Friday, 16 March 2018

Construction of My Version of Bessler's Wheel Re-Started.

My family's health probems having ameliorated a little, I no longer have to go to hospital every day, and that leaves me time to return to building Bessler's wheel!  It has been several months since I actually worked on it and in fact I had barely made a start when things began to deteriorate.  My plans for 2018 were put on hold, but I am confident that now things are improving, but never forget,  "Homo proponit sed Deus disponit".

The basic wheel or wooden disc upon which everything is mounted measures just three feet in diameter, and it will be no surprise to learn that it is divided into five equal segments.  Each pivot point has been marked and drilled and each stop point located.  I have fitted the pivot axles to all the necessary points, and can now begin construction of each mechanism.

These are complex for me to build but not that hard to understand.  Each mechanism has two equal weights attached to it and there are additional features which I prefer to keep to myself for now, but as I have said many times, all will be shared once it works or even if it doesn't.

This wheel is designed to turn in one direction only; it will start to spin spontaneously once the brake is released.  It would be tempting fate to fit a brake before I've tested whether it works - but it will of course!

I am well aware after all these years that gravity is not a source of energy, but I am still convinced that the overbalancing weights, provide the drive, as Bessler said, and you may tell me that gravity cannot provide energy, but without it there is no motion.

It’s a bit like saying petroleum provides the energy for the automobile, it doesn’t until it has been ignited and forced a piston upwards. Without the petrol you would get no action.

When I first researched the science which governs this subject, I realised straight away that a closed loop could not provide the energy from one falling weight, but several working together could in theory maintain an open loop, thus cotinuous rotation.

Initially I chose to experiment with over-lapping actions, and when it became too congested, I tested arrangements on both sides of a disc.  Then it became necessary to test arrangements on two and even three discs on one axle.  I knew that Besser’s first wheel was very thin but it seemed a logical step forwards if it gave me a clue to how he did it.

I tried to put myself in his shoes, designing wheels which might work but which could be refined and reduced to one disc once success had been achieved.  Later I returned to the single wooden disc because the other methods were too complex and tests showed that the multiple discs weren’t necessary.  But since those early experiments I have gradually broken through Bessler's smoke screens of misleading and ambiguous clues and I'm convinced that I have obtained the design which I believe will work.  If it does, I will explain how and why it is identical to Bessler’s design.

People have asked me many times over the years how sure am I that I finally have the right  design and I have always said, oh about 90 percent sure, but my certainty has always evapourated in the cold light of reality.  But this time .................................?


Thursday, 8 March 2018

The Möbius Strip and Bessler’s Wheel.

I recently posted a little piece about my search for potential clues to Besser’s wheel, among ancient symbols, in particular the yin yang symbol.  Another of my favourites, not so old but intriguing nevertheless, is the sign for infinity in mathematics, the lemniscate. It has the appearance of a sideways figure eight, and although there are variations they are all similar.

This was introduced by John Wallis in 1655, and although he did not explain his choice of this symbol, it has been conjectured to be a variant form of a Roman numeral for 1,000 (originally CIƆ, also), which was sometimes used to mean "many", or of the Greek letter (omega), the last letter in the Greek alphabet, can also mean, infinity.

Lastly and most fascinating of all is the Möbius strap or band.  A simple device to make; take a long rectangle of paper or just a longish strip,nd join one end to the other, but put a half twist in before connecting two ends. I don’t want to bore you with all the quirks attached to this remarkably simple design but you can find plenty of information on the internet.

The interesting point for me is the apparent similarities to be found between the infinity symbol and the Möbius band. Admittedly the lemniscate doeasn't usually have a half twist in the path of the strip but I have seen some drawn like that and I wondered of the artist got confused or was it just an additional twist!

This brings me to the Toys page MT138.139.140 and 141.

Note the lower pair of figures labelled 'D'.  are shown in spiral or twisted design whereas the upper pair labelled  'C', are in straight stripes.  I've always wondered if that is meant to convey that the lower pair have a half twist in their relative positions somewhat like the infinity symbol of even the Möbius band?

I did try to manipulate my drawing of the figures 'D' to demonstrate what I meant but it ended up just confusing, so if anyone wants to try their hand at it I'll gladly post their pic here if its better than mine! So the right half of the ‘D’ figures needs turning up side down and flipped horizontally to complete the spiral move. To me the spiral is suggesting a upside down move as well as a horizontal flip.

This is not necessarily the right explanation but it needs some kind of examination and it has the typical look of a Bessler clue.

I believe I have discussed some of this many many years ago but I can't remember where or when, so apologies if we have been here before, but I definitely didn't associate the Möbius strip and the infinity symbol together along with the figures 'D' in the Toys page at that earlier time.

There may be some way of introducing Möbius-like mechanical configurations into Bessler's wheel?


Thursday, 1 March 2018

Was the Prime Mover the Weight-Lifter or the OOB Weights?

There was a brief discussion about the Prime Mover in Bessler’s wheel on the Besslerwheel forum recently and I came away still unsure of exactly how we can define it.

Some people argued that since the wheel had to be Out Of Balance (OOB) in order to turn, the OOB arrangement of weights meant that that was the prime mover.  Others said it was what ever made the weights OOB was actually the prime mover.

A prime mover can refer to tthe device which extracts mechanical energy from an energy source or it can mean the engine which pulls the train.

Bessler's wheel was a prime mover because it extracted power from falling weights, but really I would like to say gravity!.

But within Bessler's wheel there must also be a prime mover which gets the wheel moving in the first instant.  What part converts the source energy into mechanical energy?  It must be the OOB weights. The wheel will rotate some amount as long as it is  OOB, but the weight-lifter part of the mechanism won’t directly effect rotation, that effect only takes place after is has lifted the weights.

On the other hand, ovyyus made a good point when he said, “Bessler’s first two wheels remained always OOB, even when held stationary. These wheels contained something (a prime mover) capable of lifting weights prior to any wheel rotation...”

So when the wheel was held stationary, the OOB weights were already in position to overbalance the wheel and we know that the biggest problem we all face is how to lift the weights.  Somehow something within the mechanism lifted the weights BEFORE the wheel could rotate.

But although I think the mechanism which lifted the weights was a vital part of the machine, it did not of itself, drive the machine around. That was due to the overbalancing due to the OOB weights, so which one was the prime mover?

Is the weight lifter the prime mover, or is it the OOB weights?  You can’t have one without the other - not if you want a continuously rotating wheel.


Monday, 26 February 2018 most visited site.

I was looking at my blog’s stats today and was surprised and pleased to discover that my web site at The Orffyreus Code web site  is the most visited of all my web sites.  I can put some of it down to links from this blog but many of them have come from other places too many to list, lots of forums and links from other web sites.

The reason I’m pleased is that I never, or hardly ever, get any feedback from the site, so to see so many visitors means a lot to me. For those who have not visited it, it describes a number of pieces of coded information to be found in Bessler’s publication, along with my interpretation of them.  So for instance there are about 23 links to separate pages detailing the codes and what they mean.

I was going to provide links to each page on this blog but then I realised it was filling the page with links without further information about each link.  So I put a brief explanation of each link in between the links, and ended up with page about four times longer than usual and it might have the effect of sending everyone to sleep or to some less boring site. So I reduced this blog to a minimum.

So if you haven't visited the site please do so you might be pleasantly surprised.


Tuesday, 20 February 2018

Was Johann Bessler the First Successful Perpetual Motionist?

Given that in my opinion, at least, Johann Bessler’s wheel had, as an optimum number, five mechanisms, and  it was therefore designed on a plan of a pentagram, I wondered if perhaps there might be something in the pentagram that might have some association, historically with continuous-turning wheels.

Perpetual Motion machines seem to have engaged man’s curiosity for hundreds of years.  There are written records going back to the twelfth century describing at least one machine, and it’s unlikely that no one else considered the possibility long before that.  There are no earlier written records currently available but maybe something will surface later.

But are we to believe that Johann Bessler was the only man ever to succeed in this ages-long search? I hope that one day some proof will emerge that demonstrates that the matter was researched and solved well over two thousand years ago.  But because the design and concept do not lend themselves to a complete description in prose, we should probably be looking for some kind of drawing depicting the concept of an over-balancing wheel.

It was this thought in mind that many years ago led me to examine and consider, among many others, the yin yang symbol. I won’t go into the various meanings associated with the yin yang, there are many websites providing everything you could wish to know.  I no longer think that this symbol carries anything of significance for the perpetual motion researcher, but I do like the image itself and I use it as my avatar occasionally.

The idea resurfaced recently when I came across some old Freemason images dating back more than 200 years, all based on the pentagram. It reminded me that the pentagram was used in Sumerian script some 3500 years ago. No signs of its use as a machine, but it was also used extensively in Ancient Greece and Babylonia too.

Further reading revealed that the pentagram appears in both Bronze Age and Iron Age art, and interestingly in Neolithic and earlier times.  The Neolithic age began about 10,000 years ago and followed the old Stone Age. It’s appearance in those earlier eras is more prevalent than those following.

The interesting question for me is what was it that generated the idea of the pentagram all that long ago?  Several examples of rock art include images of weaponry along with the pentagram, others show sun and star images.  But none as far as I can tell give any further information about its purpose then.  Later of course the Pythagorean developed a school of thought which included the pentagram and was based on mathematics and mysticism,which influenced Aristotle and Plato, but it doesn’t get us any nearer to why it might have held such interest so long ago.

It seems highly unlikely that anyone could build something as complex as Bessler’s wheel before the early Greek era, although there are reports of some ingenious devices both in early Egypt and Babylonia.

I can only conclude that as Bessler said, he was probably the only person in history with enough free time, ingenuity and perseverance to accomplish the task.


Thursday, 15 February 2018

The Number FIve and Phi and Bessler’s Wheel.

Over the last few years I have posted many pieces of encoded material along with my interpretation of what they mean, but none have been of help in finding the design inside Bessler's wheel.  Not posting anything that might be of help was, I admit, a deliberate move on my part for two reasons; firstly, to try to interest others in looking, finding and interpreting other pieces of code, but secondly to retain for my own benefit anything which I believed would help me to find the actual solution.  What follows is a little bit of information which could lead to discovering some of the requirements of the wheel. There will be more to follow.

Because of the presence of the pentagram in many of Bessler’s drawings and his apparent obsession with the number five and 55, it’s been a bit of an obsession of mine too, to try and find some information  concerning these apparent clues, that would be helpful.

The number five is intrinsically related to Phi and the Fibonacci series. Phi represents the Golden Ratio, 1.618 and in the Greek alphabet looks like this, ⏀.

It has been suggested that the ‘0’ part of the Phi symbol represents ‘nothing’, and the short vertical line is the number ‘1’, or unity. Therefore adding one to nothing leads to the Fibonacci series; 0, 1, 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, towards infinity and Phi, or the golden ratio 1.618, an integral part of the pentagram.

You can start the Fibonacci series from 0 or 1, and starting from 1 the 5th letter is 5, and the 10th letter is 55 and outside of the Fibonacci series the numbers 1 to 10 total of 55. Bessler uses these numbers in different ways in several of his drawings.  The square root of 5 = 2.236 although there are at least 10 billion digits after, according to Wikipedia, despite  that, a close approximation can be achieved by 161/72 which gives 2.23611. Curious how 72 shows up there, being as it is a fifth part of the pentagram.

Nearly every angle inside Bessler's wheel is based on the angle of 18 degrees, the smallest angle used in the pentagram.  Others include 36, 54, 72, 90 and 108, all multiples of 18, except one which is 30 degrees.  All the angles including some covering angular movement not normally required for a pentagram are also derived from the angle of 18 degrees.

Although Bessler stressed the need for five mechanisms it is clear that he also considered using the odd numbers 7 and 9. This gave him the alternative to fit more of them into the wheels without compromising the effectiveness of the wheel. To fit more mechanisms inside his wheel would require them to operate further out from the wheel’s centre, and make them smaller. But given the huge size of the Kassel wheel, that might have been an option he chose to make. Despite it being almost the same diameter as the Merseberg wheel it only turned at half the speed which might be because it contained more smaller mechanisms, with reduced length of movement in those parts which were designed to move.

Having 7 or 9 mechanisms might help support the idea that the witness, Fisher von Elach, did hear the sound of ‘about’ eight weights landing on the side towards which the wheel turned.  In Bessler’s Maschinen Tractate document you can see that some drawings are numbered in an individual way, and have a special characteristic which the others don't have and you can read more about it on my web page at
Those numbers above 50 which contain the number 2 show the 2 as a Z rather than a 2, but only if they are odd numbers.  So in the numbers 52, 72, and 92, the 2 is appears as a Z, but all the remaining numbers use a curved number 2.  Notice that number variants start after number 50, this supports the notion that a minimum of five mechanisms are necessary.

I can't prove any of this until I have working model, but I firmly believe that the single number 5 denotes five mechanisms, and the 55 denotes two weights in each mechanism.  So in the above image the odd numbers mean you can use 5, 7 or 9 mechanisms, and the Z-like 2s can be read as 2 - or two horizontal Roman numerals, V, representing 5, something Bessler does in numerous other examples.  He also uses the letter W to convey two 'V's or 5s.

There are other implications in the above text which I have not touched upon which may help others to make progress in discovering some of Bessler's construction details.


Monday, 5 February 2018

Johann Bessler's Secret will be Published this Year.

Today, 5th February, and I’m 73! Still scratching my head over Johann Bessler’s wheel, but confidence is high that the solution is in sight, and that it will be me who publishes the secret, this year!

Johann Bessler wanted fame and fortune so that he could pass on all his technical knowledge to people from poorer backgrounds.  He said that his school for apprentices would have a religious environment, but be non-denominational. He hoped to raise enough money from the sales of his so-called ‘Perpetual Motion’ machine to fund his plan.

I described his machine as a ‘perpetual motion’ machine but he preferred the term self-moving machine.  As he mentioned in his publications, calling it ‘perpetual motion’ was wrong because there was no way his device could run for ever, without breaking down through wear and tear or damage from external influences.

In those days a perpetual motion machine was defined as having a closed system, meaning it had no input of energy from outside the machine.  It was recognised as impossible back then just as it is now. But in those days they did not understand or even know of the force of gravity but thought that the reason things fell was due to something inherent in all things of mass, which they described as ‘heaviness’.  This ‘heaviness’ was part of the mass and not due to the force of gravity, it was intrinsic to the matter of which the mass was formed.

Now if they had known and understood that the force of gravity was the attraction between all things of mass and that this force was the cause of things falling down, then they would have accepted Bessler’s claim that the wheels were driven by falling weights, why?  Because they would have realised that the energy driving the wheels came from outside the machines.  They were not closed systems and therefore not impossible.

Because Sir Isaac Newton wrote his book, ‘Principia’, in Latin, he used the Latin word for ‘heaviness’, which was ‘gravitas’, and this was subsequently translated into English as ‘gravity’. Attached to this word gravitas was the full explanation that Newton gave and this gravity, which used to be ‘heaviness’,  became the new force and ‘heaviness’ was consigned to history, along with all its inaccurate assumptions.


My Blog About Johann Bessler's Perpetual Motion Machine.

I've been writing this blog for nine years and it is becoming increasingly difficult to find something new to write about!  There is on...