HAPPY NEW YEAR. 😀

This  blog was inspired by a recent comment on the Besslerwheel forum in which a poster questioned the motive of a critic. As was pointed out, a forum is a place for query and cross examination. Many of us tend to use the forum as a place to express our optimism about our imminent success, and yet tempered criticism can wound our pride and bruise our egos and lead to corner-sulking or worse, overheated accusations of questionable motive on the part of the critic.

I have suffered in the past from a bruised ego, and have at times over-reacted, but successive failures leads to a pragmatic attitude to criticism which at best results in reconsidering the analysis and judgement of the offending words, or alternatively the cultivation of a water off a duck’s back persona. In other words you have to grow a thicker skin!

I have a motive to succeed but I know it wouldn’t support criticism of another person’s pet theory purely out of envy or jealousy.  No, my motive is to try to produce a working model of Bessler’s wheel, or failing that, help someone else to do so, either by providing the necessary information or working with them to achieve the same end.

Contrary to some opinions I think it will be perfectly possible to build a working model which, it will become clear, is obviously the same design as Johann Bessler’s wheel.  The reason why I believe this to be so is because, with unfailing optimism, I think I have solved enough of Bessler’s clues to build a working model, and if it proves viable then the proof of Bessler’s design is there for all to see.

Is it conceivable that Johann Bessler, having spent years trying to solve the problem, and more years trying to sell the solution, would really have gone to his grave without making provision for the post humous acknowledgement of his invention and his part in it?  To my mind the answer is obvious.  He planned from the start to arrange to publish documents which would reveal the secret mechanism- and where better than in his published drawings?  He dropped so many hints that the answer was there for someone to find, and it has been mainly due to the absolute disbelief that his claims were possible.....and the difficulty of interpreting his clues that so far no progress appears to have been made.

But perhaps this year, 2018, the secret will be revealed.  I hope so.

HAPPY NEW YEAR.

JC

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO ALL

The last few weeks have been difficult for family reasons but confidence is high that my daughter will come through her illness and we can return to our normal cheerful lives.

We are lucky in so many ways and any hiccups we meet along the way just have to be dealt with and thanks be given for each beneficial step forward.

We will have a good Christmas and there will be joy and laughter and of course some tears but some rest and relaxation will be good too.

I will post something before the New Year.

Thank you to all those hundreds of people who drop by here from time to time, I appreciate your visits and comments more than words can say.  May I wish you all a Merry Christmas.

John Collins and family

Perpetual Motionist Keep Going!

Perpetual Motionists never, ever give up!

I first became aware of Johann Bessler when I was about 15 years of age, now I’m 72.  I’ve spent at least 50 years persuing  the truth about Bessler, why?  Because even at the age of 15 years I knew that the maid’s story was a pack of lies.  Her account of how the wheel was turned formed the most damming part of the evidence that Bessler was a fraud, but if it was so obvious that she lied, why was the inventor not celebrated for his wonderful accomplishment ?

The thing is, just because I knew that she lied, doesn’t mean that Bessler’s claim to have designed a true gravity-enabled wheel, also known as a Perpetual Motion machine, was true.  But gradually over many years studying the facts, letters, witness reports.....and the laws of physics, I came to the conclusion that in fact there was a way to avoid the problem so well described by 300 years of institutional “expertise”, summed up the simple phrase, “perpetual motion machines are impossible, you can’t get more energy out than you put in.”

So the maid lied.  Did anyone ever see how the machine worked apart from the inventor?  Yes Karl the Landgrave of Hesse Kassel. His evidence has to be accepted for two reasons; he offered Bessler his patronage on one condition, he must be allowed to verify to his own satisfaction that the wheel was genuine and Bessler was not a fraud; the second reason lay in Karl’s character. He was widely respected for his honesty, integrity and loyalty.  No hint of scandal ever surfaced to tarnish Karl’s reputation.

So what are we to make of the situation?  Many will say that Karl was fooled by a clever fraudster but history described Karl as a very intelligent man, tough too, given his difficult accession to the throne which involved turning his decimated country into thriving nation, admired by his neighbours. Karl was no fool; and.......the demonstrations of each wheel provided further evidence of Bessler’s sincerity.

It’s a paradoxical situation for me, but not for the scientists and teachers, who each follow the rules taught correctly but within a straitjacket of conditions relating to specific circumstances. The paradox lies in the fact that tradition says  ‘impossible’, but the evidence says ‘not impossible’.

The paradox has been resolved.  Bessler’s wheel did work exactly as the inventor claimed.  My own fear is that I might shuffle off this mortal coil before I have proved my theory, for theory is all it can be without proof. So my intention is to continue building my wheel and when it’s too cold I'll retreat inside and continue to try and draw a detailed diagram of the wheel as I see it.  I'm also trying to complete the booklet which explains in more detail how the wheel worked and the clues I found which reveal the design.

That is or was my intention, but my elder daughter was diagnosed with non-Hodgkins lymphoma stage 4 about 5 weeks ago.  She is undergoing chemo therapy which for any parent is a devastating thing to see.  She has completed two chemo cycles and is due home for Christmas, and then she has two cycles more to suffer in the new year.  She is making good progress apparently but the sheer pain, sickness and depression she is enduring is emotionally draining for the whole family and I have simply abandoned all wheel work for the time being.  I may have to temporarily close this blog as we are spending every day at hospital taking it in turns to sit with her, but at least while she’s home she has the rest of her family around her.  The prognosis for her recovery is very good and she is lucky to be at one of the top performing hospitals in this field, so fingers crossed, things can only get better!

JC

A Perpetual Motion Machine Must Consume Energy.

When ever I read an opinion on perpetual motion machines there is always included a basic assumption which is stated in an off-the-cuff manner and which is really quite irritating and pompous and irrelevant!

Recently I read that, "the laws of physics and nature tell us that it is impossible for a machine to produce more energy than it consumes, which creates a very real impediment to obtaining a patent. Such a machine is characterized as a perpetual motion machine and when claimed as such it is ordinarily and routinely rejected by the United States Patent and Trademark Office".  This paragraph deserves a Homer Doh!

Besslers wheel could not possibly have produced more energy that it consumed - neither could any other machine, perpetual or not.  To suggest that some people are claiming that Bessler's wheel produced more energy that it consumned would be laughable, if it wasn't so serious.

This same article tells us that you will need to produce the working prototype before the Patent Office is going to engage in any examination.  "The prototype will be tested thoroughly and if the output is more than the input then a perpetual motion machine has been achieved and the applicant may move forward through the patenting process."

I accept that a working model of a perpetual motion machine is an essential part of the patent process.  But the above is a circular argument.  First they say that a machine that producs more energy than it consumes is a perpetual motion machine.  Then they say that a working model has to be produced and IF it does produce more energy that it consumes, you move forward through the patent process.  What a ridiculous statement!  Obviously it is impossible to produce a machine which will produce more energy that it consumes, and yet we see them seriously arguing about this being a necessary function of the machine in question.  Failing to produce a working model proves their argument.

They seem to have totally missed the point because they are so wrapped in their own explanation. They have set the definition of perpetual motion to their satisfaction and then explain in simple terms why the machine is impossible. They almost seem to be humouring us by taking what they have established as a definition of a perpetual motion machine, and explaining to we simpletons why it won't work, while at the same time talking down to us as if we are imbeciles incapable of understanding.

The truth is that Bessler's machine could not produce more energy than it consumed, how could it?  The actual fact which no one will accept is that Bessler's wheel must have consumed energy, in order to rotate continuously, otherwise how could it then have performed all the work it did?  Where did this energy come from? Gravity or rather the falling of weights caused by the force of gravity.  Like it or not, that is the only possible source and the sooner people come to accept it as fact the sooner we can light up our world with free energy.

The next step is to work out how it could use the energy inherent in weights to rotate continuously.  The one valid concept is so simple it is hard to believe that no-one seems to have considered it.

So first you need a simple system of weights to create imbalance in the wheel.  Secondly you need a separate system of weights whose purpose is to raise the fallen werights back up to their prefall position.  So immediately we resolve the argument that you can't use the falling weights to both overbalance the wheel as well as designing them to raise the fallen ones back up again.  Each weight in both sets  responds to gravity once per rotation.  The first set is raised back into position ready to fall again, that would be analogous to raising them back up with your finger every time, with no cost to gravity.  But in our scenario we are using a second set of weights to raise the first set and this does use gravity. How do we reset the second set?  In fact it is quite simple, the second set are in a neutral position until they fall in order to raise each of the first set; then they rotate backwards as the wheel rotates forwards until they are back in position to repeat the exercise.  So no conflict with the laws of physics.

I have provided some general details of how Bessler's wheel worked, but there are other features which are not apparent at this point.  I do know exactly how it worked so let me throw in another detail, scissor mechanisms.

BTW If I see a certain person plagiarising one of my posts again, I will point it out in embarrasing detail, unless of course he acknowledges my original authorship.  There is a copyright notice right at the bottom of this page as well as a statement to that effect at the top

JC

Permanant Imbalance and Spontaneous Rotation

I noticed yet again the suggestion on the Besslerwheel forum that the reports that Bessler’s wheel was able to begin rotation as soon as the brake was released must be wrong because it was impossible for the wheel to be permanently out of balance.  So - several points here.

The first thing to say is that all eyewitnesses described the first two wheels as beginning to rotate as soon as the brake was released. They accelerated up to their full speed of  over 50 RPM.  These first two wheels could only turn in one direction.  People have suggested that perhaps Bessler stopped the wheel at a particular point in rotation so that as soon as it was released it would begin to spin.

Why would anyone think that?  It was reported that many people were allowed to screw a bolt in and out to slow or stop the wheel as often as they wished and then allow it to spin up again, by loosening the bolt.  Why was it thought that Bessler cheated to create the effect of spontaneous rotation?  There are some who believe that it is impossible to design the wheel to spontaneously begin to spin and therefore Bessler was cheating, but the whole idea of a perpetual motion machine is said to be impossible so why focus on such a debatable detail for which there is no evidence? 

If, as Bessler claimed, his wheel did begin to spin spontaneously upon the brake’s release, then of course he had to apply a brake otherwise it would have continued to spin until the bearings wore out. So there had to be a brake.

Let us now examine the matter a little more closely. In order to begin to spin as soon as the brake was released, the wheel must have been out of balance before the brake was released.  So it had to be out of balance even when it was brought to a stop, which of course it had to be otherwise the brake would not have been needed.  It was out of balance when it was allowed to start, and it was out of balance when it was forcibly stopped, therefore it was therefore permanently out of balance.

For this condition to be present the weight which fell and overbalanced the wheel, must have also reversed the action of the preceding weight.  In other words it created a condition of imbalance when it fell, thus prolonging the overbalancing effect permanently.

Although the chances of creating a mechanism which effectively achieve the action described in the paragraph above, seem vanishingly small after 300 years of trying, I am confident that this solution will be found.  I can’t say unequivocally that it has been found because I don’t have a working model yet, but I am aware of the specific Bessler clues which demonstrate how Bessler did it.

One more thing; the mechanism was described as simple,  well it may look simple to understand, but it isn’t so easy to build.  Each mechanism, of which there five - and there is no doubt about that - consists of ten separate pieces metal, plus two weights.  There are no springs and there is nothing odd about the weights, so I think the weights which Bessler allowed to be examined were wrapped a handkerchief for two reasons, firstly they were greasy and secondly it added to the mystique surrounding the whole event.  Mine are simple lead discs with a hole through the centre.  I can put several on one bolt to produce the desired weight.

JC

Premature Prognostication, Speculation but No Working Model...Yet.

Just a quick blog while I prepare to share my next clue.

How many miles of text has been written on or about Johann Bessler, aka Orffyreus? This is my 515th post on this blog, plus I have posted 2254 times on the Besslerwheel forum ... but not all of these other ones were by me, 252639 posts on 6530 topics.  I arrived there 5th November 2003 and here we are 14 years later and no nearer in real terms than we were back then!  I can’t even guess how much has been written on other forums.  Good job I'm an incurable optimist!

Too much hot air, too much bandwidth, too much repetition, too much speculation, too much expectation, too much prevarication and too much procrastination..... did I miss anything?  So much energy expended for what...infinite speculation?  Yes I'm among the worst I admit, and yet without it we cannot progress.

Even though I must have been told why, a thousand times, I still disagree that gravity did not provide the energy for Bessler’s Wheel.  I see weights fall and I know that gravity made them fall, but I’m frequently corrected because I should say that gravity enabled the weight to fall.  To me this is merely sophistry. (Sophistry is reasoning that seems plausible on a superficial level but is actually unsound, or reasoning that is used to deceive)

I’m not suggesting that anyone intended to deceive but it looks like a way to explain something which otherwise would go against the prevailing opinion; I should probably say that it “goes against the laws of physics”, but they are no more than suggestions anyway, and you can’t be fined or sent to prison for breaking the laws of physics. 

As I see it - Johann Bessler insisted that gravity alone provided the energy for his wheel. And many people believe that he was genuine because the evidence is so convincing. If gravity is even to be considered as the energy provider we should pick apart the reasons why.

We've been here before, and more than once, but I still firmly believe that there is a way to use gravity to drive Besser's wheel.  This is what we know ...and a little speculation!  So 'F' for fact and 'S' for speculation

F. Gravity is described as  a force.  

F. It exerts its influence on objects of mass, such as a weight and can cause it to fall.

F. It acts on an object without physically coming into contact with it and is called a non-contact force.

F. A contact force is a force applied to a body by another body that is in contact with it.

F. The origin of all contact forces can be traced to non-contact forces.

F. The energy exerted does not have to result in motion  -  Holding a rope taut is using force. Pulling something along with rope is using energy ...and it could be just. my energy.

F. If there is no movement as a result of the exertion by the force such as occurs in the rope analogy above then the energy is potential energy, and it could be my  potential energy. See next point.

F. There are two sources of energy available to me for the above analogy; firstly there is gravity in the form of my weight and its potential to fall backwards and pull the rope; or secondly I could hold on to something attached to a wall and just pull using my muscular energy and there is no requirement for gravity's help.  

F. The rope does not care where the energy is coming from, but the result is the same.  The rope remains taught and my energy can be described as potential.  If the object to which the rope is attached moves, then in both cases the potential energy is released and becomes kinetic energy..

F. There is a "conservation of energy" law. But there is no "conservation of force" law.  Why? Because the force is continuous, and therefore does not need to be conserved but the very fact that it is continuous is exactly why it will power a perpetual motion machine. The force is perpetual. 

F. The law of conservation of energy simply means that the amount or package of energy being used, is not replaced, but because it can't be destroyed it does change its form into, for instance heat.  In which case it cannot be used to drive a perpetual motion machine, so let me repeat :-

S. Because the force is continuous, and therefore does not need to be conserved, is exactly why it will power a perpetual motion machine. The force is perpetual.

So I think that gravity is the source of energy for Bessler’s wheel and no other source is needed and it can’t and won’t be found. 

Yes I know that gravity is a force and it can’t be tapped directly for energy and the energy has to be obtained via an agent, in this case weights, but to me that is like saying petrol driven cars don’t obtain their energy from petrol, but from the heat produced from the combustion produced by igniting  the petrol in a series of controlled explosions and they are therefore not petrol driven!  So they are internal combustion engines.

You could describe Bessler's wheel as a system of weights enabled by the force of gravity to cause a wheel to rotate continuously, but I prefer gravity-wheel and petrol or diesel engine.

Just my speculation!

JC

Those mysterious so-called Xs, which aren’t 'X's!

This post is highly speculative but if it generates some ideas or thoughts, we might get closer to the truth -  if we haven't already got there!

One of the most overlooked peculiarities to be found in Johann Bessler’s Apologia Poetica, is the excessive use of the abbreviation for etc, which I and many others thought were ‘X’s.  Fortunately Stewart, a long time member of the Besslerwheel forum and a keen student of Bessler’s works correctly identified the true meaning of the character.

As he wrote on the Besslerwheel forum back in December 2005,

“The symbol that is found at the end of many of the lines of AP and what we have been referring to as 'X's are in fact two characters (or three if you count the .) and not 'X's at all. The first character is a round 'r' and the second is a. 'c'. Together they make 'rc', the German Fraktur abbreviation symbol for 'et cetera' which in Latin is '&c' and in English is 'etc' and means 'and the rest'. There is a totally different character for 'x' in the Fraktur typeface. This means we should refer to them as 'et cetera's and not 'X's, and anyone looking for an 'et cetera' code should also take into account all the '&c's that follow lines that end with Latin words in AP. “

The fraktur symbol for 'et cetera'.

The so-called 'r rotunda', is  a special character formed from the letter 'r’ and designed to follow rounded letters which allowed the printer or type setter to squeeze in the letter ‘r’ by closing the gap and leaving out the downward stroke of the R.  It does not represent the letter 'r' in this case, as it is simply a glyph derived from the 'r rotunda' and used in this fraktur abbreviation.

Nevertheless, knowing what the character means is only half the solution. Why would Johann place 184 ‘et ceteras’ at the end of so many lines?  He only used a few in Das Triumphirende, two single ones and four doubles  Given that the meaning of the abbreviation is ‘and the rest’ or ‘and so on’ and is usually used at the end of a list to indicate similar items are included and assuming that Bessler’s education included the correct use of the character, why would he even bother to place so many in completely inappropriate places?  He could read and write in Latin and clearly knew that the Latin version used the ampersand, one must conclude that his use of the abbreviation was incorrectly applied.

So why did he do it?  We do know Bessler compulsively used alphanumeric, alphabet substitutions, at-bash ciphers, chronograms, Rosicrucian and Masonic codes, drawings containing hidden information and some more codes of his own devising such as he used in chapter 55 of his Apologia Poetica - so why not offer an additional code which took the form of the et cetera character?  Such a device used as a part of a piece of coded information is typical of the man.  Did he think it looked like an x? Did he think we might be reminded of an x?

Below we can see an example of six lines each with an 'x' at its end, there are more of these but mostly they are limited to one per line and rarely more than one or two per page.  The one below is taken from the page adjacent to page 3.  One could argue that the use of the et cetera in this example is just about acceptable

I should point out that there are several occurrences where he uses two 'X's at the ends of a line, and of course he does so above the two wheel drawings in GB and DT.  See below for an example of double crosses, or 'etc's. (Page 74 second part of AP chapter 34)

Double crosses!

I recently posted some suggestions about his use of the word ‘cross’ as opposed to ‘crossbar’.  I didn’t point out that the word ‘cross’ might not be as suitable as ‘diamond’  to describe the shape, because ‘diamond’ while describing the shape reasonably well didn't do the job as accurately, because the diamond links two half xs whereas the cross is just one.

He tells us that one cross could hardly turn the wheel and more were needed.  He placed the etc symbol in inappropriate places and in large quantities to grab our attention, which it did.  There can only be one of two reasons, in my opinion; either the symbol related to the subject matter in the line, or the clue was in the form of the character it self.

The use of the double crosses in the above example might be for emphasis.  It reads "Here Wagner praises his turn-spit, of which a copper-engraving has appeared, claiming that it is actually a working Mobile".  But he also used numerous 'NB's to give emphasis, so one might conclude that one or the other character is superfluous.  While we are on the subject his overuse of 'NB's forms another clue which i will offer in the near future, again speculation, but interesting.

Despite the excessive use of the fraktur abbreviation for et cetera it is arguable that it is within the limits of acceptability, but if so, why is not present in his earlier non-Latin book, Grundlicher Bericht?

For reasons I will explain later, I believe that Bessler is hinting at the use of the scissors mechanism and suggesting a minimum of two.  Bessler's first two publications made no mention of scissor mechanisms so if he wished to provide a hint that they might be needed, the fraktur abbreviation might just be the clue he offered, however vague it might seem now.  I have no idea if this is a reasonable speculation because I have been unable to find anything which might connect the 'r rotunda' glyph with any kind of code, hidden writing or anything else of a concealed information nature.

BUT, if he did intend us to interpret the symbol as a cross he could not use the letter X as that would be too obvious, so the 'etc' might have seemed a safe substitute

If I'm wrong about the reason for the large number of fraktur 'etc's, then I must accept that they were simply there because Bessler used them incorrectly and was subsequently taught how to use them properly.  Or do they represent some so far identified method of information concealment?

JC