Numerology and Alpha-Numerics in Das Triumphirende.

Here's another little coded example.  Please be aware that it has been abbreviated from my own writing and I have omitted some detail but the facts are there for anyone to check.

I noticed early on that there seemed to be an excess of numbering in the wheel drawings in Grundlicher Bericht and Das Triumphans. It looks as though some of the items are ‘over-numbered’.  By that I mean that Bessler seems to have labelled the parts with a particular number more than seems necessary.  For example the main pillar supporting the wheel is numbered 4, three times.  The slimmer pillars are numbered 12, and two of them to the left are numbered twice each, and the other two are only numbered once each.   

Some numbers appear more often than others and not just because they are attached to more similar pieces. After number 18 the rest of the numbers are lone examples. I speculated that this was done to achieve a certain total, and having identified each part once with its number, Bessler then sought to add to the total by labelling the same parts more than once. Obviously the higher numbers would make the jumps toward his desired total too big too quickly so he labelled everything once and having acquired a total, he added more of the smaller numbers until he had achieved his desired end. There are other peculiarities in the labelling and why this should have been done was unclear to me at the time.

There are discrepancies between the two drawings which I shall discuss in a later post but for now be aware that in the first drawing the numbers, composed from 59 numbers, add up to 649 which is, interestingly, equal to 59 x 11 (both prime numbers).  In the second drawing the numbers add up to 633, which is 16 short of the 649.  In the second drawing the numbers 5 and one of the 11s has been omitted, which is why the second drawing does not match the 649 of the first drawing (NOTE 5 x 11 =55).  In both drawings the picture cuts off the left hand end of the drawing and in the process cuts off one of the number 11 weights.  If, in the first drawing, this is added to the 649 of the first drawing it produces the number 660, and because we then have 60 numbers, 660 divided by 60 equals 11, but more interestingly, 660 divided by 12 equals 55.  55 is a number we shall see many times during these posts.  This choice of the number twelve to introduce yet another example of the number 55, may seem too speculative, however, fascinating proof that it is the right assumption will appear in my next post

All the drawings in Das Triumphans contain similar number manipulations, the 'Andere Figura' and its companion, 'Secunda Figura', use the numbers from one to ten.  There is obviously a case of overlabelling in the right picture, with four number eights.

The numbers in the left picture add up to 28; those in the right, 62, to total 90.  There are 15 numbers used and 90 divided by 15 is six. This does not seem to be a significant number, however knowing that Bessler’s favourite number was 5, I realised that it divided 90 exactly 18 times – the ubiquitous pentagonal numbers again.  Secondly the numbers used, 1 to 10, add up to a total of 55 – the other Bessler number.

 

The wheel drawing containing the archimedes pump (see above) also uses overlabelling to achieve a specific number. One of the differences between this drawing and the other ones is the fact that in this one the parts are labelled with letters rather than numbers.  However there is one labelled part which is strangely ambiguous and that is the main supporting column which supports the wheel.  It looks like a ‘W’ however it can also be mistaken for the number ten, but this cannot be right because the other parts are labelled with letters.  The answer lies in the attached list of labelled parts; here the list is entirely in letters except for the last item which is undoubtedly labelled 10.  You can see the ambiguity in the expanded detail below, which has two examples of the number ‘10’, or the letter ‘W’.

Why then is the last item called item 10?  The solution seems obvious; the intention is that the reader should replace all the letters with numbers. The letters run from ‘A’ to T’, plus the letter/number 10.  Since 10 is the last item on the list one might suppose that it would represent the letter ‘U’ as ‘T’ was the last letter, but in fact it represents the letter ‘J’.  We know this for the simple reason that ’J’ is omitted from the list of parts and does not appear in the drawing.

 Bessler's use of the letter 'W' was often used as a way of implying the presence of the number ten, consisting as it does of two letter V's or Roman numerals to produce two more 5s.   He wrote it in the style shown below, which was taken from one of hos many handwritten examples.  The letter 'J' it replaces is the 10th letter of the alphabet.

There are 39 numbers, running from 1 to 20, totalling 355.  This does not seem significant until you discover that one of the letter ‘e’s representing the ropes which run around the spokes on the axle, has been omitted in the left side picture.  The one ‘e’ missing could, if replaced, increase the numbers to total 20 in each picture, and the total from 355, to 360.  360 divided by 20 eqals 18, our favourite pentagonal number again - of course 360 divided by the missing 5 equals 72, another pentagon number.


So the first drawings have 24 numbers, apart from an apparent hiccup over the number 24 getting transposed to number 42 which was deliberate, as I shall show in a later post.  The Andere figures use ten numbers, and the waterwheel uses 20.

There is so much more than these simple examples, but clearly there is a reason other than blinding us with mathematical mystification.  It has to be something useful to us for reconstruction his wheel.

JC

Deciphered Code I Published Previously

I know that most will be aware of this discovery, but just as an introduction to some codes I've deciphered I'm starting with my first real advance, which was the discovery of the pentagram in Bessler's drawing of his wheel in Gruendlicher Bericht and again in Das Triumphans.  The picture below comes from  my own copy of Das Triumphans and the one below that shows how I found the pentagon.

In the next drawing note the coloured lines.  The red line traces the path of the rope as it passes behind the wheel on its way from the pulley on the floor up to the window.

The green line is drawn from the wheel's centre of rotation perpendicular to the red line grazing the edge of a weight on the left end of the 'T' bar and terminating at the period which immediately follows the double x's above the top line.

These two lines cros the circumference of the wheel at three points lines allowing us to fill in two of the five chords which make up the pentagon.  The third point lies at the base of the central support column and the point on the circumference of the wheel, which is missing is provided by the blue line which crosses the wheel from left to right aligned with the 'T' bar on the left side of the drawing and runs through the centre of the wheel and wher it crosses the circumference on the far side, identifies the final point of the pentagon.

The fact hat the pentagon is so obviously intentional does add weight to my contention that there is much more hidden information to be discovered and decoded.

So we have a pentagon; so what?  More will be revealed following subsequent explanation of more codes within the same drawing and it will be seen that there is a perfectly sound reason for the inclusion of this particular geometric design, one that has a mechanical importance.  There is no need to summon the assistance of the 'golden mean' or any of the other mystical sciences.

JC

Masonic Codes, Pythagoras and the Rosicrucians - or are they Red Herrings?

There are several people who have discovered hidden codes within Bessler's writings, which appear to allude to Pythagoras, Masonic and Rosicrucian secrets.  Now some of those codes have also been found and investigated by myself and for me they have been useful, but I didn't need to involve the connections currently pointing towards the above more mystical origins.

I'm not suggesting that those who have described their own findings relating to the above, are wrong, but I think that Bessler, immersed as he was, in the 18th century fascination with all things of that nature, literally filled his books with conundrums of a poetic, prosaic and artistic nature, but they were also informative for those who could separate the former from the latter.

Consequently I see posts on the forum which appear to me to be half right but which have missed their intended point which was to inform us, who came after, how he did it.

There has also been much discussion on calculations and maths - this seems to me simply a distraction from what we are all trying to achieve.  Right from the beginning I always sought to imagine a mechanism which operated in a certain way to achieve Bessler's results, but I didn't need any maths to work it out - and with the help of the hidden information which is to be found in Bessler's book, I'm certain that it will prove possible to reconstruct a working version of Bessler's wheel.

What evidence is there that Bessler intended to leave valuable evidence for future readers of his books?  Bessler leaves several hints that there is more to be found in "Apologia Poetica", than might at first reading be visible.  On page 244, he writes "Let every reader give me the benefit of the doubt and ponder on why this book was written".  On page 246 he writes, "I feel forced to write this book, so that all who read it carefully will end up wiser than they began." On page 295 he writes, "Those who are keen to ask questions should ask them of this little book.  My work shall not be revealed prematurely."  On page 309 he writes, "How will things go for me and this book of mine?  Will people truly understand what I'm getting at? The things that remain to be revealed will have to be left for a future ocasion." and so on.

Bessler commented,  "Let every reader give me the benefit of the doubt and ponder on why this book was written"; so, why was the book writter? If the book was written as an aid to sell his machine then he could have made a much better job of it and made it much shorter.  If it was written as a guide to future readers on how his machine worked, by hiding the necessary information in the book, then that makes more sense.  The inclusion of the various encoded mysteries would have been more easily recognised in his day and thus a search for the hidden information more likely to be started.  But even he had doubts, "will people truly understand what I'm getting at?" he asks.

I will be posting some of my decodings in the next few posts and perhaps these will help convince people that there is information available to those with eyes to see.

JC

I'm back! Welcome one and all.

I must apologise for my absence this last few weeks, but thank goodness my house move is completed!  There are still a few boxes waiting to be opened and the contents made to disappear but we're in at last.  I haven't got my workshop yet but I'm confident I will be back at work on wheel building very soon.

I was about 15 years of age when I first encountered the legend of Bessler's wheel and although I immediately suspected the maid's account of how Bessler fooled everyone who came to see his wheel, I never suspected that I would spend the next 56 years years (the rest of my life so far!) trying to discover how he did it.

I think I know now, at last, but as my wife reminded me, I once told a man I was sitting next on a plan to Florida back in 1996, I was on the verge of a breakthrough even then!  But I wasn't, and it is part of my routine to remind myself to keep my enthusiasn/self-confidence under conrol.

My first wheel took the form of a hollow three dimensional swastika made of balsa wood.  It had one large ballbearing in each leg and remained absolutely motionless unless you nudged it a little when it would turn about a quarter of a revolution and then stop again.

There have been so many different versions since then that I have lost count but it must be well over a hundred and possibly two hundred.  Not a single one has shown any inclination to turn more than five or six turns before stopping.  Am I ever tempted to chuck the whole research after so many failures?  No, because I know that that Bessler's wheel was genuine and I have broken so many pieces of code that I think I have the solution.  I was writing up my conclusions until I started to move house and I shall return to it as soon as I can and I will publish it, but I want if possible, to build it first to test my hypothesis.

I believe that the clues I've found clearly show evidence of Bessler's intention to hide information which would help to understand the workings of his wheel, but the best evidence remains hidden in chaper 55 of the Apologia Poetica.  See my website at http://www.orffyreus.net/ for information about the clues I've found in Apologia Poetica.

Discussions have surfaced again on the besslerwheel forum about the drawings in Apologia Poetica and in Das Triumphans and the inclusion of pentagrams, see my own interpretations at my website at http://www.theorffyreuscode.com./html/apologia_wheel.html

These interpretations were made a few years ago, and I have found and solved many more since then, but as they refer directly to the wheel I am working on (soon!) I prefer to keep  my findings to myself until I have had at least one attemt to translate them into a physical reality.

One thing I do know and that is this, should my own efforts fail I am certan that the information I pass on will lead to a successful working wheel by someone with a more skilled engineering talent.

It's good to be back!

JC

The Legend of 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 completed my house purchase, and have set up a new workshop so that I can finish my wheel tests, 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. So there should ample reason for discussion.

23rd May 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

Johann Bessler's use of Codes

Did Johann Bessler leave any clues?

Were any encrypted?

Was there more than one kind of clue?

Were they intended to help us reconstruct his wheel or was there some other reason??

Johann Bessler left numerous clues of such a diverse nature that although researchers have made some progress in interpreting some of the clues, in almost every case each researcher has discovered that a different method of encoding them has been used.

My own work on chaper 55 of Apologia Poetica can be seen at http://www.orffyreus.net/

It doesn't reveal any hidden information other than the fact that there definitely is a code and an extensive one.

I have also presented some other codes at my web site at http://www.theorffyreuscode.com./ Again these offer little other than the code and my interpretation of each one, and they appear to be indicating fiurther research is needed in order to understand what they mean.

Øystein has made signifiant advances in deciphering another range of codes totally unrelated to those I have mentioned above.  He has shared with myself some examples of his work and it cannot be denied that what he has found was intentional and therefore authored by Bessler himself.  There is also the work done by Ken B.  Unfortunately I have not had access to his findings so I am unable to verify it but he is planning to publish details shortly and then perhaps we can form an opinion

Where as Oystein's work is a combination of what I might call alphagraphical codes although it doesn't relate to QR bar codes, Ken's has found information in Bessler's portraits.  My own work involves yet another variation on the codes used, this time deducing the author's intention from clues within certain of Bessler's drawings.

Finally there are a number of textual hints which seem on the face of it either meaningless or too ambiguous to be of practical value, however when taken together with other clues, some sense can be made of them.

It is clear from the above and other areas of research that Bessler did indeed intend to leave enough practical informtion to allow us to reconstruct his wheel.  I know that there have been several statements both here and on the forum that we shall never know whether we have reconstructed Bessler's wheel or simply found another way to produce similar results, but in my opinion which comes from informed research, there are a number of pieces of useful information, which indicate why his wheel worked and how, so that the reconstruction of a wheel very similar to Bessler's will be achieved and in the near future.

I think that the detailed explanation in a textual format will be found in Chapter 55 of Apologia Poetica, but the graphic explanations which may be intended to supplement the text version will be found in Bessler's drawings.  Elsewhere there are the hints in the text which suggest the answer may be found in Apologia Poetica, and as I've said above, specifically in chapter 55.  There are also numerous tiny clues which seem to point to 5, 5 and 5 or 55; why the number 5? I think everyone knows my feelings on that, but using the number 5 may also have presented itself as the obvious choice for which chapter to include the extensive codes in, hence chaper 55.  

Also he initiated the whole encodement question by adopting the pseudonym Orffyreus, and you can see more about that on my web site at http://www.theorffyreuscode.com./

From all the hints and statements he made we can be sure that Bessler did intend for his wheel to be rediscovered should he unfortunately die before a buyer could be found - and he stated that he would be content with post humous acknowledgement - if that is not an unequivocal allusion to information being available after his death, then I don't know what it.

J

A Repudiation of Certain Statements made in Comments on this Blog.

It has been suggested here on this blog that "Bessler's wheel requires no energy to prime the weights even though they produce an imbalance providing torque to turn the wheel."

I disagree that the weights are "primed" as you put it, without requiring energy, they have to be lifted in the first place.  This requires energy. On the other hand I agree that the wheels turn according to "known physics".  So your suggestion that your wheel "uses the law of perpetual motion, which requires that no energy is needed to prime the weights ...", does not concur with what you refer to as "known physics"' which does require the consumption of energy.

So, assuming that Bessler did not lie, it is obviously possible to design a way to lift the weights so that they can fall repeatedly and this action must comply with "known physics" , so there is no need to invent a "law of perpetual motion". But the energy to lift the weights after each fall has to be included in the design, it's no use inventing new ways of enabling the weights to overbalance,  hoping that they will rise through the rotation of the wheel.

There is at least one way and possibly more than one, and it can be demonstrated that by incorporating some additional features that each weight can be lifted at the optimum moment in rotation.  This can be achieved with a simple design feature which I'm unwilling to discuss here because I'm writing it up, which easily causes each weight to shoot upwards, just as Bessler described.  I don't expect anyone to believe me without any supporting testimony just as I wouldn't believe anyone else who made such claims.

I will also take issue with the statement that, "you will not find anything in the MT drawings or the codes", not true and my document includes numerous illustrations along with full explanations of some of the clues from MT and some codes which will prove the error in the above quotation.

Finally let me deal with the statement that, "all of Bessler's wheels could theoretically start on their own, it just depends on what state they were left in when they were stopped."  This is demonstrably wrong.  The first two wheels were held stationary when not being demonstrated otherwise they started spontaneously.  Why assume Bessler lied?  It is safe to assume that the many witnesses who were allowed to screw the bolt in and out to slow the wheel down would soon have found the spot in rotation which would allow the wheel stop and remain stationary.  It is also entirely logical that to rotate continuously the wheel must have been in a state of continuous imbalance.  Therefore how could it not start spontaneously?

The latter two wheels could spin in either direction therefore they must have been in a state of continuous balance, as opposed to imbalance, and therefore how could they possibly start spontaneously?  The action of giving them a gentle push in the desired direction led to acceleration in that chosen direction, once one weight was heard to fall.  Once the wheel was stopped it remained stationary, and because a weight had to fall before it began to accelerate, it would not be possible to stop it in a position from whence it could spontaneously begin to rotate.

I have tried to argue logically without using any information I am privy to, which is unknown to readers of this blog, to try to balance some of the statements issuing from the hand of a certain commentator.  Much of this person's output is erroneous, self-opinionated and an example ofself-aggrandisement and should be taken with a large dose of scepticism, as should his claims to imminent success.

JC

Update for April 2016

While I await completion of the purchase of my house, I am unable to do any wheel building, so I'm working on the configuration of the mechanisms to try to improve and simplify the actions.  This can be a good task to undertake as it can lead to new ideas and also the discovery of potential problem areas.   Predictably I have found a weak spot in my design which is easily overcome and my enforced idleness has given me the opportunity to find this before I had continued with my build.  I tend to attack these new designs with too much enthusiasm and haste and then find I've got to go back a couple of steps to correct things.

My publishing intentions are still firm and at least I have the time now to work on the document and make any necessary alterations.

So my plan is to continue to finish and publish all the information I have acquired which I believe Bessler left for us in the hope that we would understand it and replicate his work.  At the same time l'm continuing to look at my design and once I'm back in my workshop, I will try to finish my proof of principle wheel or at least the mechanism, and publish a video of it with accompanying commentary.

For those who may think I'm prevaricating about my hypothesis document I must tell you that it is proving a complex composition.  It currently runs to more than 40 pages with more than 38 illustrations and there are more in the pipeline. If this seems a lot, be assured that it is necessary.  If I am to prove that Johann Bessler left enough instructions to permit the construction of his wheel, exactly in the form that he built his own, then I have to show the clues as he left them and how they reveal the solutions.  Each clue forms part of the whole, but it had to be obscure otherwise it would be too obvious and his secret revealed too soon.

Which ever comes first does not matter to me, I will publish both. In the mean time I will continue to write my blog when I feel that I have something worth saying.  I hope that you will stay with me at least to give me your reactions when publication happens.

JC

http://www.witt-energy.com/ harvesting Motion Energy

I have Andre to thank for informing me about this amazing invention -  the WITT motion energy harvester.  It has been invented by Martin Wickett, a British civil engineer, who has found a way to construct a device which uses motion in any direction to drive a rotating wheel.

Unlike a self-winding watch which uses linear motion to win a watch,, this device harvests all motion whether up, down, round sideways etc. Andre sent me this (now corrected) link to a youtube video:-


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RACH6bFhxKY&feature=youtu.be

Here is another link to the official website.  So many potential uses for this machine!

 http://www.witt-energy.com/

I put it on this blog because I think it is such a logical and useful discovery.

JC

You need a working wheel or enough of the mechanism to show how it works.

When Johann Bessler exhibited his wheel for the first time in Gera, Germany, 6th June 1712, he had worked out in his own mind that all he had to do was provide some evidence that his wheel was genuine and the rest would follow - money, fame etc.

The next few years proved his optimism was seriously undeserved.  No one was sufficiently persuaded of his claims to make an outright payment in full without seeing for himself that the wheel was genuine. 

Gottfired Leibniz tried to guide him by suggesting several tests which would add weight to his claims by being difficult if not impossible to fake.  They included translocation to a different set of wheel supports; lifting as high as possible a heavy load; driving an archimedes screw; a long endurance test under guard, lock and key and seal - and most importantly, if he could bring himself to allow it, the public confirmation by a well-respected person, of the genuiness of his wheel, by revealing the internal workings for his close inspection.

All these requirement were eventually carried out, but still no buyer could be found who was not prepared to pay up without first assuring himself that the device was real by looking inside it.

This sounds depressing and we may feel sorry for Bessler, but there is good reason to suspect that exactly the same response or lack of response would follow similar claims today.  You might think think that a patent would be proof enough, but consider how many hundreds of perpetual motion machine designs have been registered with various patent offices over the last few hundred years and you can see that a patent proves nothing even if it might offer some limited protection against competition.

The only answer, it seems to me, is to reveal the design within a video of a working model; a full explanation will need to accompany the video - or find that reputable person, like Karl the Landgrave, who will verify your wheel. But you still need that working model, I know, I'm in that situation now.

There is one more possibility to my mind and it is this.  There must be a configuration within your wheel which will demonstrate how the mechanism works, without having to complete a whole wheel.  The weights which fall have to be returned to where they started from at least once in each turn of the wheel, and your mechanism must be able to demonstrate how that can be achieved, and that is the route I intend taking once I get my workshop back.

JC

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. So there should ample reason for discussion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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