Wednesday 30 March 2016

Bessler's Wheel as a Reactionless Drive.

I remember speculating about the possibility of finding new uses for Bessler's wheel way back in 1996 when I first published my biography of Johann Bessler, Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?

One of my  suggestions was that by dpowering Bessler's wheel in reverse, from an external source, might it not be possble to actually levitate the whole thing?  I no longer think this is a realistic possibility but I still think it will prove possible to use something similar to produce a linear propulsion effect - reactionless drive as sought for spaceship drives.

My reasoning was as follows.  If Bessler's wheel was driven by weights then, in effect it was converting a downward linear force into a rotating force.  If Bessler's wheel definitely worked and was proven to do so, then it follows that reversing the mechanical process should provoke an opposite reaction, in its case an upwards lift, perhaps measurable on scales.  Now it seems to me that actual aerial motion might be a step too far, but linear horizontal motion as sought by many historical projects such as the Dean Drive, The Gyroscopic Inertial Thruster (unfortunately shortened to GIT!), and of course Eric Laithwaite's, "Propulsion System", which was claimed to create a linear thrust through gyroscopic and inertial forces. 

I am aware that after years of theoretical analysis and laboratory testing of actual devices, no rotating (or any other) mechanical device has ever been found to produce unidirectional reactionless thrust in free space.  That being said I cannot fault the logic described in my initial argument that if Bessler's wheel worked than the reverse pprocess should produce the reverse effect.

The self-same arguments which persist to deny any possibility of Bessler's wheel ever having really worked also apply to the research done extensively on the reactionless drive.  I attended a conference on the subject at Brighton a few years ago where I had the honour of meeting Hal Puthoff who was one of the speakers there.  I have to admit that no-one mentioned the possibility of Bessler's wheel providing evidence of the possibility of a reactionless drive, most of the discussion was way above my head!  The conference drew no conclusions either for or against, it was simply a place discussing ideas.

Anyway something to think about guys.

JC

Saturday 19 March 2016

The Difference Between Heaviness and Gravity.

I tried, in my previous post, to define the subtle difference between the force of gravity and something that Bessler understood as the heaviness of an object.  This may seem like splitting hairs and that there are no differences, but bear with me.

What is the difference between gravity and energy.  We are told that the reason why the force of gravity cannot be the source of energy is because energy is a property of objects, such as balls and weights etc. In contrast, the word force describes the interaction between objects. Forces are the way that energy is transferred from one object to another when they interact, but forces are not the energy itself. Gravity is a force  and it provides one way for objects to exchange and transform energy to different states.

People speak of energy as if it is a thing, and of course we all know that energy can be stored, bought and sold, and transported. The reason that energy has all these aspects is that, unlike many conditions that objects may be subject to, energy is conserved; the condition of having energy is always passed from one object to another, never created anew or destroyed.

Remember Bessler's words from his Apologia Poetica?  "The rain drips down. Snow falls. The shotgun shoots. The bow twangs", he is refering to motion not the cause of the motion. I used to think he meant gravity, but because he included two motions not applicable to gravity, I think he was simply pointing to motion and emphasizing the fact by including the bow and the shot gun. I'm certain that he was describing in particular the motion of falling - the reaction to gravity, to the action of things that are imbued with heaviness when they were allowed to fall.

So if I stand by a wall and try as hard as I can to push it over, as far as the wall is concerned I haven't spent an ounce of energy, because it hasn't moved.  Forget the fact that I'm panting, sweating and very hot.  But what if the the wall suddenly gives way and falls over?  A snapshot of one second during my ten minutes of pushing is the moment when my energy output which was a force, changed the potential energy I was providing into kinetic energy as the wall fell. So the only energy I gave the wall that made it fall was that expended during that single second.

Imagine I'm standing on a trap-door.  For me it's the same as standing on solid ground, until someone pulls a lever and I fall through the hole.  As long as I'm standing on the trap door I'm like the force I was exerting against the wall.  Nothing changes until the lever releases me then the potential energy that was my weight is released and it changes into kinetic energy.

Now picture Bessler's wheel.  It has the weights suspended from some part of the wheel.  The force of gravity is a force imbuing the weights with heaviness, but nothing happens because no weight falls.  But we know that Bessler's wheel began to rotate spontaneously, which can only have happened if one weight or more was in a position which overbalanced the wheel.  Overbalancing motion occurs when there is more kinetic energy on one side of the centre of rotation than the other.  If it was potential energy on each side and there was more potential energy on one side of the CoR than the other, the weight would fall, but only when the brake was released, the wall gave way, or the lever was pulled which released the trap door, that is why, as soon as the wheel was released it began to turn.

The force of gravity had unlocked the potential energy and converted it into kinetic energy, but only during the period of its fall.   It had to wait for the wheel to be released before it could change the potential energy locked up in the weights; the trap-door had to be released before I fell; and the wall had to give way before my potential energy was converted to kinetic energy.

Jean Bernouille said perpetual motion seekers should seek a movement in Nature to adapt to a perpetual motion machine; the falling of any object of mass, is that natural motion in Nature.  What we are doing or trying to do is make use of something which is already happening, that is, a weight is falling.  Gravity has already changed the weight's potential energy into kinetic energy.  The energy was already there it just needed releasing by allowing it to fall and produce usable enregy in the form of kinetic energy.

When the wall fell over, and the kinetic energy was released in that single second, it wasn't new energy; the potential energy had been there ever since someone built the wall.  The trap door fell because someone locked it upwards into position and it was that energy that was released when it fell, and the same applies to the weights in Bessler's wheel.  Their potential energy had been there since he built the wheel ...But, how did it repeatedly acquire new potential energy for its next fall? Before I respond consider the following.

I've said before that those who suggest that Bessler's wheel were stopped in a certain point during rotation are wrong.  If you have a wheel which appears to spin continuously it must always be out of balance.  Why?  Because if there were points during rotation where it wasn't out of balance it would stop if a sufficient load were placed upon it.  With no load, rotation might well be carried past the dead zones purely by impetus, but as soon as a heavy enough load were placed on it, you would notice a variation in speed during a single rotation and the heavier the load the more likely the wheel would come to a stop.  But one of the most impressive things about Bessler's wheel was its very steady rotation. This supports the idea that the wheels were always out of balance, anything else would show up. But anyway logic demands that a continuously turning wheel must be continuously out of balance.

The oldest argument against these weight-driven wheels is that a weight falling in a circle cannot have enough energy generated by its fall to enable it to return to its starting point.  Do people think we are so dim that we have not discovered that fact for ourselves long ago, as if we didn't already know it?  Why on earth do those same people stick with the old, old formula of one single weight to demonstrate their flawed argument?  Do they really think that there is no way to get a weight back to its starting point with the assistance of other weights operating in different ways - a special configuration of a number of weights?

In my opinion Bessler's wheel did not try to tap gravity for its energy source, mainly because he did not know of this exterior force of nature, all he knew about was that his weights were heavy and did not prodice energy unless they were falling.  He worked out that the inherent heaviness in each weight provided the fall and his most difficult achievement was to find a way to configur his weights so that there was spare action available to return each fallen weight back to ts starting point

JC










Monday 14 March 2016

It's Heaviness not Gravity which provides the Energy for Bessler's Wheel.

I return to this subject from time to time, always seeking clarification.  I know that gravity cannot be a source of energy, I've been told so more times than I can remember.   But it does seem as though Johann Bessler thought that the 'heaviness', i.e 'ponderousness' or as they say in Latin the 'gravitas'  of the weights inside his machine gave the wheel the necessary energy to continually rotate.

Notice that there is a subtle difference between what we know as 'gravity', which is some kind of force field which attracts other things of mass - and a thing's inherent 'heaviness'.  Is there a difference?  Bessler believed that it was the 'heaviness' of the weights in his machine which gave it the power to turn continuously, but we always take one step further back in the process, i.e. was it the thing that caused the 'heavinesss' in his weights which he did not know of  and which we call 'gravity'?

Can it be that this whole apparently pointless enterprise, making a wheel turn continuously simply by constructing a clever configuration of weights, has been doomed to failure because man sought the source of the 'heaviness' when it did not matter where it came from, he should have just been glad it was and is there?

We accept several different forms of energy which we can turn to our advantage in one way or another but the fact that we know from where it originates and how it works and how we can best make use of it, is not neccessarily something we need to know.  People have sailed ships using the wind as an energy source for millenia.  Same for windmills for grinding corn etc.    Others learned how to use water wheels in a similar way.  Clock makers even used 'heaviness' to drive their weight-driven clocks, long before Sir Isaac Newton discoverd 'gravity'.  Just because no one seems to have discovered how to manipulate weights to rotate wheel continuously does not mean it can't be done.  I'm certain that Johann Bessler knew and yet he never mentions the word gravity in any of his publications, because it wasn't known about for many years after Sir Isaac Newton descibed it in Latin as 'gravity'.

My point is this, weights are inherently heavy, we know it is the effect of gravity but we don't actually need to know that to use them.  Gravity is not a source of energy but it does create the conditions which can lead to a device being able to exploit the heaviness which gravity gives to an object of mass.

So when Bessler said, " NO, 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."  That is what he meant; the heaviness in the weights, not some remote force called gravity.

Interestingly he used the word ''gravium', at the end of the sentence above which I have translated as, 'centre of gravity', but I subsequently learned that the word ,'gravium', is the genitive plural of 'gravis' which I learned means 'heaviness', so Bessler uses the phrase 'centre of heaviness', which means the same thing but when you put it into the correct context of his time, you can see that he is not referring to the same thing as we are when we use the phrase 'centre of gravity'.  He is simply stating that the centre of heaviness is at a certain point but has nothing to do with the force of gravity. We on the other hand, mean that the centre of gravity refers to the action of gravity on the whole structure and identifies the balancing point between both sides affected by the fore of gravity as the central point.

In the second paragraph I suggested that we habitually looked at the conditions prior to the use of weights, or what gravity did to the weights, whereas we should be looking at the weights themselves as they were at the time of their use. We have been looking one step back and ignoring the evidence in front of our eyes.

All we need to know is that the weights are always heavy just as long as gravity is affecting them.

JC

Saturday 12 March 2016

Update - personal and impersonal

Had my hernia op last Saturday and I was released to go home the same day.  No heavy lifting for six weeks!  Funniest piece of advice I received was don't sign any legal document during the first 48 hours.  Apparently one's judgement can be seriously affected.  I had a slightly iffy reaction to either the anaesthetic or the morphine and kept having to be told to breathe!  Body temperature went down  34 degrees C, which is equivalent to 93.2 F.  Brought me this thing called a bear hug - brilliant!  Soon brought my temperature up to normal.

We will move out of this house in about two weeks and stay with my daughter until our new house is ready.  It's not really new, but we are getting an old one renovated and then things can return to normal, but until then no wheel work can be attempted, because I aint got anywhere to do it! Verification has turned into a collaboration for now, so I guess some will say it's failed but hang in there for bit longer, and all will be revealed.

I read many theories, mostly old ones rehashed on BW forum, and some which I know are so wrong, and yet you have admire people who keep on trying to get the answer.  Pet theories abound, and that name explains it all, "pet" theories - someone's favourite explanation, to many of us, seems completely bananas.

My own theories seem to me to be the epitome of logic and common sense, but they can't be if they don't work.  Doubtless if my work is not verified soon, once it's published there will be some who will dismiss it without the slightest consideration - but one thing I am confident about is this; when the work I've done on deciphering a large number of clues is published, it will provoke much discussion and I think that someone will take my work forward and succeed.

Once we are out of here and settled with my daughter I will try to entertain with more interesting topics for this blog, but until then there is so much to do, it leaves little time for writing.

My account of the clues I have discovered and solved is comng along and I cannot wait to share the amazing work that Bessler did in revealing so much information right there, under our eyes, without anyone suspecting that there was anything to see.  I guarantee you will be amazed.

JC

Wednesday 2 March 2016

Weights and measures relating to Bessler's wheel; what to use and what to leave.

It is a curious fact that many people seem bent on designing and building their Bessler-wheels whilst labouring under the misapprehension that picking weights and measures relating to any one or more of the wheels, from a variety of sources without applying simple logic to the process, is sure to result in success.

Some insist that there were eight weights or eight mechanisms.  This figure arose from the report by Fischer von Erlac to J.T. Desaguliers, Sir isaac Newton's curator of experiments.  Doubtless the writer recorded accurately what he thought he heard and perhaps he was correct, but these figures applied to the mighty Kassel wheel, one that was able to turn in either direction. The problem as I see it is that this was a far more complicated wheel to build, as Bessler himself admitted. 

Why would anyone hoping to repeat Bessler's success begin with the most complex wheel ever built?  The logical starting point would be to try to copy his first wheel, or even the second one.  Each of these started spontaneously and only turned one way.

A lot of people have suggested that perhaps Bessler preloaded the wheel to make it start spontaneously as soon as the brake was released.  This is an example of picking and choosing what to believe and what to discard when considering Bessler's claims or the reports about his wheel and its performance.  If you believe Bessler's wheels were genuine, and you accept many of the things he said or were reported about the wheel, why would you then reject other parts of the record, simply because you don't believe it or you think it was a trick designed to impress a gullible audience.

Take his first wheel for example.  4.6 feet in diameter; thickness about 4 inches, speed unloaded 50 RPM.  Always began to rotate as soon as its brake was released.

Second wheel; 9.3 feet in diameter. thickness 6 inches; speed umloaded more than 50 RPM.  This one was mounted on a six inch axle.

Utterly different sizes yet output speed about the same.  The same speed might indicate a more powerful lift in the second one, but we don't know.  What we do know is that the third and fourth wheels were bi-directional and needed a gentle push to get them rotating, from which start they steadily accelerated.

It seems obvious to me at least that there must have been major differences between the two versions.  Not in the basic concept that enabled them to take advantage of gravity, but in their individual configurations, in which case it simply does not make sense to use the information about second type of wheel to make the earlier version.

I have suggested that the first thing that might have occurred to Bessler to prove that his wheels weren't clockwork driven, was to make them able to turn in either direction.  To me the logical first step would be to see what would happen if he mounted two wheels on the same axle, each designed to turn the opposite way.  I'm sure this is what he did.  I carried out a similar experiement myself but with two Savonius windmills mounted on the same vertical axle and the result was exactly similar to Bessler's experience.  The Savonius windmills spun im different directions when detached from each other, beginning to spin as soon as the wind from the fan hit them.  But when they were linked, they remained stationary; they needed a slight push and then they began to spin in which ever direction the push came from, but they were unable to achieve much more than half the speed they spun when separated.

So why try to build a dual direction wheel within one wheel when two opposing ones were used by Bessler.  Obviously this is just my opinion but I believe that this is correct.  The Kassel wheel rotated at 26 RPM, less than half the speed of the first two wheels, just as my Savonius windmills did.  But there is a fly in the ointment; the Merseberg wheel, his third one, was also dual directional but it achieved a speed of 40 RPM.  This demonstrates again that you cannot make any assumptions about the size and number of weights, even though we have Christian Wolff's estimate of four pounds for one weight, we have no idea how many there were.  We simply do know what differences formed part of each wheel.  

So keep it simple, try to build a one way wheel capable of turning up to 50 RPM, which starts to turn spontaneously as soon as it's brake is released.  Forget the number of weights which Fischer von Erlach is supposed to have heard, that was a different wheel with potentially a reversing set of weights making additional sounds. Recently I have seen ideas suggested which involved using eight weights to represent the eight planets supposed to have been known about in Bessler's time; it doesn't matter how many planets there are or were; it has nothing to do with Bessler's wheel.

We know that cross-bars, weights and pulleys were used in the wheels, because Bessler said so.  The presence of pulleys suggests rope or some other flexible material was present too.  He implied that there were springs although he didn't say so definitely, which to me says that some kind of spring was present but there are several different ways of using springs as well as many different kinds.

Finally, my own research suggests that Karl, the Landgrave who examined the interior of the Kassel wheel, was overly optimistic when he said that the interior was so simple a carpenter's boy could copy it if allowed a short time to study it. 

JC






Saturday 27 February 2016

Update - Verification Still Pending.

One of my hypothesis evaluations came back with a high approval rating but, as he put it, without a working model it's still so much hot air.  He was more convinced by the concept than the actual configuration, citing areas of conflict which he believed required further work, but which he thought could be overcome successfully.  That opinion was backed up by my second evaluator.  He has proved really useful, simulating the design on his computer and pointing out where deficiencies lie.  Even though I thought I'd covered everything there were still further clues to be deciphered but I've found them and interpreted them and revised the document and I think progress is being made.

These responses to my hypothesis make me glad that I got some feedback before publishing it.  I know that people will say 'publish it and let everyone do their own work on it', but the closer it is to the answer the less likely people are to reject it with out further consideration.

With the house move taking up so much time, any chance of getting back to work on my wheel is becoming vanishingly small.  The hypothesis document relates most of the design to specific clues I have deciphered and which  seem to be theoretically verifiable, but without the working model I am stumped hence the need for publication of my efforts and to let others try to build it.

The idea of publishing my findings is still uppermost in my mind but a book detailing everything is a strong possibility too, even if my current efforts don't lead to a working model, somewhere.  The book would obviously include the design as well, in order to relate the clues to specific parts of the design.  It's almost like duplicating the hypothesis document but in a lengthier form and would need to include all the textual clues as well. But if I include those pieces of text which relate to clues I have deciphered, how do I engage anyone not familiar with the legend of Bessler's wheel, if they are simply extracted from the original book, out of context? I don't know the answer so I will just publish what I have so far, once I have the final word from my other evaluator.

A simple question on BW forum reminded me of the importance of getting what any of us know, out into the wide world.  The queston is , " If Someone Discovered How To Do It, Would You Be Angry?"  This question or similar ones have arisen before and my answer is the same now as it was on the previous occasions - no.  Why would I be angry?  I'd be pleased because my efforts to inform the world of all things Bessler would see fruit and blossom.   

That someone else should succeed before me - or any of us - is obviously a daily possibility and therefore one I have considered many times over the years and my considered response has always been, good let's get these things out to the world at large so they can start doing some good. And that also applies to hesitating to publish what I know.  Why have I delayed for so long?  Obviously my priimary reason was to try to finish my own version of Bessler's wheel, but time is racing by - it does at my age as others will verify.  So as soon as I can I will ...................... publish!!

Things move slowly here.  Still in my old house; still haven't found a new one, although it is early in the year for people to put their houses up for sale.  So I must just wait.  We should be out of here in the next two or three weeks and living with one of my daughters and her husband and our youngest grandaughter plus Coco, the golden lab.   Then who knows?  Maybe we'll rent for a month or two in sunnier climes.

Next Saturday I have to go into hospital for a hernia operation, my second one.  My first was at age seven and this second one will be at age 71! No lifting for a couple of weeks afterwards so I don't know who is going to do all the work moving house!

JC

Saturday 30 January 2016

Update - My Hypothesis is being Evaluated.

Owing to the imminent (I hope!) house move, my work on my wheel has been suspended for now.  Maybe I will return to it once we have moved. In the mean time, I have at last finished the document I was writing, in which I lay out in detail my hypothesis about how Bessler's wheel worked.

If I had anticipated what would it would take to describe what was in the wheel and how it worked and which bits related to Bessler's clues, and how many drawings I have to make, well,  I might have gone with the simpler idea of a video of a working wheel.  But that has not materialised to date, possibly because I am wrong but also due to my limited manufacturing skills and equipment.  Yes I know, plenty of excuses for not producing the required evidence!  So now I have put my money where my mouth is, or something to that effect.

I have sent copies of the document to two people for whom I have the utmost trust and respect, and they are attempting to find something positive in my ramblings.  Actually I have tried not to ramble too much about the hypothesis, cutting it down to a minimum and eliminating unecessary verbiage, and yet the result is a document barely contained in 35 pages with 21 illustrations.

This has given me pause for thought, it's amazing that Bessler managed to hide so much information inside two publications?  Of course I suppose you could more than halve my document because much of it has to relate to Bessler's clues and my interpretation of them.  I suspect that chapter 55 of Apologia Poetica contains the text which describes how his wheel worked and perhaps once his wheel has been proved by someone, work will begin in earnest to wrest the information from Bessler's coded version.  

So now I wait, and the longer it takes the better, in my opinion.  I don't want to hear that they have dismissed my hypothesis too easily, but I'm open minded about the result.  When you have obssessed about something for as long as I have, it's hard to get an objective view of the picture.  A fresh pair of eyes will doubtless see through the mass of speculation and find the truth - positive or negative, I don't worry any more.  It has actually been something of a relief to at last share what I know and ultimately get some feedback.

I'm 71 next Friday, a good day for good news!

JC

Friday 22 January 2016

The Legend of Johann Bessler's Wheel.

I have replaced my usual blog with a brief account of the legend of Bessler's wheel.  I'm currently unable to maintain the frequency of my blog due to commitments which are keeping me exceedingly busy!  Once I have found and bought my house, I shall return to the blog plus I shall have published my interpretation of a large number of Bessler's clues, none of which relate to Bessler's portraits.

4th April 2016

JC


The legend of Bessler’s Wheel began on 6th June 1712, when Johann Bessler announced that he had invented a perpetual motion machine and he would be exhibiting it in the town square in Gera, Germany, on that day.  Everyone was free to come and see the machine running.  It took the form of a wheel mounted between two pillars and ran continuously until it was stopped or its parts wore out. The machine attracted huge crowds.  Although they were allowed to examine its external appearance thoroughly, they could not view the interior, because the inventor wished to sell the secret of its construction for the sum of 10,000 pounds – a sum equal to several millions today.

News of the invention reached the ears of high ranking men, scientists, politicians and members of the aristocracy.  They came and examined the machine, subjected it to numerous tests and concluded that it was genuine. Only one other man, Karl, the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel, was allowed to view the interior and he testified that the machine was genuine. He is a man well-known in history as someone of the greatest integrity, and  the negotiations between Bessler and Karl took place against a background in which Karl acted as honest broker between the warring nations of Europe; a situation which required his absolute rectitude both in appearance and in action.

There were several attempts to buy the wheel, but negotiations always failed when they reached an impasse – the buyer wished to examine the interior before parting with the money, and the inventor fearing that once the secret was known the buyer would simply leave without paying and make his own perpetual motion machine, would not permit it.  Sadly, after some thirty years or more, the machine was lost to us when the inventor fell to his death during construction of another of his inventions, a vertical axle windmill.

However, the discovery of a series of encoded clues has led many to the opinion that the inventor left instructions for reconstructing his wheel, long after his death.  The clues were discovered during the process of investigating the official reports of the time which seemed to rule out any chance of fraud, hence the  interest in discovering the truth about the legend of Bessler’s wheel.

My own curiosity was sparked by the realisation that an earlier highly critical account by Bessler's maid-servant, which explained how the wheel was fraudulently driven, was so obviously flawed and a lie, that I was immediately attracted to do further research. In time I learned that there was no fraud involved, so the wheel was genuine and the claims of the inventor had to be taken seriously.

The tests which the wheel was subjected to involved lifting heavy weights from the castle yard to the roof, driving an Archimedes water pump and an endurance test lasting 56 days under lock and key and armed guard.  Bessler also organised demonstrations involving running the wheel on one set of bearings opened for inspection – and then transferring the device to a second set of open bearings, both sets having been examined to everyone’s satisfaction, both before, after and during the examination.

So the only problem is that modern science denies that Bessler's wheel was possible, but my own research has shown that this conclusion is wrong.  There is no need for a change in the laws of physics, as some  have suggested, we simply haven't covered every possible scenario in the evaluating the number of possible configurations.

I have produced copies of all Bessler's publications, with English translations.  They can be obtained by clicking on the appropriate links on the right.

JC

Thursday 14 January 2016

2016 Update

Still working on my wheel in the garage, despite the imminent move from this house to another one.

Recent discussion on BW forum mentioned, once again, that  nothing on paper will convince anyone of any claims to have found the solution to Johann Bessler's wheel.  This has been my stance for many years and now I find myself having to (possibly) eat my words!  I have some how convinced myself that I know how the wheel worked blah blah blah!  

So making the wheel would obviously be the next step, but all sorts of excuses are available - the house-move is restricting my time and access to the wheel; my workshop tools are out-dated, suffering like me from old age; my drill has seized up and I should buy a new one but I borrowed my father-in-laws old one which has been lying in a pool of water for the last seven years and I am nervous about plugging it into the electricity, so it continues dry out on a radiator!  Its too cold to work out side at the moment . . . . .and so on and so on.  

All of these excuses are real (Really! Honestly!) so I am considering the other ways of getting my design verified.  I have an idea which way to go, so please don't feel the need to advise, I have plans but in the mean time I must try to continue the build and hope for warmer weather, and do not worry I shall not be testing the water-logged drill, I shall dump it at the earliest opportunity and buy myself a shiny new one.

**********************************************

I wrote this a couple of weeks ago and since then I have made my decision about my next step.  I left the above as it is because I think we all go through these procrastinatory steps and I thought it worthwile to describe it for the benefit of those lucky people equipped with superb workshops and all the right equipment and no lazy habits which lead to dilatory outcomes.

In the end I have solemly promised that, come what may, my theory will be published this year, wheel or no wheel.  And because a paper hypothesis would be ignored I am taking steps to marshall some impressive supporting evidence for my hypothesis which hopefully will not be ignored.  But in the end a wheel must appear.. . this year.

JC


Saturday 9 January 2016

It's About Time for Bessler's Wheel to make an Appearance.

As I'm sure you all know, I'm Bessler's biggest fan, but I think that when he set out to market his wheel he must have found it difficult to list the many benefits he hoped it could offer.  He suggested raising heavy loads up the sides of high buildings; pumping water out of flooded mines; driving a carrilon; pumping air into a submarine; crushing rocks etc.  Not a real attention-grabbing list! The truth is the wheel represented little more than a novelty item, mostly attractive to rich princes and just the kind thing that Andreas Gärtner - his number one enemy - had made a career out of, making novelty toys for his ruler.

Bessler's wheel could never have pumped water out of the mines.  Thomas Newcomen's beam engine had it beaten before it started.  The Newcomen Beam Engine at Elsecar in Yorkshire, England, ran from 1795 until 1923 when is was replaced by Electric Pumps. It also ran briefly in 1928 when the electric pumps were overwhelmed by flooding. At its peak it could draw 600 gallons a minute from a depth of almost 200 feet.

Newcomen's engine were heavy users of coal at around 12 to 20 tons per day.  Cheap enough when it was used in a coal mine but expensive to run in Cornwall's copper and tin mines.  But although the running costs were prohibitive they were regarded as a worthwhile expense.

Besslers's wheel, on the other hand, equired an enormous initial cost and then no return to speak of, regardless of how large it was.  The implication was that a larger version of his wheel would do even more work than the Kassel wheel. In fact some people regard Bessler's suggestion that his wheel could easily be built to 20 feet and more in diameter and have several wheels in series on one axle, with considerable scepticism.  They think that that was too big and could not be built at the time, but consider John Rowley's tidal wheel for pumping water from the river Thames to Windsor Palace which measured "twenty-four foot diameter and twelve foot broad; for the new brass engine with brasses to the crank, forcing rods," etc, and of course the mighty Newcomen engine itself, whose balance beam measured, in some cases twenty feet or more in length and over a foot thick, with a weight of several tons.  The whole thing housed in a specially built and strengthened building.  That was large.

So Bessler was, as we have noted before, some 300 years ahead of his time.  There was no point in producing a machine for which there was little demand. Newcomen's machine were made in their hundreds all over Europe in the 18th century and despite their heavy consumption of coal regarded as  indispensable for removing flood water from mines.

The truth is there was no real interest in buying Bessler's wheel, disregarding the fact that it was suspected of being a scam, it is hard to think of any genuine use for it at that time - but things have changed  - turned full circle (apologies for an obvious pun!) - no longer is the potential for a gravity-enabled wheel zero. Bessler's time has come.

The obvious use is to generate electricity, maybe not on a large scale - who knows - but certainly by household or by street.  There is no need to enumerate the potential for alterntive uses.

The materials that Bessler could use were limited to wood, iron, brass and lead, but now the range is enormous and there may be some with properties that might work perfectly with an electric wheel. Changes in the design, taking into account the special configuration necessary to obtain continuous rotation, might result in huge improvements to output, just as the Boulton and Watt improvements to Newcomen's engines in Cornwall in 1778 resulted in an increase in depth to 300 feet in mining and 75% less fuel consumption.

There are two major advantages in developing Bessler's wheel; free energy anywhere on the planet - and no pollution.  Certainly worth striving for.

JC



Saturday 26 December 2015

HAPPY NEW YEAR

SUCCESS THROUGH INTUITION AND EXPERIMENTATION IN 2016

Mathematics in our world is a vital tool for invention but Michael Faraday had no use for it, in fact he believed that the subject could actually be a hindrance to successful experimentation. He worked intuitively and experimented with new ideas until he had exhausted all possibilities.

I have little use for maths in my search for a solution to Bessler's wheel.  I read with a glazed expression the discussions about varous forces and formulae and I continue with my experimentation.  I leave aside simulation and animation, possibly because I am not au fait with much of it, but also for me it would be too easy to overlook something that only becomes apparent when you have the parts in your hands. Handling parts, moving them manually, altering the range of movement, moving and adjusting the positions and sizes of the weights - all of these things help to visualise the potential new configurations that would not be visible in simulations if only because all of these things have to be fed into the computer to see what happens.

That is why I ignore statements which deride our efforts here.  It has always seemed to me that gravity holds the answer to Bessler's wheel, but I learned long ago that I was not supposed to regard gravity as an energy source and I always try to maintain that stance in public, but actually I still think of it as an energy source and that gives me an advantage over all those people who persist in looking for another energy source.

Bessler clearly (in my opinion) took the same view and that is why he succeeded where everyone else failed.  I know that in 2016 the solution to Bessler's wheel will be published.

And here's another thing - people have questioned whether planet earth completely covered in gravity-driven wheels would have some detrimental effect on us, the earth or some other facet of our lives.  To me the answer is simple; no it won't have any detectable effect.

Gravity is basically a non-contact force so any collisions resulting from its attraction are secondary, it has simply been the vehicle in which mass rides.  In a car crash we don't blame the car engine for driving us at speed into a wall and causing terrible damage.  The resultant damage is simply the effect of stopping suddenly.  If we hadn't hit a wall, the work being done by the speeding engine would have continued onwards as before.  So when a weight falls, regardless of whether we use the fall to raise another weight or rotate the wheel  a little, gravity does its thing in making the weight fall and then continues on its merry way looking for something else to make fall.

Bessler’s wheel was driven by the reaction of falling weights to the force of gravity. No-one can argue that the energy is not free to us even if at some nano level it is paid for throughout the universe. I'm satisfied that nothing we do on earth here using gravity as our energy source can effect anywhere in the universe by any detectable means over any period of time you care to consider.

So onwards with enthusiasm, optimism and hope!

JC

Tuesday 22 December 2015

MERRY CHRISTMAS to all of you who kindly frequent this place. I'm grateful for your attention and comments.

I wish everyone a very Merry Christmas and I hope that you all have a wonderful time.  

I shall be relaxing and drinking and eating with my wife, Sandra, my two daughters, two son-in-laws and three grandchildren and their two dogs!  One's a golden labrador with a permanent grin and the brightest brown eyes you ever saw, and the other is a hungarian vizsla with skin like velvet, also known as the 'velcro' dog because he sticks like velcro to his owner, who is my grandaughter, a newly minted school teacher.

My house is finally sold and not just to any old chap, only the CEO of one of the biggest car manufacturers in the UK, he bought it as an investment!  It's just pocket money to him but worth a lot more to me.  

Still looking for our next home so will be moving in with one daughter in January until we find it.

Bessler's wheel still in progress despite the trials and tribulations of an on-and-off house sale.  Still hoping to finish it before we vacate this house and there will be more time (I hope) after the New Year. 

 If you are a betting man put your money on me in 2016.

Kind regards and best wishes,

John.

Monday 14 December 2015

Bessler's Wheel and Climate Change

A deal to attempt to limit the rise in global temperatures to less than 2C has been agreed at the climate change summit in Paris after two weeks of intense negotiations. The pact is the first to commit all countries to cut carbon emissions, and nearly 200 countries took part, and it would come into being in 2020.

On the face of it exciting and encouraging news, but of course it's full of holes and let outs.  I don't need to go into these nor list the major states which were, understandably, reluctant to sign up to a condition that they feel could hamper economic growth and development. 

Although I remain unconvinced that this is a man-made problem and not a natural turn of events, I accept that the pollution caused by the current fossil fuel consumption is undoubtedly a cause for concern.  So the search is intensified to find an alternative source of energy and one that could be applied anywhere on or in the planet earth.

Below, smog in Beijing caused by industrial pollution.



On my way to Rome a couple of years ago, I had to change planes at Amsterdam and a plane came in from Beijing.  The passengers queued to catch an onward flight and everyone of them wore the smog masks as you see above.  I asked one of them why and he simply said, "we must".  I told him he was OK here in Europe and didn't need to keep them on and he just smiled and shook his head.

I saw an interview with Anote Tong this week, who is the President of Kiribati, an island republic in the Central Pacific, comprising 33 coral atolls stretching along the equator. It is one of the first countries in danger of becoming uninhabitable owing to climate change.  Because atolls are naturally low-lying, and have a high ratio of coastline to land area, they are especially vulnerable to sea-level rise and storm surges.

President Tong's message was that we should not be thinking of this is a problem for the future, his country is feeling the first effects of global warming now. With most of its land only a few feet above sea level, Kiribati has already seen growing damage from storms and flooding. Some of the nation's uninhabited islets have even vanished beneath the Pacific.  Global warming threatens to render Kiribati unliveable well before it is completely submerged. If global warming continues at today's rates, rising ocean waters may shrink Kiribati's land area, increase storm damage, and threaten its freshwater reserves.   He asks that everyone should be concerned and seek any kind of alternative energy source.  Solar panels and wind turbines are all very well but they cannot hope to replace fossil fuels as an energy source, we need something more basic, more universally usable and available in the very, very near future.

I know that we still have an enormous vertical cliff to climb to convince the world at large that Bessler's wheel did work and perhaps it might ultimately hold the key to reducing industrial pollution.... and maybe not, but surely it's worth trying. The wheel must be proven to work first, then it's up to the design-engineers to find ways of upscaling the basic model.  Bessler said bigger and more powerful wheels could be made and we have no evidence that he would have misled us about that, nor can I think of why he would have done that.  We must take him at his word.

How utterly amazing would it be to successfully reconstruct Bessler's wheel and then find that the entire world had taken the technology and developed it and found that this 300 year old machine had solved the problems of the 21st century!

JC

Tuesday 8 December 2015

Gravity - Ultimate Source of Energy for a GravityWheel.

It's a curious thing, that energy cannot be drawn from gravity; it feels instinctively wrong.   Yes, I know, gravity is not an energy source but intuitively it seems plausible. Sir Isaac Newton's view of gravity provided the same basic model that we accept today; that gravity is a force which tries to pull two objects toward each other.  Anything which has mass also has a gravitational pull. The more massive an object is, the stronger its gravitational pull is. Earth's gravity is what keeps you on the ground and what causes objects to fall.

A force can push or a pull, and is capable of moving objects of mass,  but does that mean it's consuming energy?  Sometimes, provided there is potential energy to consume. For instance, holding a rope taut is using force. Pulling something towards you with a rope is using energy.  If you're standing on the surface of the Earth, energy is not being spent to keep you from falling to the ground, even though a force is pressing upon you.  It's only when the force moves an object of mass that energy is consumed.  So force is independent of work because it's possible to have forces that do no work.

Note - when I say that energy is consumed I do not, of course suggest that it has gone, but merely changed to another form of energy, as we all know, energy cannot be created nor destroyed.

So force does consume energy when it makes something move.  But that energy has to be there first before the force can use it.  There is a law of conservation of energy but there is no law of conservation of force.  The force is always with you - on earth anyway!  In gravity's case without any potential energy there can be no energy expenditure, so how do we get potential energy?  We do some work against gravity, and that energy is stored as potential energy.  Lift a weight and you have the potential energy to drop it.

But...in the case of Bessler's wheel, in order to continually rotate, it would require a continual supply of energy from falling weights.  Conventional thinking dictates that a gravity wheel will never have a continual supply of energy because any energy gained by the falling weight on the one side of the wheel is cancelled out by returning the weight to its original height on the other side of the wheel. 

That is more or less where we have been for the last three hundred years - how to get the weights back up again without extra energy being required?  Despite their assurances that we are all ignorant of the basic laws of physics or crazy lunatics - we continue to believe in Bessler.  For me, it's a gut feeling, an instinct coupled with strong circumstantial; I know Bessler's wheel is possible.  But 'knowing' is not enough, it must be proved and the only way is with a physical proof of principle wheel.

There is a source of continuous power -  and on earth that source is gravity.  Now I know it isn't the actual energy source but it is so close to being just that that I'm going to say it is.  And I'll tell you why?  It is really a matter of semantics. 

Semantics -  the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. It includes interpretation and common usage and accepted norms.  So... the application of gravity to the weights drives the rotation of the wheel.

To put it another way, without the force of gravity the weights would just float where ever you placed them. You need the driving force of gravity to move the weights, without which you've got nothing!  In my opinion therefore gravity ultimately provides the energy, even though there is no apparent depletion of energy levels.  I say 'apparent', because gravity obtains its force from the universe and all the objects of mass within it, interacting with each other.  We have no precise information about gravity so we must simply accept that for us it is a permanent feature of our world.

We know that gravity attracts mass. We also know that the mass has to be free to move in the direction of the force of gravity rather than against it and is not fixed in position.  In other words it can fall.  If it can fall it has potential energy which is changed into kinetic energy.

1) We know that Bessler's wheel used weights; 

2) We know that the wheel required the repeated 'loading' of potential energy by repeated lifting and returning of the weights to their pre-fall position;

3) We know that gravity used that potential energy to make the weights fall

4) We know that Bessler's wheel worked

5) Thus the wheel was driven by gravity.

Consider this.  Bessler's first two wheels began to turn spontaneously as soon as the brake was released.  This suggests that the weight which was about to fall, was ready to do so, or indeed had already fallen.  This would lead to the immediate commencement of rotation.   The next weight would then begin its own action, falling and continuing the motion of the turning wheel.  According to conventional thinking at this point or near it, any energy gained by the falling weight on the one side of the wheel is cancelled out by returning the weight to its original height on the other side of the wheel.  But this only applies if you cannot engineer a reduced effect on the ascending side - something everyone of us knows and believes Bessler achieved.

Since it is so obvious to all of us that reducing the effect of the weights on the ascending side of the wheel will lead to continuing rotation, why do the experts continue to deny its possibility?  We know Bessler did it, ergo it is possible, and all those teachers who believed what they were taught..... are wrong.

Now all we have to do is discover how Bessler was able to lift the weights back to their former position without requiring extra energy from outside the wheel.  Simple.

JC





Tuesday 1 December 2015

Johann Bessler, the Freemasons and Religion.

Some people have suggested that Bessler was a member of the Freemasons, but I doubt it.

John Theophilus Desaguliers (12 March 1683 – 29 February 1744) was a French-born British natural philosopher, clergyman, engineer and freemason who was elected to the Royal Society in 1714 as experimental assistant to Isaac Newton.   He is familiar to us as the recipient of Fischer von Erlach's letter describing Bessler's wheel, and for his public lectures decrying the possibility of a perpetual motion machine as constructed by Johann Bessler.

As a Freemason, Desaguliers was responsible for the establishment of the first Grand Lodge formed in London in 1717 and served as their third Grand Master in 1719 and was later three times Deputy Grand Master. He helped James Anderson draw up the rules in the "Constitutions of the Freemasons", published in 1723, and he was active in the establishment of a Masonic charity. 

During a lecture trip to the Netherlands in 1731 Desaguliers initiated into Freemasonry Francis, Duke of Lorraine (1708 – 65) who later became Holy Roman Emperor. Desaguliers also presided when Frederick, Prince of Wales, became a Freemason in 1737, and he additionally became a chaplain to the Prince.  But there is no record of him approaching Karl the Landgrave, with the intention of initiating him into the brotherhood, and anyway the dates do not support such a conjecture.

Obviously Karl the Landgrave was not involved in Free-masonry, although his grandson  Prince Karl, the brother of Wilhelm I of Hessen-Kassel was a Grand Master. Both were the sons of Frederick II of Hessen-Kassel, from his wife, Mary of Hanover, Princess of Great Britain, daughter of George II King of England.  His grandson, also named Karl, was the Freemason, not Karl the Landgrave; this has led to the confusion over the Landgrave's alleged membership of this organisation.  This was in the 1780s, some forty years after Bessler's death.

The point is that neither Bessler nor his patron, Karl the Landgrave were concerned in any way with the Freemasons.

However Bessler did spend time with a Jesuit priest and a Jewish Rabbi in the ancient city of Prague. There he learned something about Egyptian hieroglyphics, the Book of Nature and the Language of Angels. These subjects have been difficult to identify, but John Dee and his sidekick, Edward Kelley wrote a book supposedly in the language of angels, Enochian, which appears to be a coded document, but it has proved impossible to decipher, that is if it was intended to be.  Kelley met an untimely end in Prague when his promise to turn straw into gold failed and he was imprisoned and died a prisoner in late 1597/early 1598 of injuries received while attempting to escape.

What might Bessler have learned in Prague?  My personal belief is that he learned something of the religious beliefs of both the Rabbi and the Jesuit priest.  He also learned about encoding messages which the Rabbi and the priest used in their communications with each other.  The chronogram was a common feature on building and epitaphs in Germany of that period and popular also among the Jews and Romans in both times past and during the early 18th century.  Clearly this subject must have been explored during his stay in Prague because it seems as though Bessler became obsessed with the chronogram.

Bessler visited Prague in about 1700, in 1696 Prague’s Jewish community was shaken by the show trial of the alleged murderers of 12-year-old Shim‘on Abeles, which marked the culmination of Jesuit efforts to Christianize Prague’s Jews.  Bessler, writing about the Rabbi, relates how "the Jew was a good Christian! He was a great exponent of the teachings of Nicodemus, and all in all I learned more with him in a short time than most people learn in many years."  This curious description of the Jew being a good Christian may relate to the comment above which describes the culmination of the Jesuit efforts to Christianize Prague's Jews at roughly the time Bessler was there.

Earlier Bessler describes how "a Jesuit came to see me - perhaps the most learned priest I'd ever met - and soon we were great friends".  It is possible that the Jesuit and the Rabbi had been discussing the Christianization of the Jews in Prague and from what Bessler said, perhaps the Rabbi was open-minded about the situation.  Their discussions may have influenced Bessler and later led to the publication of his ideas about uniting the Christian religions.

The above comments seem to indicate that Bessler was more than just an inventor hoping for get-rich-quick success.  He was a thinker, open-minded about religion, but still a committed Christian.  In his list of 141 Bible quotations in Apologia Poetica, many of the references do not come from the Protestant bible either of that time nor currently.  Othes refer to books only in the Roman Catholic version and some from the Hebrew bible, which seems to support the idea that he was an interdenominational Christian.

JC



Monday 23 November 2015

Yet more Numbering Clues from 'Das Triumphans'.

I know that my continual demonstration of clues I have found in Bessler's work seem to be centred on the existence of hidden pentagrams and a few alphanumeric clues.  The usual question is, so what?  Where are the clues which will lead to constructing a replica of Bessler's wheel?  My point in advertising these seemingly  irrelevant pieces of coding is to show that Bessler wanted us to find them and provided dozens and dozens of them in various forms so that we would eventually get the message and realise that there must be more to find and that it would eventually lead to the discovery of more graphic information and subsequently his wheel.

Many of us are convinced that Bessler's claims were genuine, even though we don't know how he did it.  Assuming he was genuine then, why would he waste his time in creating so many ingenious clues in all of his publications, extolling the virtues of his wonderful machine, and include illustrations that do nothing to tell us about the machines.  Why bother? Because the coded clues are intended to provide information or at least point to where that information can be found  The number 55 rears .its head with monotonous regularity and you'd have to be blind not to see where it's pointing to - his Apologia Poetica, Chapter 55.  http://www.orffyreus.net/html/chapter_55.html  shows everything I've discovered about chpater 55 and it is obviously full of encoded material and one day someone will work out how to decipher it. I confess it has beaten me so far although I understand that there are others working on it who are optimistic that they are making some headway.

So back to the numbering clues in the Das Tri illustrations.  Johann Bessler included an illustration showing the perpetual motion machine at Schloss Weissenstein.  It was connected to an archimedes pump and apparently demonstrated its power to pump water. See the illustration below.

Like the previous one this drawing is in two parts.  It uses letters from the alphabet rather than numbers this time to label the different parts.  The letters run from  'A' to 'T', in lower case.  He has omitted the letter 'J' because as we know, it is used as an alternative to the letter, 'i' in the German 24 letter alphabet, which is present.  Curiously the letter 'W' appears twice at the top of left side drawing and once at the bottom.  I say curiously because the letters 'U' and 'V' have been omitted and yet they are alternatives to each other and one might have expected to find one of them present seeing as their following letter, 'W' is included.

But there is more.  The itemised list that accompanies this illustration includes all the lower case letters with descriptions of the parts, but then uses the number ten in place of the apparent 'W' as seen in the drawing itself.  Furthermore closer scrutiny of the hand-drawn 'W' shows that it could also be read as the number ten.  But this makes no sense since the rest are labelled alphabetically.


In confirmation of this see the example from the list below. The letter 's' then 't' is followed by the number '10'.

Bessler's frequent use of alpha-numerics demands that we check out the possible use of them in this illustration.  Clearly we are meant to convert all the letters to numbers. 

Adding up the subsequent numbers gives a total of 355, but this seems insignificant, until you realise that Bessler has again omitted one of the number 5s.  The number 5 identifies the rope in the right drawing but there is no such label attached to the rope in the left drawing.  From previous analyses we know that this is a typical Bessler method of encoding information within a drawing.  Adding the missing number 5 to the total brings it up to 360.

The total of numbers comes to 40 with the inclusion of the missing number 5 and as we have done before we divide 360 by 40 to give us 90.  A total of 90 again points to 18 times 5.  Once again we see the two main numbers associated with the pentagram.

As we saw in the previous drawing, the illustrations are in two halves.  Looking at the bottom of the right drawing there seem to be an unnecessary addition of extra letters, for instance there are two completely superfluous S’s and in fact the bottom of this right side drawing seems almost to have been added as an afterthought designed to boost the total to 360. See below.


Adding up the numbers in the right side drawing but excluding those extra ones underneath gives us 72, another key number in the pentagram.  The numbers in the left drawing total either 190 or 195 depending whether you include the missing number 5, but there are 18 numbers in total. The total number of letters used throughout is 20 if you count the 'W' as a letter and not a number.  360 divided by 20 equals 18. Bessler achived two things in this illustration, he demonstrated the presence of the number 72 again in the right side drawing excluding the numbers underneath - and he then obtained another meaningful number by adding both sides and including the extra numbers under the right side to get 360.  Of course 360 divided by 72 equals 5.


There are other clues buried in this illustration.  For instance in the picture below one can see two lines drawn in red, separated by a red vertical line forming angles of 72 degrees and the other, in blue, which is 54 degrees to the same vertical line, each seem to suggest another pentagram.

Back to the workshop for me now!

JC

The True Story of Bessler’s Perpetual Motion Machine.

On  6th June, 1712, in Germany, Johann Bessler (also known by his pseudonym, Orffyreus) announced that after many years of failure, he had s...