil as an investment, thanks to the efforts of  James Young, who invented a process to distil kerosene from petroleum and also produced a heavier oil for lubrication.In 1848 Young set up a small business refining the crude oil. This led, through a tortuous path and a number of experiments, to the invention of the internal combustion engine which burned a derivative of Young's crude oil refinement - gasoline.  Where would today's cars, ships and planes be without gas?

During the 19th and 20th centuries it was and is still oil, but electricity was a burgeoning industry and the means to produce it has become so diverse that the multiple investments have spread across a number of differing methods.  Solar panels, photovoltaic cells, wind farms, tidal and wave generators, geothermal units, hydroelectricity, and of course the fossil fuel as in coal and oil.  In addition the U.S. Department of Energy evaluated the Hydrogen and Fuel Cells Program on May 13–17, 2013, in Arlington, Virginia.  Unfortunately, Hydrogen-powered vehicles are not as green as they are portrayed and although they might be an alternative to gas-powered vehicles, one problem with this is that the hydrogen is typically produced from a fossil fuel—natural gas—in a process that releases a lot of carbon dioxide.  Obviously there are more technologies than I can cover in a brief blog, but the picture is clear, there are many competing technologies but they all have one or more negative aspects which have so far precluded complete global investment.  Any other problems?  Here's three.

Pollution, the peak of available oil production has passed, and global warming is affecting the climate.

The search is on, like never before, to find the ultimate solution to the three problems identified above.   Clean energy to combat pollution, and yet which is capable of replacing most of the oil-based (and coal etc.) electricity generators.  What ever reason you subscribe to, carbon dioxide and the greenhouse effect - or the changing output from the sun - the climate is changing and even though driving a smaller car won't make the slightest difference to the global output of carbon dioxide, reducing pollution anyway has to be a good idea.

Bessler's wheel has no negatives - except for one, and it's a biggy!  It's believed to be impossible - against the established laws of physics etc. But I intend to challenge this view with my working model and call to account all those so-called experts who taught us so well, that we all believed them. One of the curious things I intend to comment on in  a later blog, is the number of questions I and others asked to which no one ever gave a sensible answer, they just repeated parrot-fashion the old cliches.  I don't want to present any of the questions without the reasoning that lies behind each, so I'll leave that aside for now.

So given the industries I mentioned briefly above and how they started so small, each as an idea in one man's mind, and yet were able to colonise the globe with the ramifications which followed their development, what path would Bessler's wheel take?

I can't list all the possible future developments ahead but the first thing to do would be to attach it to electricity generator.  Now some say it wouldn't be powerful enough.  I don't know why they say that. Bessler said they could be much bigger and obviously if several wheel were placed in series on one axle the power might be sufficient for a whole street let alone an individual house.

Miniature device could be developed so small they could might power tablet computers for instance; or they may become large enough to power  cars, ships and trains.

My point is, as it always has been, we must produce the evidence in the form of one working wheel ....and give it away and the entrepreneurs will run with it.  Who knows what uses they will find for it, but I know for sure that when it does appear the world will go crazy for it. 

 

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Let Us Ponder upon Bessler's Rich Pageantry of Words!

I have been meaning to comment on the rather strange passage in Bessler's Apologia Poetica, in chapter XLVI.  Bessler introduces it by urging us to study his 'rich pageantry of words'.  Having returned to the original many times, I can only find the following amateur translation of the original translator's valiant efforts . The original German words appear to describe the passage as containing resplendent words or flaunting words, which doesn't seem to me to a million miles from my original translator's efforts, if a little less poetic. It appears to be a poetic description of something which we suspect is related to the wheel, but quite how is hard to determine.  I decided to put my thoughts down about it, as far as I can, which isn't far.  It is almost all speculation although I have tried to use common sense, avoiding the higher realms of speculation.

It begins thus:- "Those who are keen to ask questions should ask them of this little book. My work will not be revealed prematurely. Should anyone wish to speculate about the truth, let him just ponder on the rich pageantry of words which I now cause to shower down upon him!"

Are they metaphors, similes, analogies or what?  I cannot say but they seem to contain some kind of truth which to me is not apparent but here goes anyway.

So the first thing to do is to identify where it starts.  Many people assume the translation from my book which commences "for greed is an evil plant..." is the beginning of a metaphorical description of the mechanism. My own view is slightly different.  There is a little trick that Bessler uses that some people may not be aware of or have forgotten.  We are all familiar with the names of his avowed enemies, Christian Wagner, Andreas Gärtner and Johann Gottfried Borlach, and Bessler would frequently include their initials in the text, easily identifiable by using Roman characters instead of the usual Fraktur font.  Often the letter would form the first letter of a mildly offensive word probably for his own satisfaction and to poke fun at his enemies.

In the adjacent image taken from the original. I have ringed in yellow, the particular letters to illustrate the point. In the image you can read in order, Gärtner, Wagner and Borlach, twice. Throughout the book there are many examples all aimed at the same three people. 

From the following line, Bessler begins his metaphorical descriptions.

"An anvil receives many blows. A driver drives. A runner runs. The seer sees. The buyer buys. The rain drips down. Snow falls. The shotgun shoots. The bow twangs."

I see these as descriptions of various forces and/or actions within his wheel.  The anvil receives many blows, but it is immoveable, despite the heavy blows it endures. This may relate to the part of the wheel on which the weights land. 

A driver drives and that is a proactive action as demonstrated by the blacksmith hitting the anvil with the hammer.  It seems to indicate that something causes the weights to move. The runner runs, and that is a reactive force moving swiftly without hindrance, perhaps like an object which has been hit and just moves quickly as a billiard ball might move across a table.  The seer sees, is perhaps a non-reactive object which awaits an action upon it.  The buyer buys is the opposite in a way, it is proactive again and awaits its chance to act not react.

Next we see the forces available.  Rain drips down, under the influence of gravity (not in response to an action such as a hammer blow).  Snow falls but it is lighter than rainwater so it falls slowly.  The shotgun is an explosive force and not conserved as gravity is, so it's a once only push.  The bow is similarly explosive but actioned by tension rather than a chemical agregate.  

"A great fat herd of fat, lazy, plump horses wanders aimlessly."  This may refer to the weights hanging without any control from levers or stops, so they hang and swing without guidance, at a certain point during rotation.

"The flail would rather be with the thresher than with the scholar."  The flail was a kind of threshing device and bit like a whip. This suggests that the flail/whip strikes the scholar/pupil but does not linger but instead returns quickly to its 'cocked' position, ready to strike again.  It may relate to the so-called 'stiff fops' mentioned later in the passage.

"The children play on the little/toy pillars/columns with loud heavy little/toy clubs."  There has been much debate over the translation of this piece so it's anybody's guess which is correct., and I cannot suggest something that might be taken seriously as to its meaning!  

The rest is so open to speculation that without the design of the mechanisms in front of me, I cannot relate to any of it, although I have plenty of ideas!

I've added this blog primarily to point out the starting point of the description and perhaps to put aside any thoughts about interpreting the 'greed is an evil plant' line, as it is a dig at his enemies and probably not part of the so-called pageantry of words which the study of, will help those who seek answers from this little book.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Bessler's Codes - why did he create them?.

Johann Bessler was christened Elias Bessler and added the other two forenames at about the time he exhibited the Merseburg Wheel, the one which could turn in either direction.  Although these additional names were added some time after the first exhibition, and they seem to have been part of a plan to leave information about this wheels hidden within certain documents he was publishing, his pseudonym, Orffyreus, was being used almost from the start.  This seems to indicate that he always planned to encode information about his wheels in published documents s.  

Why he felt the need to do this we can only speculate, but as patents were not available to him at that time we might assume that he undertook this action to try to establish, should it become necessary, his priority claim in the event that another should try to lay claim to being the first to invent the gravity-wheel.  Upon consideration, this action seems hardly worth the effort, because if someone else succeeded in duplicating Bessler's wheel before Bessler himself had sold it, then the result would be the same as if he had openly given away the secret of its construction.  The pretender would have to show how his wheel worked and Bessler would have to prove his priority by showing how his own wheel worked and that it was as described in the encoded information he had buried in his publications.  So perhaps there was another reason also.

He does say at one point that if he fails to sell his wheel he will be content with posthumous recognition. But this was written in 1715 when he had excellent prospects before him and such a plan at the age of 35 seems somewhat pessimistic, so perhaps there was a third and more compelling reason for the code.  Bessler certainly demonstrates that he had a deep and abiding curiosity about codes and the pleasure he derived from its use, drove him to tantalise us by dropping subtle hints in many places about the existence of codes and also leave obvious examples such as chronograms, and the ROT13 ciphers he used to establish his pseudonym, Orffyreus, from Bessler.

I think he would still have enjoyed pointing out his codes and their meanings in the event that he did have to prove his priority, even if it denied him the pecuniary rewards he sought.  But also the posthumous recognition desire was  self-evident so perhaps it was a bit of each reason that led him to devise his complex network of codes.

I'm aware of Øystein Rustad's work on deciphering codes and I look forward to seeing what he has done, and I have also deciphered a different set of codes and like Bessler, and Øystein, I think, I can't wait to share what I know!  There are other pieces of code awaiting someone's more  incisive analytical attention, such as the Bible references, and the whole of Das Triumphans,which I believe, contains some hidden gems.

Like many before, I too have found it useful to hide a little code containing what I call the Bessler-Collins principle.  It's not as if I would ever patent anything I found, but it would be good to know that I was first and could prove it, and that is what, in the end, I think was in Bessler's mind when he began devising codes.

There have been many illustrious scientists who used a similar idea to attempt to confirm their discoveries and thus receive their due honour, in the course of time; such people as Galileo, Sir Christopher Wren and Sir Isaac Newton, to name but three.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Bessler's Wheel Required Only Gravity as an Enabling Force.

I'm still being asked why I think Bessler's wheel worked purely on gravity and required no additional forces, and without giving away my own theory, it's difficult to bring something new to the table.  However looking back at the evidence it still seems obvious to me that nothing has changed

Leaving aside, on this occasion the evidence we are all aware of regarding the numerous examinations and tests the wheel was subjected to, Bessler said in Das Triumphens, "NO, these weights are themselves the PM device, the ‘essential constituent parts’" There are several other examples where Bessler discusses his weights and to my mind there is no other option than to consider that his claims were sincere.

There is another point and it is this.  Either we assume that Bessler told the truth and there was no additional force supplied, or he lied and there was another force present; in either case the wheel worked.  If there was another force available how come no-one has discovered what it was and replicated Bessler's wheel?  Such a discovery would be equally amazing and useful as one which only relied on gravity.  If another force was present why wouldn't Bessler hint at it?  He enjoyed dropping obscure hints about the way his wheel worked but he insisted that the weights were all that was needed.  On the Besslerwheel forum several suggestions have been made at what such additional force might be, and none of them are as convincing as the idea that it was simply gravity as Bessler said.  There was very little else available to Bessler at the time apart from ambient temperature changes or perhaps some kind of static electricity. Both ideas to my mind, simply won't do.  Others have suggested centrifugal forces or some such derivative, but in all cases no continuously rotating wheel has surfaced, therefore I am certain that Bessler told the truth and gravity was the sole provider of power to the wheel.  It's a case of Occam's razor which states that among competing hypotheses, the hypothesis with the fewest assumptions should be selected.  Just one assumption is necessary and that is that Bessler told the truth, there was no additional force.

When Sir Isaac Newton wrote his 'Principia', he wrote the whole thing in Latin, which was the accepted way to introduce matters of scientific and intellectual interest.  University lectures were given in Latin and publications such a 'Acta Erditorum' were also published in Latin.  Latin was a universal language at that time and thus students from various countries attended universities in England, France and Germany with equal ability to understand what was being taught.  Newton used the word 'gravitas'  for the force and in this sense, 'gravitas'  translates as 'heaviness'. Everyone understood the term 'heaviness' as a concept but the use of the word 'gravitas' and thus 'gravity', came to be applied later to the concept of 'heaviness as if it had been coined specifically for that purpose.  So when we say that Bessler used the word gravity he didn't mean it in the way we do, he just used the word 'heaviness' as the provider of the force which turned his wheels.

In other words Bessler did not think of gravity in the way we do with all its preconditions about how it can be used, he simply meant heaviness, and weights had heaviness and it was that which he was able to manipulate to his advantage.

Heaviness is a pressure or resistance we feel when we lift something up, or hold it.  I liken it, for example to the same pressure we experience when we fight to hold an umbrella from blowing inside out in the wind; or a gust of wind hits you when you come out from the shelter of a building, or a strong current of water encountered when swimming.  It is simply a pressure.  I used to sail a lot as a young man and it's the same thing when you haul in a sail, the wind pressure fights you all the way.  Gravity is a conservative force; so is the wind, and so is a current of water.  Just because gravity is conservative does not preclude its use as a continuous pressure to drive around a wheel.  The word conservative, as used in this instance, simply means that it does not stop, it continues to apply pressure, just as the wind does when it blows and water too when it is a current. Conservative forces don't really conserve their energy but they conserve their force or momentum. Hitting a ball, on the other hand, is an explosive event and therefore not a conservative event,  It is not continuous in the way that gravity, wind and water streams are. Conservative means that it is not used up with nothing left, the force is conserved not exhausted.  The opposite of conservative or conserved is un-conserved or not conserved, so the three examples above must be conserved or continuous otherwise we could not sail ships, turn windmills, use watermills etc., etc.

Lastly all calculations seem to apply to one weight moving in a circle, they seem to ignore the presence and effect of correctly configured multiple weights.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

HAPPY NEW YEAR

I have a feeling that this will be the year that Bessler's wheel is finally solved!  Have I said that before? Probably, but something seems different this time.  Many separate skeins are coming together, and speaking for myself, I am confident that I have the whole solution in my head and partly already built in my secret laboratory  ( workshop/work bench/ small niche for my mechanism-building!)

I no longer worry about anyone else getting there before me (I used to!) - I just want to see dozens, hundreds, thousands, or more likely millions, of Bessler wheels of all sorts and sizes, spinning continuously all over the world, providing electricity, heat, air-conditioning, pumping water, grinding corn, propelling ships, trains -  maybe even  vehicles, who knows?

The end is in sight and somewhere there is (or are) one or more determined individuals putting the last touches to their prototypes prior to testing them.  It might be you or it might be me, but whoever it is, good luck and don't be put off if this one fails, you have it in you to succeed and succeed we must.  Good luck to all and a very happy, prosperous and healthy new year to all.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

How big would Bessler's Wheel have to be to supply all the heat and light required for one home?

From time to time the possible uses for a Bessler wheel have been discussed, and much debate has centred on the potential power it might be able to generate.  I may be wrong, but I have got the impression that many people think that it will lack sufficient power to be of any practical use.  Mostly it has been thought that a wheel capable of generating enough electricity for single home's requirements would have to be too big to be of any economical benefit and might cost more to build than the cost currently experienced in paying power companies for their electricity (pardon the pun!).

But I have been following the news about the machine being built on behalf of Ribeiro brothers and information about it can be found at  http://www.rarenergia.com.br/  Looking at the photos I estimate that it must be at least 30 foot long by maybe 20 foot high.  I have no idea if this thing will work as claimed, but I can imagine the power output from a Bessler wheel of similar dimensions and it isn't small by any means. Bessler suggested that a wheel of 20 foot diameter could be built and this was a single wheel, imagine a series of them on one shaft covering 30 feet in length (like the Ribeiro brother's one ) and yet still 20 foot in diameter.

Most of the electricity in this country and elsewhere is generated by Alstom steam turbines.  There are different modules for differing requirements in output, but on average they measure at the very least 30 foot in length and over 15 foot in height and some are several times larger.  Admittedly these operate at a much higher speed than Bessler wheel could ever achieve, unless it was able to apply sufficient force to the right gearing, but that is an engineering problem and not impossible.  The point I am making is that these huge machines are designed to supply heat and light to thousands of homes, but something smaller than Ribeiro's machine in the form of Bessler's wheel might supply sufficient electricity to power maybe a street of homes - and how big for just one home?

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

A New Johann Bessler Film

A few days ago I received an email from a guy, who  I met about three or four years ago.  He gave me the news that he was going to make a film about Johann Bessler and he wanted to know if I wished to be involved. Of course I accepted immediately and work is expected to begin early next year.

He is an experienced presenter, writer, producer/director, interviewer, scriptwriter and editor.  He was formerly a producer and presenter with Granada TV ( now called ITV); founded film and TV production companies, authored six books and edited three magazines.  Whew! I think I covered all of it!

He was introduced to me by another friend, who I have been in contact for a few years.  He introduced this media man, thus..."He has a long history of music, TV and publishing, and is currently writing a novel about Bessler. I think he'd like to take you out for a pub lunch and chat about Bessler the man....  He. is intrigued by the story, and has a bottle of Jura Malt Whiskey sitting in his kitchen which he promises to give me when I make a working model!  He's a good bloke."  Can't think of a better recommendation!

The film will investigate the beliefs of those who remain utterly sceptical of Bessler's claims, almost certainly because of the laws of physics as they have been and are taught - and on the other hand it will assess the validity of the evidence presented by those who have become convinced that Bessler did indeed achieve precisely what he said he did - causing a wheel to turn continuously entirely through the force of gravity.  

It's early days but I am to be appointed associate producer which gives me a chance to influence, restrain or suggest ideas for the film.  In January I expect to be introduced to the film's producer, and I look forward to this with great excitement!

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.        or to put it another way.

aaaaaaaaaaccdddddeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeefffffffffffffffgggggghhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiikllllllllllllmmmnnnnnnoooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrssssstttttttttttttttttuvvvvvvwwwwwyyyy-----,,,

The Return of the Mysterious Xs in Johann Bessler's Apologia Poetica!

When I first wrote my biography of Johann Bessler (Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?) I mentioned the existence of what I termed X's throughout Apologia Poetica (AP),  at that time I had a suspicion that they weren't actually X's but something rather more mundane. - and it turned out that the character is actually a well-known abbreviation for Et Cetera. written not as we do etc, but as et   - meaning, and the rest, or so on and so forth. Modern German also uses an alternative which is "und so weiter" abbreviated to usw but in print in Bessler's day the fraktur type was used, and the abbreviation was et, which does not immediately resemble the two letters it represents.

If there had been just an occasional use of the abbreviation then nothing remarkable would be inferred, however in his Apologia Poetica it is used so many times that one can only conclude that either the author had no idea of its proper use - or he was attempting to transmit a secret message via the X's and hinted at by the over-abundance of this abbreviation.  In total he uses 684 so-called X's, in some places he uses two X's at the end of a line.  In others he has ten consecutive lines each with an X at the end; but then he can go for twenty pages without a single X.  On the other hand his other publications both before and after AP use no X's or etc's.

There was much discussion a while back on the Besslerwheel forum about the possible meaning of the X's and how to decipher them and the consensus was that the reason for the presence of so many could not be other than some kind of code.  Given the sheer numbers plus the use of two on a line at times, seems to imply the possibility that each X indicated a letter within the particular line.  I had already ruled out the possibility of each X meaning a word, because I went through the whole book looking for any kind of word within or near to any of the X'd lines which might be applied to the description of a wheel part - such as weight, lever, rotate, etc.  - but none appeared. 

One potential path worthy of investigation, I feel, are the passages which contain X's at the ends of several consecutive lines.  I have done some work in this area without any success, but the potential to discover a significant letter within the indicated line seems possible.  Given that Bessler would not have included this code unless he anticipated someone trying to break it, there has to be some kind of clue to aid someone in beginning to decipher it.  One way to look for such clues is to find the unusual occurances of the mysterious X.  So there are the passages with consecutive X's; the lines bearing two X's, presumably indicating the same letter twice; there is the presence of the X's even at the ends of some of Bible references which might seem the oddest place to put them.

What message might Bessler have hidden within the X's?  Given the numbers of  X's is 684, and assuming an average number of letters per word, as being five (taking into account one or two letters as well as longer ones) leaves us with about 135 words, which is actually quite a short message - about half the Gettysburg Address.    

Any suggestions what the message might say?

JC

Two countries divided by a common language? With thanks to Oscar Wilde, George Bernard Shaw or possibly Winston Churchill.

I actually wrote this some time back but recent discussions on the besslerwheel forum prompted me to reread it, make a few changes and publish after all.

Recently I mentioned in passing the use of the word 'back-yard' in the USA referring to the land behind the house which we in England, call the 'garden'.  This is just one example of the many words we share which have different meanings for each country. According to Wikipedia, in England a back yard is a small space surrounded by walls at the back of a house, usually with a paved surface.  But in the USA it's a space at the back of a house, usually surrounded by a fence, and covered with grass which we call a garden.  There are too many examples to list but if the language we share has so many variations according to where you come from, how on earth can we understand what Bessler meant using an entirely different language in a different country and 300 years ago.

Not only that but we use idioms and according to wikipedia an idiom "is a combination of words that has a figurative meaning owing to its common usage. An idiom's figurative meaning is separate from the literal meaning. There are thousands of idioms and they occur frequently in all languages. There are estimated to be at least twenty-five thousand idiomatic expressions in the English language."  So, to add to the difficulties we are already aware of, Bessler used idiomatic expressions familiar to people at the time but some maybe incomprehensible to us now.  We know of some of his examples.

As I reminded people recently, Bessler was taught by Christian Weise, a man who enjoyed encouraging his pupils to act out his plays using what was termed 'robust language' which included swearing, slang and idioms.  Bessler wrote Apologia in rhyming couplets and obviously some words had to be 'bent' to fit the rhyme, hence it can be assumed that in some instances the sense was blurred to his readers, even at the time, and the more so 300 years later.

But there is more.  When I began to try to translate the German into English I had a relatively small German-English dictionary but subsequently acquired two ancient second hand dictionaries of huge size.  The reason was because some words did not appear or I could not recognise them in my small dictionary.  I also found that these early dictionaries had far more meanings for each sought word. Each book has over 600 pages and if I can't find a meaning that helps, in one of them, I can find it in the other. This suggests that there are far more meanings to these words than we might imagine, but I will give one example - the word Creuze (Kreuze nowadays) as used by Bessler; translated as cross-bar but actually my small dictionary gave the meaning as cross.  One large dictionary gives; cross; crucifix; crosier; cross-bar; small of the back; loins; rump; croup; club, as in cards; sharp, as in music; dagger; burden...etc etc.  That is just the single word, but once you add hiphenated words the list grows enormously, four columns in one book.  Then of course there are internet dictionaries some of which were compiled close to Bessler's time and offer other alternatives.

In the second dictionary I found, all the above plus ... peel, as in a to remove the skin of a fruit (definition corrected, thanks to the eagle eye of my good friend James); anchor -  and sword handle. I'm not suggesting that we should consider any of those examples because, as Mike Senior who did all the translating, said, you have to take into account the context of the sentence and despite the accusations many have thrown at the quality of his work he has done his best to provide the intended meaning and if people would stop pouring over each word as if it will give up a special meaning which will assist them in discovering Bessler's secret - and concentrated on the actual snippets of information he provided, then success may still crown the efforts of one or more of us who are happy to rely on Mike's work.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.        or to put it another way.

aaaaaaaaaaccdddddeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeefffffffffffffffgggggghhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiikllllllllllllmmmnnnnnnoooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrssssstttttttttttttttttuvvvvvvwwwwwyyyy-----,,,

Bessler's wheel & reciprocating mechanisms - some more musings.

I should think everyone's heard of reciprocating engines, but put simply, each employs a means of converting rotary motion into linear motion or the reverse - using pistons and cranks for instance.  Although they achieved their pinnacle of achievment in the steam engines a couple of hundred years ago, they are used extensively today - and were also used by the Romans;  an early known example of rotary to reciprocating motion can be found in a number of Roman saw mills dating to the 3rd to 6th century AD, in which a crank and connecting rod mechanism converted the rotary motion of the waterwheel into the linear movement of the saw blades.  So it seems to me that we are seeking to convert the fall of a weight, linear motion, to make a wheel rotate, rotary motion.  Perhaps there are clues to be found by studying these ancient techniques and combining them with parametric oscillation, swinging or Kiiking, to achieve the impossible!

Reciprocating motion, is a repetitive up-and-down or back-and-forth linear motion. It is found in a wide range of mechanisms, including reciprocating engines, rack and pinion steering gear and pumps.  A crank can be used to convert circular motion into reciprocating motion, or conversely turn reciprocating motion into circular motion.

For example, inside an internal combustion engine the expansion of burning fuel in the cylinders periodically pushes the piston down, which, through the connecting rod, turns the crankshaft. The continuing rotation of the crankshaft drives the piston back up, ready for the next cycle. The piston moves in a reciprocating motion, which is converted into circular motion of the crankshaft, which ultimately propels the vehicle or does other useful work. The vibrations felt when the engine is running are a side effect of the reciprocating motion of the pistons.

I just included a couple of images, (see above) but there are many more but all include linear  and rotary motion.

So in place of the piston and its up and down movement, we need the weight to move up and down.  We have the down-movement powered by gravity, but we also seek to raise it through gravity, - that's not so easy.  One might think that the flywheel effect might contribute to the rotation but it doesn't because the force of gravity which provided the initial force to turn it has been used up.  In a combustion engine the force is continuous and more than enough to get the flywheel spinning faster and faster. However in Bessler's wheel the force is provided by weights working in pairs and perhaps one of them falls into an outer position thus overbalancing the wheel, and subsequently the second weight falls into a neutral position therefore having no effect on the balance of the wheel, but in doing so moves the first weight back to its starting position?

We know that in all seriousness we cannot expect the single second weight to lift the first weight upwards more than a fraction of its fall, but we can imagine it being able to just tip the first weight over sufficiently to begin the process again - can't we?  Picture a bicycle wheel spinning.  To keep it going requires a light flick of your finger on the top of it to accelerate it or just keep it spinning.  Or a hoop and stick; you just keep tapping it forward and it rolls along  All we need to do is get the second weight to push the first weight over that small hill which represents the loss due to friction/work between start and finish of each rotation.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

or to put it another way.

aaaaaaaaaaccdddddeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeefffffffffffffffgggggghhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiikllllllllllllmmmnnnnnnoooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrssssstttttttttttttttttuvvvvvvwwwwwyyyy-----,,,

Update - the evacuation of the foxes - and my scrambled priorities!

I have got somewhat behind in my updates and there is a good reason.  Very little has been achieved over the last few weeks, not because I have failed in my attempt to use my theory to replicate Bessler's wheel but because other things keep intefering with my plans.  Those of you who are married, or have been married, may well appreciate the difficulties involved in persuing what is sometimes scathingly referred to as my hobby!  

My garden (backyard to our North American cousins), has been a centre for social networking for a number of foxes over the last few years and although the idea may seem attractive, the reality isn't!  At some point I attached eight foot high wire netting to the side fences because the fox can jump at least six feet - and also laid gravel along the foot of the fences because they can dig a hole of no more than 4 inches in height and six in width through which they worm their way.  The reason for their close proximity was revealed a few weeks ago when our neighbour, whom we had lived next to for some 16 years, sold up and moved out.  The new people discovered that their garden housed several abandoned kitchen units which, over a number of years, become steadily covered by leaves, conifer needles, grass-clippings etc, to become invisible to the casual observer - and so they proceeded to dig them up. Below ground lever the old kitchen cupboards were dry warm and provided a perfect lair for the foxes, invisible to the eye!

So now that the foxes have been chucked out, my ugly wire-netting fence is no longer required - not that it did any good any way, the foxes used it as kind of spring board  - so I have been requested nicely to remove it and replace the old knackered fence with a nice shiny new one!  Curiously, the departure of the foxes appears to have been welcomed by various local cats with the result that there are now a number of corpses of small birds caught by the cats and littering the garden which have replaced  the equally numerous corpses of pigeons which the foxes seem to have preferred.  Anyway I digress, all this fencing takes time, but the point to which I am intending to get to is this........

I have in my head, the complete design for the replication of Bessler's wheel, which could, if I was allowed to continue, solve the earth's energy needs, earn us a bit of money with which I can assist my family, and make a name for myself....at last!  But it seems this is a minor priority because no one believes me!  So I waste my time and money putting up a superb fence when I could be building my version of Bessler's wheel, saving the planet and making my fortune!

So, to date I have two mechanisms to complete and link in a certain way, and test to see if what I am certain will happen...will.  Then I shall proceed to step two which requires five such mechanisms.  During many nights of quiet contempletion I have created a concept I call the Bessler-Collins Principle.  It follows on from the secret I discovered that permits the wheel to makes use of gravity without requiring any fundamental changes to the laws of physics and which consists of some interesting geometry which has some surprising (to me) ramifications.  Nothing that may necessarily prove useful but which I feel certain no one has discovered before and yet is very simple - and I am in the process of writing a document for a video, describing the finds and which show that they are unarguably correct and simple to understand.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

or to put it another way.

aaaaaaaaaaccdddddeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeefffffffffffffffgggggghhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiikllllllllllllmmmnnnnnnoooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrssssstttttttttttttttttuvvvvvvwwwwwyyyy-----,,,’.

Perpetual Motion vs Perpetual Emotion

One of the traits observable among people such as I, who have spent an inordinate amount of time chasing the shadowy mystery of Bessler's wheel and trying to find the solution, is the frequency with which we exclaim to the world that we have found the solution and it is only a matter of time before we are able to reveal the secret.  At which point we await with barely concealed excitement the moment when we can bathe in the adulation and excitement which will surround us in our moment of triumph. 

These revelations usually appear in the middle of the night and if they survive the cold light of dawn - which most don't - the lucky recipient goes on to work out the detail before launching a prototype to test the theory.  But the excitement generated by such revelations often refuses to allow us to be silent about our discovery and we cannot resist making public statements such as 'the wheel is only days away', or 'my wheel is getting ready to run'.  These premature announcements can create a certain amount of excitement among those who have had fewer revelations, and are thus ill-equipped to deal with such sensational proclamations, however the majority of old-timers such as myself, are all too familiar with the midnight manifestations which always, in the end, appear to fall foul of classical physics, with the wheels remaining steadfastly stationary.

It is all the more remarkable to me, that despite these continuing setbacks, optimism remains high and time and time again another new configuration occurs to disturb our sleep, launching us into yet another round of gleeful anticipation and premature declarations.  It is something of an emotional roller-coaster that we ride, extreme highs and corresponding lows ; one might almost call the subject Perpetual Emotion!

It seems not to occur to these self-publicists that practically every other perpetual motionist on the planet is also on the verge of success, needing just one small adjustment before success finally arrives.  I'm not blaming people for proclaiming their beliefs from the roof tops - been there done it myself and more often than I care to recall - but please understand that we all want success and just because we say nothing about current builds does not mean we are no longer building, designing, planning and still full of hope.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

or to put it another way.

aaaaaaaaaaccdddddeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeefffffffffffffffgggggghhhhhhhiiiiiiiiiikllllllllllllmmmnnnnnnoooooooooooooorrrrrrrrrrrrrrssssstttttttttttttttttuvvvvvvwwwwwyyyy-----,,,’.

Belief is not knowledge. Belief is only what you accept as true.

I was taught that Perpetual Motion machines were a violation of nature's laws and therefore impossible. Later I discovered there were various interpretations of what a perpetual motion machine is, but I understood that the one I was interested in, was a machine that used no additional energy beyond that needed to start it. This was described as a closed system with no access to any energy other than that with which it was started. I was told to imagine a flywheel which was spun up to a high speed after which it just ran and ran - until friction, or work, slowed it down to a stop - why? ... because it had used up all of the bit of energy used to start it and there was no more available. Then I thought, friction or making it do work was like applying the brakes on car that was coasting down hill without the engine on, to bring it to a stop. I considered that the car was made to coast down hill by the force of gravity.

But surely I thought, the energy provided by gravity was constant, continuous (and perpetual as far as we are concerned), and although you could say that it was external to the car, it wasn't just external to the car, it was all around it and in and through it, but however you vieweds it, it was not part of a closed system, and therefore it was available as an enerfy source- so why was it impossible for gravity to drive a wheel ...continuously?

To the title of this blog, I would add, Belief is not knowledge. Belief is only what you accept as true, until you find evidence that it isn't true.  Gravity-driven wheels are impossible, or so I was taught to believe, but then I found evidence that that wasn't true.

It's a strange thing, belief.  There are so many beliefs that appear to conflict with each other, that one must conclude that a lot of them are just plain wrong.  The problem seems to lie in the establishment of a theory which seems to answer the question at the the time.  Assumptions that the theory is right, lead to additional speculations which appear proven when based on the originating theory.  But suppose the original theory is right but doesn't encompass all possibilities, or the originator simply did not consider suffiently other potential effects?  This in my opinion is the case with the gravity-wheel.  There is a way in which no law is violated and no dramatic reconsideration of the laws of physics necessary, that allows Bessler's wheel to operate quite legitimately without recourse to such theatrical conclusions.  It's another case for occam's razor, it's the simplest exlanation.

I believe this is so and that it is the only way to explain Bessler's wheel in a way that satifies the scientific experts as well as those of us who know beyond a shadow of doubt that Johann Bessler's claims were genuine.

JC

 

Bessler's dilemma.

While I was writing the "Look Before You Leap" blog, I paused occasionally to ponder upon Bessler's dilemma, i.e., how to get paid for his secret without giving it away.

I remember professor Hal Puthoff suggesting to me once, that he had a number of interested parties who would like to have a chance of investing in the wheel, should someone finally succeed.  This was several years ago now, but at that time, it got me thinking about what I would do in that situation.  Advice I received was that the buyer could not be allowed to examine the wheel to verify my claims for it, because no one could be certain that he would not just walk away and replicate it, leaving me with nothing but egg on my face and empty pockets! This advice was not intended to cast any doubts on Hal's integrity and I completely trusted him then, as now, but I could see what they meant - how could someone be found who had sufficient knowledge to know if I was trying to fool him and at the same time, how could I know if he was planning to steal the design for himself or to sell on?.

It was suggested that any money agreed for the sale should be held in escrow by a disinterested third party pending verification of the claims and only once they had been substantiated, only then would the money be released. Coincidentally this is exactly what Daniel Schumacher proposed to Bessler on behalf of the Russian Czar, Peter the Great, who was intending to buy the wheel.  Bessler rejected the suggestion outright because the same problem applied then, the verifier might be no safer than the buyer.  He said there was only one way forward; the buyer must put a bag containing all the cash agreed, on the table next to the wheel; and the two parties could then go their separate ways, Bessler with his payment and the other with the wheel.

That sounds highly mercenary and harsh and yet what other way was there open to him, given the lack of a patent process.  He was not prepared to let anyone see the inside of the wheel unless the cash was literally on the table.  Since he trusted no one and no one trusted him - impasse!

Of course this need not happen today, any more than it need not have happened in Bessler's day.  All he had to do was give it away, but for what? Kudos? Kudos was not sufficient for his needs nor for his ambitions.

Today one could give the secret away and perhaps it might provide sufficient finances for future needs, and that is probably the best way, but poor old Bessler was in an impossible situation and that is why he sought out Princes and other rulers who had the wealth and power to satisfy his demands, if only he could find one he could actually trust.  Karl the Landgrave of Hesse could have been that man but he had his own requirements and Bessler's wheel did not satisfy them.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’. 

The Six Drawings which hold the Key to Bessler's Wheel.

I mentioned in a recent blog, that I had the solution to Bessler's wheel and that I had obtained the actual design of the mechanism from some of Johann Bessler's drawings.  This provoked the inevitable question, "which particular drawings were they?"  

I responded by suggesting that I would publish that information soon in one of my blogs. At that time. a few days ago, I was secure in the knowledge that I had the actual principle upon which the solution was based, and that without knowledge of it, the drawings, or I should say, illustrations, could not be of much help in trying to putting it all together to arrive at a meaningful solution.  Well of course now that I am persuaded to put my money where my mouth is, I am fearful that cleverer minds than mine may well deduce the answer with greater ease than my  lifetime's study has!  Yes it has taken most of the thirty or so years of building models which resolutely refused to move before I was able to apply the correct principle and move towards what I believe will be a successful conclusion.

The path that most have followed seems to be indicated by Bessler with these words on the front of the document we call Maschinen Tractate (MT):-

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

I have embolden the critical words.  Firstly you need more than one drawing, and secondly, as Bessler says it will be possible to find a movement.  For movement you could also mean action as in the path taken, or the way something is moved or how, or the configuration that does what you want it to do.  I am now attempting to use this movement or action and make it relate to the principle I discovered and thereby get a working model.

Now the words quoted above are alway associated with the MT because of their close proximity to the drawings and because he states that some of them, presumably in MT,  have been destroyed or hidden.  He appears to be referring to the MT drawings, but this note was written in 1733, and even 32 years later they had not been published, and we have no knowledge about when they were drawn, maybe before 1733 or maybe later.  Perhaps they did not exist in their entirety in 1733. and one should therefore consider any other drawing to which he might have been alluding.  The only others which the public had access to then, are the ones in Grundlicher Bericht, Das Triumphens and Apologia Poetica.  I would say that without any doubt the answers you seek are to be found in those illustrations and I do include all of them.

I would point out that the binding together of all those documents appears to have been carried out after Bessler's death, judging by the page numbering in a handwriting not similar to Bessler's.  It should be noted that many of the pages are of different sizes and shapes and were reported by one recent witness to have been found in a loose stack and we don't know if all of them should have been included or only some.  The point is that in 1733 they were probably not complete and therefore, for Bessler to suggest to someone who might come across them perhaps subsequent to his arrest, that they held the secret to his wheel, he would surely not be indicating the document that we call Maschinen Tractate, but rather his already published ones.

One of the topics which has engendered discussion is the presence of pendulums in some illustrations.  They seem never to have been present in the actual machines which were examined so closely, otherwise some one would have mentioned them

The reason for the pendulum's presence has always seemed to me to have only one purpose, given that there is no record of anyone ever having actually seen them, other than on paper, -  they were part of a system of clues designed to provide everything needed to reconstruct a wheel. I used to suggest that the clues were there to provide dated evidence that he had discovered the secret before anyone else, giving him priority, but that argument does not stand up because, if some else did make a similar discovery after Bessler, he would sell his machine and thus Bessler's secret would be revealed and even if he was able show that he had discovered the secret before the later claim, proving priority would not earn him a penny in fortune or favour. So the real reason was the one he hinted at in Apologia Poetica, a posthumous recognition would be preferable to just giving the secret away during his life and thus being unable to fulfill his aim of founding a new type of school for trade apprentices.

To sum up, the pendulums are part of the answer but by no means all of it, but each drawing contains more  than one clue giving vital information that must be included in the final successful configuration. Not only must you find the correct configuration from within those six illustrations, , but you will need to put it all together so that it uses the principle of which I have spoken, but be warned, there are endless configurations to be extracted from them and they will lead you up many a blind alley - and I should know!

Finally, you will see that I have apparently discarded the whole of MT, but in fact I haven't, there are some clues there, particularly in the 'Toys' page which coincide with those suggested within the published illustrations.  There are also apparently random links which also have an echo within the same illustrations. There is strong evidence of another kind of coded information within MT and the other publications but I do not have sufficient information about them other than to say that I believe Oystein has made some good progress in identifying these.
.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Look Before You Leap!

It's been a while since I mentioned this subject and I wonder how, or if, people's thoughts have changed.  I know from discussions I have had, that everyone taking part in this field of research, i.e. trying to discover how Bessler made his wheel work and then produce one too, has considered what they would do in the event of success.  What would you do if you succeeded?

There are a number of options and mine are simple but there are still snags and pitfalls along the way for the unwary. I think most people are aware that I wouldn't patent the device, for several reasons that I have discussed elsewhere, and don't wish to rehash here again.  I have the option of publishing my book, and there are other potential income sources so for me the way is clear, and yet there are still things to plan for in the event of success.

Picture the scene - you have just finished the first successful continuously spinning gravity driven wheel for 300 years! Do you rush out and broadcast the news?  (I'm assuming there are no thoughts of patents here.)
Publishing your success should be reserved for later because you don't know who might be planning to copy your device or steal it.  Is that paranoia or just common sense?  There are many desperate people who would love to own your invention so the first thing you should do is photograph it, video it, describe it in writing with drawings - and above all dismantle it, hide it and then arrange to have those backups legally registered with the appropriate persons or systems as applicable. This, so that you have a legal document setting the date of register in stone and thus proving your priority if necessary.  This registering can be achieved without revealing the contents of the package - and it costs a minuscule fraction of the patenting process in both time and money.

Some may say that it doesn't matter how much patenting will cost, as all costs will be repaid a thousand-fold eventually, but I say it does matter and the whole patenting process is fraught with expense, and delay and questions and also the distinct possibility of it being  grabbed by the government and taken out of your hands altogether.

So when do you tell the world about your discovery?  Not until you are ready.  I don't have all the answers but restraining your enthusiasm to spill the beans before you have everything settled, and are confident that you will get some remuneration for all your work seems like a sensible precaution.  If you know of someone who is a creditable scientist, teacher or some other respected member of the community and whom you trust to vet the written description and video evidence before you submit it to the world, that could be useful backup too..  Of course it might be difficult to find someone who will not object to subsequent press harassment.

Many of us sometimes believe we are almost there and have the complete design in our heads and we succumb to the temptation to publicise our conviction that we have the solution ( been there. done that!) but advertising that the wheel is almost complete is like saying that someone is almost pregnant; it is either complete and it works or it doesn't.

Suppose that you broadcast your good news immediately you have success, hold a press conference and tell the world; what do you think will happen?  They will want pictures of the device; videos; detailed descriptions of how it works.  Without these they will simply bring in 'expert's to discuss your ideas and shoot them down and unless you are prepared to reveal everything about the wheel it would be best to remain silent until you are ready.

One more thing - I personally would be unwilling to expose my new baby in its present state - rough and ready is the best I could say of it.  I would make a new version of it in a much more presentable image with nice colours and shiny metal; the original can be kept back for future nostalgic consideration..

Anyone who writes regularly on the besslerwheel forum or has a blog, must continue to post their thoughts , even if they have found the solution, otherwise they might be suspected of hiding the fact that they were just biding their time before revealing their success!  I haven't found it yet - honestly!

Ah well - its good to dream!!  Good luck.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Gravity loophole and eggs on faces!

Having witnessed a plethora of advice on the Besslerwheel forum from the advocates of the opinion that the likelihood of gravity turning out to be the main driving force for Bessler's wheel is about as likely as the survival of a fart in a cyclone, I can only say that I look forward with unbounded enthusiasm to the day when we can look at all the naysayers, who regard us as naive at best, and say..."We told you so, but you wouldn't listen!"

Somebody described us as "naive" and yet the word  naive describes people who tend to believe in whatever they are told, without questioning whether it is right or wrong. Perhaps the word should be applied to those sceptics instead. How else can you describe their complacency in stating in the strongest possible terms that Bessler's wheel will never be driven by gravity alone?  They state with unparalleled self-satisfaction that such machines are impossible and Bessler was either a fraud or used some additional force to achieve the same result.

Why are the words that Bessler used taken as lies or misleading statement at best?  He states in no uncertain terms that the weights are in themselves, the source of the energy, saying " these weights are themselves the PM device, the ‘essential constituent parts’ which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the PM principle) indefinitely – so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity.  To this end they are enclosed (page 21) in a structure or framework, and co- ordinated 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, thereby developing an impressive velocity which is proportional to their mass and to the dimensions of their housing.  This velocity is sufficient for the moving and raising of loads applied to the axis of rotation. "

The above statement is unequivocal and should be taken seriously instead of examined for double or hidden meaning .... or downright lies.

So the only conclusion is that there must be loophole within the accepted laws governing gravity which would allow devices such as a gravity-wheel to work as Bessler described - and there is.  It isn't even a loophole - just an overlooked facet of the subject.  I know it and I can prove it, so if I'm right then all you know-it-all sceptics are about to have egg on your faces.

Loophole;  an ambiguity or inadequacy in the law or a set of rules.

A loophole is an ambiguity in a system, such as a law or security, which can be used to circumvent or otherwise avoid the intent, implied or explicitly stated, of the system. wikipedia

JC

Out of ideas? Cross bars and parametric oscillation?

It may have been noticed that the number and frequency of blogs has sharply diminished of late, and the reasons are several.  Subjects relating to Bessler are getting harder to discuss as the finishing line looms closer.  Writing about the subject without giving away anything about my research limits what comments I can make and it is clear that the Besslerwheel forum is suffering from the same affliction; people are running out of ideas to discuss.  I am also keenly aware that every time I make a statement such as I believe that  I am on the final stretch towards the finish, I sound like every other would-be winner of this race to exhibit the first gravity wheel in 300 years.

I often read comments on the besslerwheel forum which seek to affirm certain suppositions as facts and which I at least know are incorrect.  My problem is that when I know for certain that they are wrong I am unable to make any comment to correct this impression if it relates to anything which might give away the principle which I have discovered lies at the heart of the Bessler wheel.

How do I know with such certainty that they are wrong?  I can best answer this with an example.  It has often been stated with considerable self-assurance that we will never know if the wheel, when the solution is eventually found, will be the same configuration as Bessler's.  I can state with equal certainty that we will know, because I have already found enough evidence to convince everyone that the design lies there for all to see if only they can put the correct clues together.  Remember Bessler's word found written across the first page of Bessler's Maschinen Tractate; 

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

These words are the important ones, as I have said before - taking various illustrations together and combining them with a discerning mind, it will indeed be possible to look for a movement and, finally to find one in them.

I have found the correct illustrations and have put certain parts of them together to obtain a movement or action that demonstrates the principle.  I found the principle which, by the way, involves parametric oscillation as suggested by Scott many years ago on the forum - and also, independently, by professor Hal Puthoff in private correspondence with me several years ago - from other clues in Bessler's drawings, but I have to say that I discovered the Bessler-Collins principle myself first and then found it confirmed in a drawing by Bessler.

You may say, "where is the wheel then?" which is a fair question and I can only tell you that it is being worked on.  Knowing the principle alone is not sufficient and the delay in finishing it lies in deciding how to arrange just one cross bar or cross or crossing to make the principle work.

Speaking of cross bars,  Creuz, the word used by Bessler, and translated as cross bar, has a multitude of meanings and could refer to clubs, as in playing cards, or sharps as in music, or traverse, or of course the letter X - or it might just refer to the shape of a cross in the design of his mechanisms, but in the end it seems to indicate how many mechanisms he employed.  One was scarcely sufficient to turn the wheel but more worked better.

I shall continue to write blogs but they need more care in presenting my thoughts, given that the solution would be so easy to give away, and - selfishly, I admit - I would like to be the one who succeeds with my own version of Bessler's wheel.  As I've promised before, the work I've done will be published if I can't succeed soon so until then I shall keep reconfiguring the mechanism until it does what I want - or give up!

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Build Update and drilled holes which wander awry!

I'm totally immersed in this project and finding it difficult to take time to write this blog, so apologies if you miss my pearls of wisdom, but I have to finally find a way to finish it - the wheel that is, not the blog!  I shall reappear periodically with another trite piece of literary garbage in a vain attempt to stoke some interest afresh, in the life and legend of Bessler's wheel and my/our attempts to solve the ingenious puzzle he bequeathed to later generations - how to cause a wheel to spin continuously requiring nothing but the force of gravity inplace of fuel.

My wood disc, which I use as a kind of platform for attaching the various bits of mechanism that I devise, has been replaced recently because the old one was in danger of becoming a large wooden circle with nothing inside the rim; this being due to my need to drill numerous holes in incalculabler numbers all over the face of the disc, each of which was designed to hold one of the supporting pivots for the forest of levers bearing weights, which formed the mechanisms, but which was found to be in the wrong place according to the resulting state of frozen immobility.

So I begin work anew using my pristine MDF disc, and have carefully measured the dimensions of the levers and drawn their correct positions on the face of the disc and have begun again to drill those accursed holes which are sometimes driven by some iniquitous urge to move slightly off position, thus preventing the success I so desperately seek.

Just kidding guys!  I have drawn in the angles the levers are intended to follow, the weights are ready and attached to the levers.  I'm making this latest version with the intention of trying it with just one mechanism - or one cross-bar as Bessler put it.  I'm not convinced that it will work with only one and Bessler said in Apologia, "If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in the machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself at all, but, on the contrary, when I arrange several leverss, pulleys and weights, the machine can revolve much faster.."  but it should work sufficiently to prove the principle.

It's so frustrating to know the principle behind the wheel and it's so easy to understand that anyone who learns about it will know with the same certainty as I do that it is the key to success.  I was thinking of calling it the "Bessler-Collins principle of ..." - sorry guys but that would give it away! 

Somebody pointed out that the heading of the blog 13th September, Never, Ever, Give Up.originated from a fragment of a Churchill speech which went like this:-

“Never give in, never give in, never, never, never, never – in nothing, great or small, large or petty – never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force, never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.”

Who might the enemy be?  Why, the world of sceptics out there who deride our every word.

Anyway back to work and I hope I can give you some good news soon.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Levers, Weights and Perpetual Motion Wheels

When I began my research into Bessler's wheel, 50 odd years ago (!), I used paper, pencil, ruler compasses and a protractor, not much has changed; I still prefer doing the initial design on paper before recording it on my computer.

My first thoughts were to try to design a way of making the weights keep further from the centre of rotation, or try to get more of them on one side than the other -  and that is pretty well the same thing today - that the vast majority of people try to achieve.

But, as I progressed by trial and error - mainly error - one of the mistakes I made many years ago involved the different effects experienced by a lever with a weight on one end, a pendulum if you like, when attached to a wheel.  I'm sure that most people are aware of this simple phenomenon, but as I still get designs emailed to me which ignore this effect, I thought it useful to describe it here.

A pendulum whether swinging or stationary, applies its weight to the pivot.  In other words, gravity pulls down on the weight and the pull is experienced at the pivot. For the sake of this argument I ignore other pulls experienced by the pendulum when swinging.  One of the typical features of perpetual motion designs includes the use of these weighted levers. 

Consider this; a lever with a weight on one end is attached to a pivot mounted at some place on the wheel, say half way between the centre and the rim.  When the wheel is stationary the pendulum hangs straight down, and its weight is experienced at the pivot.  If the wheel is slowly rotated, the lever remains hanging from the pivot while it counter-rotates relative to the wheel, and the weight of the pendulum is still born by the pivot and felt at that point.

If a stop is placed in the path of the counter-rotating pendulum, and this will inevitably be part of the design, then the pendulum is prevented from further motion relative to the wheel; the pull of weight is no longer experienced at the pivot but is then moved to the position on the wheel occupied by the weight. 

 This means that the pull from the weight has moved across the face of the wheel at the the instant that the pendulum comes up against the stop.

Should the wheel be rotated by hand until the pendulum is able to fall again, its weight during the fall, is negligible because it is in free fall and the pivot does not bear the weight and neither does the wheel, so the wheel has lost that portion of its total weight - until, that is, the weight hangs vertically again from its pivot.

So the position in which the weight is supported, or experienced, and where it affects the wheel, moves between the pivot itself and the weight where ever it happens to be relative to the wheel and, for a brief moment, no weight at all, as it falls.

There are several problems which arise when the design calls for the pendulum to do something which doesn't take into account these features and I'd like to have run through some, but time, space and falling reader attention combine to persuade me otherwise.

Of course this all changes if the falling pendulum is designed to do work as it falls - and that's a whole new can of worms!

I should perhaps have included drawings to illustrate this, but the clock is always against me.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Bessler's Gera Wheel was moved by modest mechanisms of seemingly simple appearance.

Going by the designs I receive by email, from time to time, I notice that the majority of people have devised fairly complex designs in their efforts to solve Bessler's wheel.  Not complex in the way a petrol engine looks when you see an exploded diagram of one, but more complex than it might need to be.  I think the following points are worth bearing in mind when attempting to solve this conundrum.

Bessler was worried that people would think that the wheel wasn't worth the asking price once they saw how it worked and how simple it was.  He was also concerned that a glimpse of the workings or a careless word uttered, might give away the secret, and Karl, the Landgrave, described the wheel as being extremely simple

The Gera wheel, his first, measured 4.6 feet in diameter and only 4 inches in thickness.  The framework which supported the weights and the levers, or whatever else was contained within the wheel, must have been formed to supply a certain rigidity in order not to deform or break down when rotating.  We have no details on the size of the axle but assuming that it was of a sufficient size to keep the wheel stable and relative to the next thee wheel which were correspondingly larger, I think it must have been about 4 inches thick.

These figures suggest an internal thickness of three to three and a half inches maximum, which does not leave much room for the weights.  I'm sure they weren't as heavy as the ones Christian Wolff described as being about 4 pounds in weight, and they would have to have some room to accomodate an lateral movement. The motion of the wheel was described as being accompanied by scratching and scraping sounds, and this suggests that the levers were rubbing against each other as they moved, or the weights were scraping the internal walls of the wheel.

Finally I remain fairly certain that there were five mechanisms within the wheel for reasons additional to the ones I've described elsewhere and this helps to confirm the basic argument I'm putting forward here, that the solution will be found to be extremely simple and not of a complex design - and the mechanisms took up very little room.  The theory I've been working on for the last eighteen months or so, seems to suggest that although it looks simple there are at least two principles to bear in mind and I've recently found that I can distill the amount of mechanism down to fewer component parts and replicate the action I achieved with a more complex design.  This will, I hope, enable me to fit five of them within the wheel.

.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

Never, Ever, Give Up.

I wonder if the apparent dirth of new ideas in this field of research is real or just a symptom of my own jaded perspective.  With regard to a solution to the age old problem of perpetual motion and more specifically, Bessler's wheel, I feel as though I have seen, read about or thought of everything I that anyone comes up with these days.  I still receive emails informing me of the auhor's excitement at the prospect of solving the puzzle of Bessler's wheel and they always wish to share their ideas with me.  I always used to be pleased to see what they came up with but long years of seeing the same ideas recycled over and over, has forced me to politely, I hope, and with appropriate gratitude, turn down the offer to share their new found solutions.  I always leave them with encourgemnt and suggestons as to who else they might approach with me success.

Johann Bessler, also known by his pseudonym, ORFFYREUS, did certainly invent a machine which turned continuously for the best part of two months, lift heavy weights and drive an archimedes screw for pumping water.  It survived numerous official and unofficial examinations during more than ten years, without even the slightest evidence of fraud being found, despite the most determined scrutiny.  I believe, as do many others, that the machine made use of the force of gravity to shift weights in a paricular configuration which created a contnual imbalance in the wheel which caused it to trun continuously.

I am constantly surprised therefore to find that instead of an increasing interest in this extraordinary invention, there appears to be a fading fascination with it.  Yet, in the light of the many problems concerning energy, I am amazed that no single person or department within any kind of research or educational institute has shown the slightest curiosity about why it worked or if fraud, how Johann Bessler did it.

My frequent conversations with strangers usually produces outright rejection of the very idea that such a machine might be feasable, but on hearing the evidence they appear to become more open-minded - at least while in my presence.  I suspect that later conversations they might have with others would proabably be met with the same scornful hilarity as is regularly shown to me, thus I do not blame them if their open-minds slam shut!

So all I can do until I, or some other poor obsessed soul, produces a working wheel is encourage you who happen by chance upon these words, to read my book about Bessler.  I called it, 'Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?'  I included the 'question mark' to suggest that although I appeared to be claiming that the problem had been solved, I was asking the question, 'was it solved once?'

It details all the evidence I found during some thirty years of research.  I also produced, in an effort to provide more information, three of Bessler's self-published book, each with its own English translation.  You can find links to each book to the right. of thios page.

Good luck and don't give up - ever!

JC


10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.

ACRONYM for Bessler technology anyone?

Thinking up an acronym, such as RADAR and LASER, to describe the new Bessler technology might be an interesting project, as suggested by Bill Mothershead in a comment recently.

In the early days of the internet, I formed a research group along with half a dozen others from around the world, which we called BORG, "Bessler Orffyreus Research Group".  We have long since gone our separate ways although some of the members are still active in this field.  I had also spent many moments considering options to describe this technology, just as Bill suggested, and I was unable to come up with anything as simple as the above acronyms.

LASER stands for "Light Amplification by Stimulated Emission of Radiation", which is a good if extremely brief description of the concept, but not the details required to build it. Similarly RADAR stands for "RAdio Detection And Ranging", another brief description of the basic concept.

So in our case we need a brief description of the concept which needn't include any description of how it is achieved.  At its simplest we need just the simple description of what it is designed to do, which, to those of us who believe Bessler's wheel was driven by gravity alone, means something along the lines of "Gravity Impelled Rotation GIR and you can add an 'O' for Orffyreus to make GIR-O but the term is too commonly in use for other things so no good.  We need a word not currently in use

You get the picture - it's not as easy as it looks.  Any suggestions welcome.

JC