Bessler’s Codes Exist - For What Reason Other Than FYI?

I’ll be away for few days from the weekend but if possible I’ll respond to any comments about things in this post.

I have often argued that I thought that Bessler’s use of various pieces of code such as the atbash cipher or Caesar shift which he used to obtain the name Orffyreus from Bessler, indicated an interest in codes.  He also mentioned that  he had learned about the ‘Book of Nature’, and ‘The Language of Angels’, which are well known allusions to historic writings of a secret nature. His actual use of Hebrew hyroglyphics in one of his books at least supports his claim to have been taught some Hebrew.  I have copies of his panagyrics to Karl which include numerous examples of his favourite obsession with chronograms, including some dated, 1519,1619, 1719, 1819, 1919 and 2019!

There are numerous occasions where he uses alphanumeric codes, easily proven, and also alphabetic substitution which again are not difficult to see.  He also inserts the the initial capital letter of his three enemies, Gartner, Wagner and Borlach on several occasions within a single sentence with the initial letter accentuated. Often the sentence is less than complimentary and is clearly a way of critising the gang of three without actually naming them. I mention these minor examples to show his familiarity and habitual use of such systems for secrecy in writing.

Although these are quite innocuous pieces of code, when comments such as ‘those who seek answers should study this little book’, (paraphrased from memory) are taken into account, one starts to think perhaps there are other pieces of code which may contain more important information.  I have barely scratched the surface of the huge amount of information embedded in these four books, so why is it that so many people dismiss the possible existence of precise instructions for building Bessler’s wheel?

I think it is because no-one has published anything which has been derived from a  deciphered piece of code which even looks as if it might refer to some mechanical design.  To me this is obviously part of Bessler's plan; get people interested in codes, simple ones first, and then hope that they will search out the harder ones and eventually get his full meaning.  But he didn't want this to happen to quickly, hence the difficulty of getting to the truth.

Another possible reason is that since no-one believed him anyway, despite all the evidence that he was telling the truth, those people with a particular competence of code breaking were probably convinced that the physics teachers were correct, and what Bessler proposed and exhibited was impossible.

So given the likelihood that he did intend to publish coded information about the construction of his wheel, that may be why he expended an inordinate amount of time publishing his ‘Orffyreus Declaration of Faith’, containing 141 bible references, some of which don’t exist in any known bible?  Why did he duplicate five of them?  Why did he use 55 verses in chapter 55? I could go on, but why not visit my web site and see what an astounding document within his Apologia Poetica this is? I think he used the passage above to describe in his own words the way his wheel worked to complement his drawings.   See my work on the Declaration of  Faith by Orffyreus at...

http://www.orffyreus.net/

And for more examples of Bessler’s use of codes see my website at....

www.theorffyreuscode.com

The amount of time he must have spent divising and implementing such secret writing must surely have had a purpose, other than to impress or confuse his readers.  What possible purpose could he have had other than the desire to convey secret information to his readers at some point in the future, a future that might not be reached until after he had passed away.

JC

Update for August 2018 - Are there some missing Clues?

I have been finding the occasional half hour or so to work on my Bessler-wheel and I am confident it will be finished some time in September or October.  I’m away for a week in September but I hope to finish it once I return from my brief holiday.

I'm assuming that this latest construction will work - and my test mechanisms does perform exactly as I planned.  There have been minor construction problems which had to be overcome along the way but so far I have dealt successfully with each one.  They are not serious setbacks, typically, a case of rearranging some pieces so they don’t collide with other parts of the same mechanism.

Despite the apparent difficulties in understanding the clues and interpreting them correctly the concept is not complicated and Bessler could have provided easier clues, but then his fear of someone interpreting them too soon, prevented him.  This raises an interesting question.  Did he ever expect anyone to decipher his clues in his lifetime?  One would assume not, in which case, why did he think someone would be able to do so after his death?  Was there some additional clue that he hoped would assist in deciphering his clues after his death.  I mention this because I have not found any evidence that anyone attempted to solve the clues during his life time.

I’m sure that, in the event that he failed to find a buyer for his secret, he intended to leave enough information available after his death to allow people to reconstruct his machine and give him the acknowledgement he so desperately needed.  He commented on that very point in his Apologia Poetica and said he'd be content with post humus acknowledgement if he failed to sell his secret. That document was published in 1715, only three years after his first claim to have built a working perpetual motion machine, so even then he was considering the possibility of no-sale and what he could do about it. 

One can imagine the frustration he suffered, thinking that he could sell his secret quickly and get on with his future plans but then discovering things were not as easy as he had thought.  After only three years he was considering his options, and yet he continued for another ten years at Kassel castle without a sale.  No wonder he was described as ill-tempered and unpleasant.

In my book I surmised that since he sought permission to build a grave or mausoleum in the garden of his house in Carlshafen, it might have contained a clue, but unfortunately the latest estimate is that the garden is now part of a car park in town, so probably the gravestones which might have held a useful clue, have long since been obliterated or lost.

There is the possibility that the Maschinen Tractate drawings which he destroyed were intended to reveal the secret after his death because they would be found in his effects.  But as he wrote, the arrest made him destroy them, because once he was incarcerated someone might have gained access to his possessions, or his wife might have sold them, and the secret would be worthless.

JC

After 300 Years Bessler’s Wheel is Nigh.

One of the endless problems we face, researching Johann Bessler’s claims to have invented and built a perpetual motion machine, is the reaction of the vast majority of people.  It isn’t just the scientists, teachers, theoreticians, historians and other “experts”; it is ordinary people like ourselves who dismiss with either scorn, humour or irritation our tentative suggestion that Bessler might have been telling the truth.

I have never believed that Bessler’s perpetual motion machine supported itself with an internal closed energy supply and those people who mock us for thinking that, must think we are complete idiots. The definition of perpetual motion has altered somewhat in the intervening 300 plus years but I have always believed that it must have an external energy supply and in my opinion, gravity lies at the root of the energy consumed by Bessler’s wheel. Gravity is the best and probably the only force capable of providing continuous rotation to Bessler’s wheel.

The energy supplied by gravity enables the weights to fall, so some people insist that Bessler’s wheel was gravity-enabled not gravity-driven.  If a wheel can be built and the weights within,  fall due to the effect of gravity, and they are configured in a similar way to those within Bessler’s wheel, resulting in the wheel rotating continuously, then I cannot see anything wrong with calling it a gravity-driven wheel.

There are so many ways we use gravity’s force via some other medium, that to suggest it couldn’t have been done in Bessler’s wheel is just ignoring the evidence that his wheel worked.  I know all the arguments repeated parrot fashion ad nauseam against this subject and I have firmly dismissed them over the last few years.  At the beginning I wasn’t sure, but the more I studied it the more certain I became that I was right. Johann Bessler himself was not entirely happy with the designation, “perpetual motion” for his machine, but could only say that it was propelled by the weights.

I once thought it would be possible to persuade a scientist or professor of the truth of Bessler’s claims, and thence get him to devote time and money to studying Bessler’s wheel and in the end develop a working model.  But the reaction to my efforts was universal.  Fear of failure, fear of peer’s bad reaction, loss of reputation, fear of losing job, fear of not getting another, fear of family recriminations and worst of all, loss of standing in a very reputation conscious society.  I did find a scientist who was very interested but he wanted to see a working proof of principle model, before he committed time and money to its development. Nothing has changed.  We are on our own and even when we succeed there will be doubters and a vicious backlash from the intellectuals, and there are even some who suggest that a planet full of gravity-driven wheels will somehow effect earth’s rotation and stability and doubtless they will join in the clamour of discontent and disbelief.

But no one can argue with working gravity-wheel and once it’s design and method of application have been explained they will all eventually have to concur that they were wrong.

JC

A Vicious Circle and a Virtuous Circle.

Someone commented that using Bessler’s wheel to generate electricity was a medieval method and once the wheel’s concept was understood it could be applied for use with other forces such as gravity.  It made me think about other methods we use today which still relate to an origin first invented in years gone by.

Waterwheels have been used for at least 2500 years and although they are slowly going out of use their basic function to supply energy in some form or other is still being investigated in different ways, for instance tapping tidal energy.

Windmills too, are of ancient lineage, at least 2000 years of age, with similar uses, grinding corn etc. Again they’ve been adapted to produce giant electricity generators but with several disadvantages but they do provide electricity as long as the wind blows, and not too hard!

Steam engines are a relatively new invention, although  their first reference goes back 2000 years to Hero of Alexandria.  But we still use a derivative of the steam engine in our giant electricity generating turbines, most of which still depend on steam to power their mechanical rotation.

Finally there are the weight-driven clocks - not, of course, continuous motion in the way the earlier examples work, but similar in some ways.  The first examples at the beginning of this post all depend upon a supply of energy of some kind.  That energy reveals itself in action, moving water, pressurised steam from heated water,  or wind blowing over the sails of a windmill.

But is there an origin either in history or nature, as there is for the above examples, in Bessler’s wheel? Actually all of them rely on a constant supply of energy and despite what we have been taught so does Bessler’s wheel.  This is usually where we part company with mainstream ideology!

Remember that we are taught that perpetual motion machines were declared axiomatically impossible by Hermann von Helmholtz in 1847, because, he declared, no one had ever built one!  An axiom is a statement or proposition which is regarded as being established, accepted, or self-evidently true.  Only Helmholtz did not accept the validity of Bessler’s wheel otherwise the axiom would be demonstrably false.

Most of the above examples obtain their energy from something already in motion and simply draw their energy needs from it.  Wind and water; Bessler’s wheel drew its energy from something in motion too.....weights, falling weights responding to gravity.

I think that no PM machine has revealed itself, other than Bessler’s, because these other kinds of machine were available and more obviously capable of being designed to make use of whatever medium the builders had in mind.  Bessler said that the reason he was successful was that he devoted so much more time and effort in finding the correct principle than anyone else had ever been able do.

Helmholtz  declared that  Perpetual Motion machine’s were impossible because no one  had ever built one.  This is a perfect example of circuitous reasoning and perhaps a literary example of perpetual motion.

Question  - why has no one ever built a perpetual motion machine?

Answer- because Helmholtz says they’re impossible.

Question - why are they impossible?

Answer - because no one has ever built one.

Repeat ad infinitum!

The terms virtuous circle and vicious circle refer to complex chains of events that reinforce themselves through a feedback loop. A virtuous circle has favorable results, while a vicious circle has detrimental results. Bessler's wheel demonstrated a virtuous circle.

JC

Alternative Benefits from Bessler's Wheel?

If Bessler’s wheel should finally materialise and is shown to work due to the effect of gravity on some moveable weights, then we can make a provisional assumption that it might be possible to apply a similar configuration to other conservative forces.

Many here have expressed the opinion that once built Bessler’s wheel would be weak and of limited use.  In my opinion they are wrong and there will be many uses, particularly in third world countries for basic energy generation, irrigation, refrigeration etc.

There is also the potential to creat a reverse system based on the concept behind Bessler's wheel in which a drive is fitted to the reverse design to produce inertial thrust in a particular direction.  There is potential in such a scheme for boats and even space travel. etc.  But there is one more area of science which I think may hold even more potential.

Massachusetts Institute of Technology lead the field in nano energy research.  This complex subject is full of potential uses for nano engineering, but my knowledge is very limited. This quote from an acquaitence at my local university, “Nanotechnology involves the creation and/or manipulation of materials at the nanometre (nm) scale. One nanometre is 10-9 m or one millionth of a millimetre. Nanotechnology is essentially ‘engineering at a very small scale’, and this term can be applied to many areas of research and development – from medicine to manufacturing to computing, and even to textiles and cosmetics”.  Fortunately,  I was talking to someone who used to be a good friend of Mike Senior,  a couple of days ago about my work with Johann Bessler.  This guy is a Professor at Warwick university and it was his idea that if we could prove that Bessler’s wheel worked there were numerous potential applications within the field of nanotechnology.

You can get an idea of the ongoing research by looking at this page

http://www.understandingnano.com/nanotechnology-energy.html

The author lists a number of developments currently being researched and my contact at Warwick University suggested that nano-engineering could make use of the design concept used in Bessler’s wheel.

I cannot confirm or deny the potential but I thought it worth mentioning.  There are people here with far more knowledge and greater intellectual abilities than I have, so I hope perhaps they might comment more knowledgeably than I could?

NB These additional links provided by arktod 1001.

https://imgur.com/a/9Jpin

http://vixra.org/pdf/1512.0276v1.pdf

http://vixra.org/pdf/1404.0097v1.pdf

JC

Simulate or Fabricate?

I moved house two years ago and took the opportunity to throw out most of my old bits and pieces of wheel experiments.  I had hoarded them thinking that I might want to go back at some point to revisit an earlier idea.  But then I realised that after almost 40 years of fabrication I had progressed to the point where I knew instinctively what would or wouldn’t be useful in a new design.  So I bought in new material and once I had my workshop up and running, earlier this year, I set to with renewed enthusiasm to build my latesy version of Bessler's wheel..

And that is my point; I have tinkered with simulations from time to time but have never had the same feedback that I get from actually handling the piecwes, and have dismissed them as a waste of time. Making parts, manipulating them, finding that sometimes they don’t work as you expected, or discovering new movements in the process, or  they inspire new thoughts and designs - you cannot beat actually building the wheels.  It generates enthusiasm for new designs - well it does for me.  BTW, I cannot imagine anyone who is not an incurable optimist ever solving this puzzle.  You need a 100 per cent positive attitude to find the answer.

The design I’m building has been more or less complete in my mind for a couple of years and I am sure that it would be difficult to build a simulation so an actual build is the best thing and anyway you would need to build it eventually just to prove you were right.  Maybe the simulation might indicate that it would not work because of some simple error in the input or the settings.

I’ve seen any number of comments about problems with a simulation and I simply don’t trust them. I’m sure that an expensive simulation software could predict the correct solution, but these off-the-shelf versions seem to me to be full of glitches and are not to be trusted.

Returning to my own build, I set out the design parameters and copied them onto the backboard (the wooden disc which will hold all the parts) and drilled the necessary holes in exactly the right places. I fitted the levers on their swivel posts.  The levers were precisely the correct length.....but when I manually rotated them, two of them touched two adjoining levers, interfering with their actions. Admittedly space was tight and I could have planned for them to have more room, but it is surprising how hard you try for extreme accuracy you can still overlook some small discrepancy in the position of for instance a swivel post.

In fact the accuracy of the positioning of the posts is not vital to success.  A millimetre in any direction would not affect the viability of the design.  So I drilled two new holes and corrected the problem.

It has been often stated that there is only one design that will work,  but is this true? I ask this for two reasons, firstly Bessler said he had several designs which would work, and secondly I am aware of at least one design which apparently works. I have seen the design on paper and I cannot say for sure if it will work, but it seems that a working model was made.  What I can say is that this design is different to mine and I do know that my design is the same as the one Bessler intended to pass on to us. This suggests that there is more than one way to use gravity as an enabler of continuous rotation.

I can see from my own design that it looks possible to create the same effect usng differenr mechanism designs.

So my preference is definitely for fabrication but I know many people swear by simulations and animations. 

JC

Challenging the Belief that it is Not Possible to Obtain Energy from Gravity

In my last post I commented that gravity might not be an energy source, just as we have been taught and continue to be so - but many years ago I came to the conclusion that this must be wrong.  My reasons for this are briefly discussed below.

If we believe (as I do) that Bessler told the truth then his implication that gravity provided the sole means of energy for his wheel means that gravity can be used as the ultimate source of energy for the wheel, even though we have been taught that this is impossible.  Please read on for my explanation.

The many tests and demonstrations the wheel underwent, all indicate that what Bessler said was true, and since he did not dare to cheat because being found cheating could lead to execution by the axeman, we have to accept his assurances.  In support of this we have the word of a knowledgeable man, Karl the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel, known for his absolute integrity, that the machine was genuine because he had studied the interior.

Dismissing these points means that it is unlikely that anyone will ever find the solution to Bessler's wheel, despite the fact that we know it worked.

Apologies for briefly going back to basics.  In the case of a conservative force the total work done in moving a particle between two points is independent of the taken path. When an object moves from one location to another, the force changes the potential energy of the object by an amount that does not depend on the path taken.

In other words, in the case of gravity, if something is dropped it loses the potential energy it had at a higher point.  But we can restore it by lifting the object dropped, back up to its higher point

In the case of a non-conservative force the energy that it removes from the system is no longer available to the system for kinetic energy.

So our problem lies in finding a way to lift the fallen weight back up without using any additional forces other than gravity.

This is said to be impossible because the energy expended in dropping the weight has to be found in order to lift it back up again, but the energy has already been spent so there is no way to use gravity to lift it back up again - even though gravity is a continuous force, and a non-conservaive force could not drive a wheel of continuous rotation. Therefore it has to be a conservative force driving Bessler's wheel.

I have suggested the following argument countless times and people still don't get it.  The interface between gravity and Bessler's wheel is the weights.  Gravity makes the weights fall, and the weights make the wheel turn.

Interfaces play a major part in all types of motion. Wind and sails, steam and piston, flowing water and waterwheels, etc.  In each case an energy source provides the impetus and the interfaces react to provide motion.  So it is with gravity, it provides the force and the weights react to it.

Returning to my point about Bessler's wheel and not looking for an additional source of energy, everyone has been looking for this mysterious energy source that has been  suggested, for many years.  They have been unsuccessful because no such other source exists and neither is it necessary.  Steam, ambient temperature changes, bellows, live animals have all been suggested but nothing has been able demonstrate a similar power output which Bessler's wheel did relying purely on gravity

Therefore we must assume  that there was no other force used, and that leads us to the only possioble conclusion, Bessler found a way to use gravity alone to drive his machine, and that leads us to the final conclusion and it is this;

There is a way to configure the weights so that they respond to the effect of gravity by creating an permanent excess weight on the downwards side of the axle.  In confirmation of this, even when the wheel is stopped the overbalancing effect is still in operation and only the brake prevents the wheel from turning.  This overbalancing is produced automatically as soon as either a weight falls, or a weight has already fallen.  No other scenario can explain this feature of the wheel.

We can calculate the work done by gravity in making a weight fall by multiplying the mass of the weight times the distance it falls vertically, so at least we are allowed to assume gravity does do work!  The assumption that we cannot use gravity as an energy source relies totally on empiricism, a definition of which is, 'by means of observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic,'   In other words the conclusion that gravity cannot be an energy source relies not so much on theory and logic as by observation.  In other words no one has even been able to configure the weights to make wheel rotate continuously therefore it must be impossible.

If you are still reluctant to accept the premise that gravity is a source of energy consider the following. British clockmaker William Clement produced the first longcase clocks around 1680. It could run for a week without having the weights raised to restart the clock.  That's a week of gravity power.  But now consider this.

The Clock of the Long Now, also called the 10,000-year clock, is a mechanical clock under construction, that is designed to keep time for 10,000 years. The project to build it is part of the Long Now Foundation.

https://www.wired.com/2011/06/10000-year-clock/ 

The project was conceived by Danny Hillis in 1986. The first prototype of the clock began working on December 31, 1999, just in time to display the transition to the year 2000. At midnight on New Year's Eve, the date indicator changed from 01999 to 02000, and the chime struck twice. The two-meter prototype is on display at the Science Museum in London.

As of June 2018 , two more recent prototypes are on display at The Long Now Museum & Store at Fort Mason Center in San Francisco.

The manufacture and site construction of the first full-scale prototype clock is being funded by Jeff Bezos' Bezos Expeditions, founder of Amazon, with $42 million, and is on land which Bezos owns in Texas.

A clock designed to run for 10,000 years purely on the force of gravity.  Do you still think gravity is not a source of energy?

JC

Are There Any More Doubting Lions Roaring Around?

I borrowed the title of today's blog from Bessler's own words challenging those who disbelieved him to come and sit by his machine as it revolved.

I note that the the old familiar doubt about the truth of Bessler's claims has reared its ugly head again, on the Bessler wheel forum.

I published my book about Johann Bessler in 1996, and I thought I did a pretty good job of providing as much evidence as possible about Bessler and his machine and the tests, and the witness reports, and the letters about him, to him and by him.  I wrote and published the book because I was convinced of his sincerity about his machine.  Not only was the evidence convincing but you could feel the sncerity in the pain and anguish he suffered and emoted in detail in Apologia Poetica.  In my opinion no scam artist could write with such evident sincerity about his feelings about the rejection of his machine.

So when I read that someone who is relatively new to the forum keeps repeating the mantra, "if Bessler was telling the truth," or "perhaps Bessler lied,"  and often misquotes incorrectly passages from the book and all manner of untruths and half truths, I'm tempted to stop trying to persuade people of Bessler's ingenious machine and how much benefit it could bring to the planet earth in these difficult times. Why can't people only their write their ideas once they are in possession of the correct facts?

But in fairness to all those who aren't as familiar with the legend of Bessler's wheel as I am, I admit that over 300 years of schools and universities hammering the facts that perpetual motion machines are impossible and gravity cannot be used as Bessler seems to imply, is a paradigm that is going to take more than an ancient retired engineer (me!) berating them from a small insignificant blog, to persuade them that they are wrong.

There does seem to be the perennial question over the role of gravity in Bessler's wheel. Over the years I have come to accept that gravity itself cannot be regarded as a source of energy and the nuances of the connection between gravity itself and the force that drove Bessler's wheel are subtle and hard to explain, but this is my opinion.

Bessler implied that gravity was the source of energy but he did not say so explicitly.  He simply said that it was the excess weight, or extra heaviness on one side of the wheel that caused the wheel to overbalance, but we and thousands like us have been working on that theory for hundreds, perhaps thousands of years.  He did not use the word 'gravity' because that word was coined almost accidentally by Sir Isaac Newton when he used it in his famous book, Principia' and in Besslers day that was largely unread by anyone other than the top philosophers of the day.  Newton's book was written in Latin, the universal language of learning, and he used the word 'gravity' as the Latin for 'heaviness' to describe this force we all call ‘gravity’ now.  But in Bessler's day they use words such as preponderance which can  mean superiority in weight or significance. This meaning relates to the word's Latin roots in the word praeponderare, which means "outweigh."  So looking for the word ‘gravity’ in Bessler’s papers will result in none being found.

Why have our teachers told us it is impossible?    Because gravity is a conservative force and the energy expended in causing a weight to fall exactly equals that  available to raise it again, and only then if you omit the energy used to overcome friction.

A weight can fall through any path, straight down or around in a curve, all that matters is the straight line vertical distance traveled.  These two factors mean a weight would have to fall in a closed loop, zero energy would be used, which would be impossible.  The assumption is that this rules out any chance of a weight driven wheel. working.

But they deny that it is possible to configure the movement of the weights to create a variation which would break open the closed loop making an asymmetrical loop.  If you study the argument if depends upon the motion of one weight around a circle, but we have always attempted to find a way to include various movements of each weight during its path around the circle in an attempt to create a variation on the closed loop which would achieve continuous rotation.  BTW note my preference of the phrase 'continuous motion' or 'continuous rotation' rather than 'perpetual motion', I just think its more accurate and less inflammatory.

NB I forgot to say that even though gravity is a conservative force and isn't a source of energy, the transfer of energy from the force of gravity to the weights is undeniable because it is this transference which enables the weights to fall.

My own wheel has been designed with a break in its closed loop which provides for a variable between each side of the centre of rotation and I am confident will lead to continuous rotation, but I didn't think of it myself, but was only able to work it out with Bessler's help!

Anyway whatever the result, work continues albeit slowly to the grand or not so grand finale.

JC 

My Hopes and Intentions for the Summer of 2018.

I have been planning to publish a video of a working Bessler wheel for a couple of years, (I haven’t got a working one yet!) ever since I found what I believe to be the true design or concept which formed the basis of the device.  I also intended to publish an explanation and demonstration of the details of the extensive range of clues which I uncovered.  These plans have been largely on hold for most of the last two years, firstly due to our decision to move house to a smaller property, which unfortunately lacked a workshop, and latterly to a string of random but serious illnesses within our family that required our presence almost daily.

Our circumstances are improving and I have managed to create a small working area in a somewhat reduced garage space and begun construction of the machine which I hope to have finished within a few weeks.  If in the end, the machine I have built does not work, as I freely admit, is a possibility, I shall immediately publish details of the discoveries I’ve made including the design of my wheel.

My hope is that someone will take my information forward and succeed where I failed, but of course I don’t think I will fail!

Once this machine is up and running no one will be able to deny that gravity may be the cause of the rotation if not the source of energy driving it.  I shall look forward to seeing the numerous red faces among those many people who scorned my determination to prove Bessler’s claims were genuine and who dismissed my suggestions; one called me a snake oil salesman (had to look that one up!) and  others just regarded me as a fool.  One thing in this field of research, you do acquire a thick skin!

So many ‘experts’ derided the subject of my book about Bessler, dismissing all the evidence as either contrived, misread or blatantly exaggerated.  Any discussions about the book began with the basic premise that such a machine as Bessler described is axiomatically impossible and therefore Bessler must have been lying. 

This has been the whole problem right from when Bessler himself tried to convince the authorities that his wheel was a perpetual motion machine as it was known then.  Yet here we are 306 years later and the position is exactly the same; prove it by revealing the workings or shut up and go away!  Fortunately I decided many years ago not to take the patent route for several reasons, so I shall be happy to reveal how it works......when it does (or doesn't!)

JC

Bessler the man versus his achievements.

When I began to publish information about Johann Bessler, I stuck strictly to the facts as I knew them then, so I included Bessler’s own comments about his life and feelings and emotions.  I also described the reactions of other people, not just their reactions to his claims, but as well, their impressions of Bessler the man.  These were important details to include, but to me, the most important facts were those relating to his wheels; the descriptions of them and the tests they were required to undergo; were the tests exhaustive, sufficient and carried out as well as possible given the times they lived in?

I believe they were as good as could be expected, given that Bessler did not wish to divulge the design concept.  He also had the benefit of Gottfried Leibniz's advice on the kind of tests he should arrange.  The tests do, in my opinion, provide the strongest evidence that Bessler’s claims to have discovered the secret of a machine which showed continuous rotation enabled by gravity.  They were absolutely genuine.

It does seem to me that some people on the forum are only now studying the mind of the man, rather than his works, to find fault with everything about him.  They suggest thst he was a showman, a conman, he told lies etc.  Those things are true but do not negate the other evidence.  We have no conception of how people survived in those days, there were no state handouts, no where to go for help and a man had to live on his wits just to find food and accommodation.  Once he had successfully completed the first part of his burning mission in life; to find the solution to perpetual motion; Bessler set about finding a way to publicise it.  His previous actions however morally dubious, do not necessarily mean that everything about him was unprincipled - he did what he had to do to survive.

So when discussions are taking place about the mind of the Bessler please make allowances for the times he lived in, his limited education and Leibniz’s opinion of him.  Leibniz was one of the cleverest and most accomplished men of the time and he called Bessler his friend and asked for people to make allowances for his manners as he had not been brought up to accomodate the correct etiquette of those far off days.

History  is full of accomplished scientists, inventors, authors and painters, whose works are widely admired, but most of whom had the usual human weaknesses.  Many showed personality disorders such as paranoia, dramatic, overly emotional or unpredictable thinking or behavior and manipulative, exploitative interactions with others.  But they were still admired for their accomplishments and Johann Bessler too, will be admires for his determination to find the solution to Perpetual Motion, once his machine has been proven.

JC

Precautions Against Loss of Information

Recently someone asked me if I had made provision for the publication of my discoveries about Bessler’s wheel, in the event of my early demise.  I gave the question some thought and began to appreciate the difficulties in making such an arrangement.  Creating the document is the easy part.  Publishing it is easy to, if you have somewhere in mind; I considered BWF and this blog.

The difficult bit is asking someone to publish it according to the instructions with the document, at a time when they care least about such a trivial matter, and probably wouldn’t have an idea about how to go about it.  One could of course consign the completed document to a trusted friend and ask him to publish it, but how would he know you had passed away?

It seems obvious that news of my death might percolate around this little community eventually but my recent experience says no.  Mike Senior, my friend who translated every word of Grundlicher Bericht, Apologia Poetica, Das Triumphirende and Maschinen Tractate; not mention the hundreds of letters to German libraries, museum, record centres etc, translating my words into German and their’s back into English for me to read, died  eighteen months ago and I didn’t find out for six months.  I only found out when I did a search of the death notices in the local newspaper.  I thought he was in and out of hospital for hip replacement so at his request did not visit him.

Yesterday I heard news of another friend who was about to make me famous or infamous!  Nick Turnbull died a year ago from cancer. Nick was a firmer TV producer for a Granada Television.  He was also a director, author publisher and TV pundit.  He had interviewed me at length twice and was in the process of putting a pilot of the propose film forward at an international film festival.  The film was provisionally called "Believing in Bessler"; he warned me that competition was stiff and not expect too much, but when I didn’t hear from him for several months I tried to contact him several times, but no luck.  It was a chance meeting with a mutual friend that led to my discovery of his death.

So you see my point?  There are legal ways of having the process arranged but I can’t be bothered going that route, but doubtless I shall think of something.  These deaths do make one aware of the transitory nature of our existence.  I’m 73 and feeling in pretty good health, but you never know what’s around the corner.  It makes me realise that I’d better stop procrastinating and get on and finish my wheel!

Bessler found a way to publish after his death; unfortunately he made it too difficult to interpret his information.  I think I'm there but until that blasted wheel materialises its still just empty words.

JC

Karl, the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel, Found Bessler’s Wheel was Easy to Understand.

When I began my biography about Johann Bessler, I had already completed several years research into his life, acquiring many documents, as well as much additional information from historic records, and I decided to publish everything I had found, concentrating on evidence provided by Bessler himself, and as much as possible from witnesses.  I hoped to provide enough of an incentive to persuade others to seek Bessler's solution.

I believe that Bessler fully intended to sell his machine if at all possible, but he seemed right from the beginning, to think that he might have to accept post humous acceptance, which is why he left as an alternative enough clues so that some one later, after his death, could still discover his secret.  To that end I was certain that Bessler would not have included any lies about his machine although he definitely wrote ambiguously at times.  Lies could be challenged by a purchaser of the wheel, after the event, and Bessler sought acceptance to higher social circles, through the sale of his machine. Lies, would not help either in the sale nor its aftermath.

As for the evidence of the eye witnesses, obviously they could not see inside the machine but they did their best to provide descriptions as accurately as possible.

It has therefore puzzled me from time to time to see many valiant, determined efforts to replicate Bessler's wheel, while undoubtedly making erroneous assumptions or just discounting some evidence that we can assume was accurate, in order to complete their designs as they saw them, or according to their pet theories.

I refer, for instance, to the frequent declaration that Bessler's wheel had eight weighs.  Where did this figure come from?  There is the letter to Sir Isaac Newton in which Fischer von Erlach describes the "sound of about eight weights landing on the side towards which the wheel turned". But this refers to the Kassel wheel, capable of turning in either direction and requiring a gentle push in either direction to start rotating, and which gradulally accelerated to full speed.  Fischer spent at least two hours with the wheel and could only say that there were about eight weights.  We can only speculate about the examination, but I'm sure Fischer attempted to define exact;y how many weight he could hear landing, and yet he couldn't be precise, which suggests that there was a lot of distracting noises occurring at the same time.

Let me explain why this eight weight assumption is wrong; let us return to Bessler's first two wheels which were only able to turn in one direction.  They were able to begin rotation as soon as the brake was released.  Not only does Besssler tell us that these two could begin to rotate spontaneously as soon as the brake was released, but we also know that many spectatorres were encouraged to screw a bolt in and out to slow or bring the wheel to a halt, by simply making the end of the bolt rub against the side of the wheel, and unscrewing it to release it to allow it to regain full speed.  The wheel did not require a push to start, it started spontaneously.  But why did Bessler invent a wheel which could turn in either direction?  To answer the accusations from some people that the wheel must have been wound up.  Bessler believed that the two directional wheels would answer that criticism.

He set out to design this two way wheel and it has always seemed to me that the first and most obvious solution might be to set two wheels, linked together on the same axle, to see what would happen, but with one set to drive the wheel in the opposite direction to the first one.  Obviously this would remove the spontaneous start, but perhaps a push might set them of spinning, and depending on which direction the push was given might provide accelerating rotation.in that direction.

But here is another assumption which Occam's Razor would appear to rule out. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the simpler one is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation is. So when I see people ignoring the simplest explanation for the design of the two way wheels, by suggesting some clever mechanism which would allow both directions from one set of weights I'm extremely sceptical.  Why complicate what may be a simple solution to the two way wheels?

The eight weights applies to the two-way Kassel wheel; some weights may have been padded to remove or reduce the sound of their impact; this means there may have been one more for eac direction; this could add up to five weights for each direction, not four.  Bessler even admits to adding felt on his earlier wheels to deaden the sound they made. For someone today to be designing a one-wheel with eight weights is therefore illogical; designing a two-way wheel before you've designed a successful one way wheel is also illogical.

In my opinion the one-way wheels required five mechanisms.  The two-way wheels require five mechanisms for each direction.  This is something I have established to my own satisfaction, but that is not to say that some other configuration requiring more weights is not possible, but for me its a case of Occam's razor again.

JC

Johann Bessler and the Orffyreus Code

On 6th June, 1712, in Germany, Johann Bessler (also known by his pseudonym, Orffyreus) announced that after many years of failure, he had succeeded in designing and building a perpetual motion machine.  For more than fourteen years he exhibited his machine and allowed people to thoroughly examine it.  Following advice from the famous scientist, Gottfried Leibniz, he devised a number of demonstrations and tests designed to prove the validity of his machine without giving away the secret of its design.

After more than thirty years he died in poverty.  He had asked for a huge sum of money for the secret, £20,000 which was an amount only affordable by kings and princes, and although many were interested, none were prepared to agree to the terms of the deal. Bessler required that he be given the money and the buyer take the machine without verifying that it worked.  Those who sought to purchase the wheel, for that was the form the machine took, insisted that they see the secret mechanism before they parted with the money. Bessler feared that once the design was known the buyers could simply walk away knowing how to build his machine and he would get nothing for his trouble.

This problem was anticipated by Bessler and he took extraordinary measures to ensure that his secret was safe, but he encoded all the information needed to reconstruct the machine in a small number of books that he published. It is well-known that he was prepared to die without selling the secret and that he believed that post humus acknowledgement was preferable to being robbed of his secret while he yet lived.

I became curious about the legend of Bessler’s Wheel, while still in my teens, and have spent most of my life researching the life of Johann Bessler (I’m now 72).  I obtained copies of all his books and had them translated into English and self-published them, in the hope that either myself or someone else might solve the secret and present it to the world in this time of pollution, global warming and increasingly limited energy resources.

It has recently become clear that Bessler had a huge knowledge of the history of codes and adopted several completely different ones to disguise information within his publications.  I have made considerable advances in deciphering one of his codes; the simplest one, and I am confident that I have the complete design.  Due to unfortunate family circumstances I am currently unable to complete the build I have undertaken but shall return to it as soon as possible and I sincerely believe that 2018 will see the reconstruction of Bessler’s wheel.

Johann Bessler published three books, and digital copies of these with English translations may be obtained from the links to the right of this blog.  In addition there is a copy of his unpublished document containing some 141 drawings - and my own account of Bessler’s life is also available from the links.  It is called "Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?"  Bessler published three books; "Grundlicher Bericht", "Apologia Poetica" and "Das Triumphirende..."

I have also published Bessler's collection of 141 drawings and I have called it Maschinen Tractate, but it was originally found in the form of a number drawings of perpetual motion designs. Many of these have handwritten notes attached and I have published the best English translation of them that I was able to get. Bessler never published these drawings but clearly intended to do so at some point.

For some ideas about Bessler’s code why not visit one of my web sites at www.theorffyreuscode.com

One last thing.  Perpetual Motion machines have been utterly proscribed and Johann Bessler’s claims ridiculed - however, it seems that more than a handful of scientists have now come to the conclusion that it might theoretically be possible to design a mechanical system which is continuously out-of-balance and therefore will turn continuously using the repeated fall of weights for energy.  Gravity but not directly.  These open-minded people remain tight lipped for now, awaiting proof of their hypothesis.

JC

Johann Bessler’s (Orffyreus) School of Wisdom.

There is much discussion on the BWF, about the Rosicrucian codes which Øystein and others have found embedded within many of the drawings in Maschinen Tractate.  There has also been some revelations about Euclid’s geometry.  I’m no expert in these matters and certainly the evidence of their presence is persuasive, but I do not see how they will assist us to reach the solution that Bessler found and which might reveal the design inside his wheel.

Bearing in mind the fact that it was Bessler’s intention, should he acquire the money he sought from the sale his Perpetual Motion machine, to establish a School of Wisdom, supported by non-denominational Christian teaching, such arcane clues seem irrelevant.  He aspired to train apprentices in many of the crafts skills he had acquired during his wandering years.

The term, School of Wisdom, always seemed to me to be a misnomer as it was in reality a school designed to teach a trade to aid young men to provide for themselves and their families.  However for the first time I googled the words School of Wisdom, and was surprised to find a number of references linking modern spiritual, intellectual and also historical association including the Illuminati, the Masons, the Royal Society, Euclidean geometry and of course the Rosicrucians. Prague and Bohemia are mentioned several times. This seems to link with Bessler’s home town which was within the borders of Bohemia and of course he did spend some time in Prague studying with both a Jesuit priest as well as a Rabbi. 

So what ever meaning we can attribute to  Bessler’s School of Wisdom, it seems possible that there were two activities being considered; firstly the education of the apprentices in their trades, and secondly perhaps the sharing of knowledge through the use of the Maschinen Tractate about the existence of an older knowledge combining Masonic and Rosicrucian thought with those Bessler believed might benefit.

Bessler also mentioned that the rabbi taught him Hebrew and there are some handwritten examples present in his papers, but also he claimed knowledge of “the language of Angels”, a subject that has a more controversial history.  It was known as “Enochian” and was apparently first recorded by Dr John Dee, in collaboration with Edward Kelley, a spirit medium.  Years of respearch and many attempts to prove the language was invented by either Dee or Kelley, have not proved entirely conclusive, although the suspicion remains that one or both did create it.  They both visited  Prague and endeavoured to obtain the benefits of the friendship of the emperor Rudolph of Prague.

These visitors left a lasting impression on the city of Prague and it may be that Bessler’s reference to language of angels is linked to John Dee’s “Enochian” texts.

Finally I should point out that Dee was lecturing on  the geometry of Euclid at the University of Paris while still in his twenties.  He was an ardent promoter of mathematics and a respected astronomer, as well as a leading expert on navigation, having trained many of those who would conduct England's voyages of discovery.  He seems to have been a genuine polymath but they can still be fooled by a convincing hustler?

So perhaps Bessler left behind him two skeins of thought; firstly the secret of his perpetual motion machine’s construction, and secondly a number of clues relating to these secret societies.  But for the latter, to what end?  Was it just to declare his knowledge of these esoteric matters or did he invite attention from others who might have progressed further along the path of “wisdom”?

JC

Code Embedded in Chapter 55 of Bessler's Apologia Poetica

I note the current interest in the Mascinen Tractate codes and I am interested in the discussion as but also slightly puzzled as the they were bnever published. I published my own thoughts on the code in Chapter 55 of Apologia Poetica on my web site at www.orffyreus.net, but my explanation was very long and detailed and it had a few transcription errors which appeared after publication, so here is a much abbreviated explanation.

Chapter 55 was designed to be the last chapter in Apologia Poetica originally, but Bessler added part two to provide space to argue against the accusations of his enemies.  Every one must be familiar with the ubiquity of the number 55 in Bessler's works so we can assume it was important in Bessler's eyes, so chapter 55 had a purpose beyond its declaration of faith.

The whole book is written according to the AABB rhyming scheme, the first line rhyming with the second line - rhyming couplets. However part of the way into chapter 55, the rhyming changes to ABAB, the first and third lines rhyming, and the second and fourth, producing a four line stanza instead of the two line ones. The text reverts to rhyming couplets before the end of chapter 55, so this implies that the text within the four-line stanzas section is of significance and because it is the only part with this rhyming scheme it I suggest that this section which is encoded.

There are actually only 54 four line stanzas, but Bessler tricks the unwary decoder by inserting four blank lines which when included, total the 55 we've come to expect.  I numbered each of the 220 lines..  

The Bible references don’t relate to Bessler’s adjacent comments. There are many different versions of the bible and the text and verse-numbers vary from one to another which make it impossible to make sense of the references.  In my opinion the Bible used is not important, therefore the text indicated by the references is also to be ignored.

Therefore the Bible references themselves point to letters and spaces, which are more likely than words because the appearance of a whole word in the comments, such as ‘weight', would be too obvious.

Using the numbered lines I found the first and only quote on the first page appeared on line 19, along with the Judae 19 Bible reference, but no verse number.  But there were spaces in the adjacent comment, which suggested that this clue included blank lines and spaces. And the actual quote used did in this case seem highly relevant saying “These are they who separate themselves, sensual men, having not the Spirit.” I think the important point here is that these refers to the spaces and blank lines which are they who separate themselves. No verse number here meant that the quoted text here mattered.

I believe the name of the book chosen indicated by the alphanumeric position of the initial letter, the position along the lines  for the desired letter.  I discovered that counting backwards from the end of the comment, I arrived at a space, 9 from the end, J is the 9th letter of the 24 letter alphabet. This supports the conclusion that spaces were to be included.

But there about 30 places for letters, spaces and brackets in each line so a 24 letter alphabet was not sufficient and Bessler was not able to use every letter of the alphabet because he had only the first letter of each book from the Bible to choose from.  He uses just 13 letters which are all he had available. In order to provide himself with more options he chose to alter the spelling of some books.

The very next two Bible references demonstrate this. Math short for Matthew in the first example; Matth in the next one.  So in this case M is the 12th letter of the alphabet, add 3 for the first example and 4 for the second one.  One addition for each letter.

So we have a section of clearly defined text; a means of selecting specific line; a way to indicate a letter, bracket or space and possibly a punctuation mark.  So why haven't I deciphered the whole text?

There is another Bessler fail-safe, just in case it all seemed too simple.  The text for decoding is shown in fraktur font, a kind of Gothic font; the bible references themselves are in Latin font, not unlike font you see today, but there are a few places where the Bible fonts are in fraktur font, and the first one is not even a Bible reference but the one immediately below appears to be a Bible reference.  One might dismiss these aberrations as typos except that Bessler did not make mistakes.

If there is interest in this subject I'll add some more on a future blog post.

JC

Johann Bessler’s Wheel and the Orffyreus Code

On 6th June, 1712, in Germany, Johann Bessler (also known by his pseudonym, Orffyreus) announced that after many years of failure, he had succeeded in designing and building a perpetual motion machine.  For more than fourteen years he exhibited his machine and allowed people to thoroughly examine it.  Following advice from the famous scientist, Gottfried Leibniz, he devised a number of demonstrations and tests designed to prove the validity of his machine without giving away the secret of its design.

After more than thirty years he died in poverty.  He had asked for a huge sum of money for the secret, £20,000 which was an amount only affordable by kings and princes, and although many were interested, none were prepared to agree to the terms of the deal. Bessler required that he be given the money and the buyer take the machine without verifying that it worked.  Those who sought to purchase the wheel, for that was the form the machine took, insisted that they see the secret mechanism before they parted with the money. Bessler feared that once the design was known the buyers could simply walk away knowing how to build his machine and he would get nothing for his trouble.

This problem was anticipated by Bessler and he took extraordinary measures to ensure that his secret was safe, but he encoded all the information needed to reconstruct the machine in a small number of books that he published. It is well-known that he was prepared to die without selling the secret and that he believed that post humus acknowledgement was preferable to being robbed of his secret while he yet lived.

I became curious about the legend of Bessler’s Wheel, while still in my teens, and have spent most of my life researching the life of Johann Bessler (I’m now 73).  I obtained copies of all his books and had them translated into English and self-published them, in the hope that either myself or someone else might solve the secret and present it to the world in this time of pollution, global warming and increasingly limited energy resources.

In addition there is a wealth of letters to and from Bessler or about him which I have included in my book about the life of Johann Bessler, see below how to obtain a copy of my book.

It has recently become clear that Bessler had a huge knowledge of the history of codes and adopted several completely different ones to disguise information within his publications.  I have made considerable advances in deciphering one of his codes; the simplest one, and I am confident that I have the complete design. I hope to complete the wheel sometime during the summer and publish details of the design.

Johann Bessler published three books, and digital copies of these with English translations may be obtained from the links to the right of this blog or from this link,  www.free-energy.co.uk

In addition there is a copy of his unpublished document containing some 141 drawings, entitled Maschinen Tractate.  This document was intended to form a teaching aid to be used by Bessler in a school for apprentices which he wished to found with the money he hoped to obtain for his invention.

My own account of Bessler’s life is also available from the links.  It is called "Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?"

Johann Bessler three published books are entitled; "Grundlicher Bericht", "Apologia Poetica" and "Das Triumphirende..."

I have also published Bessler's collection of 141 drawings and I have called it Maschinen Tractate, but it was originally found in the form of a number of drawings of perpetual motion designs. Many of these have handwritten notes attached and I have published the best English translation of them that I was able to get. Bessler never published these drawings but clearly intended to do so at some point.

For some ideas about Bessler’s code why not visit one of my web sites at www.theorffyreuscode.com

A separate web site deals with another piece of code found in his book Apologia Poetica, at www.orffyreus.net

One last thing.  Perpetual Motion machines have been utterly proscribed and Johann Bessler’s claims ridiculed - however, it seems that more than a handful of scientists have now come to the conclusion that it might theoretically be possible to design a mechanical system which is continuously out-of-balance and therefore will turn continuously using the repeated fall of weights for energy.  Gravity but not directly.  These open-minded people remain tight lipped for now, awaiting proof of their hypothesis.

JC

Johann Bessler's Life to be Celebrated at Bad Karlshafen

Thanks to Georg Künstler and his post on the Besslerwheel forum, I have become aware of the impending celebrations in Bad Karlshafen, due to take place 24th May to 2nd June 2018.

See:http://www.bad-karlshafen-tourismus.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1142:theater-anu-perpetuum-mobile-eine-stadt-im-rausch&catid=17:st-mitteilungen&Itemid=401

Karlshafen, as it was known then, was the place Johann Bessler retired to and lived in a house courtesy of Karl the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel, former patron of the inventor.  For those who don’t know the word ‘Bad’ in front of the town’s name simply stands for ‘Spa’. It has thermal springs.

The town tourist board are putting on a play each day, telling the story of Johann Bessler, and intriguingly have reported the discovery of an airtight package locked in a sealed box found in the harbour basin during renovation work.

See the old harbour below.

They claim that within the box is the world’s only surviving blueprint of Johann Bessler’s perpetual motion machine.  They ask, “will this solve the world's energy problem once and for all and make Bad Karlshafen world famous?

Now I do not know what is in this box, nor do I know whether it has any connection to Bessler, but it certainly could do. The discovery of this box may be the reason for the decision to celebrate the life of Johann Bessler in this particular year, although it might also be because he came to live in Karlshafen in 1718, exactly 300 years ago. But  I also note that the 'Hugenots and Waldesian Trail  has been awarded with the European Year of Cultural Heritage 2018 for the following activities related to “In the footsteps of Huguenots and Waldensians" project'.  This particulat piece of history related to the founding the town of Karlshafen (formerly called Sieberg) by escaped Huegenots who were welcomed by fellow Protestant Karl.

I considered attending these celebrations but I have no German and my experience of Germany during a visit a few years ago, to all the places related to Bessler’s life, is that few people speak English.  I may have just been unlucky in my contacts with local people but that was my experience then and it has coloured my expectations in the future. Although I enjoyed my visit and Karlshafen is an extremely attractive place, I see no point in sitting through a production which will be all in German, naturally.

Speculations about the mystery box have occupied my thoughts ever since Georg's notification of the event.  Bessler's house was literally less than a stone's throw from the harbour basin, which I believe was completed in 1717.  Given Bessler's obsessive compulsive desire to protect his secret  for as long as he lived, it is quite possible that he did indeed hide his secret within a waterproof and air-tight box and sink it into the water of the harbour basin - maybe only days before he died.

If that was indeed the case then he would know that from time to time the basin would need to be dredged and perhaps his box found, in which case it would need to be of sufficient sturdiness to withstand the rigors of recovery, while remaining watertight.  It maybe that it is possible to drain the basin in which case recovery would be relatively simple.

All this speculation can be resolved once the contents of the box is published, but I am not denying that although the box may be genuine it might be that its attribution to Bessler could be more of a publicity stunt, and speculation by the town tourist board encouraged while the contents of the box is not divulged.  Hopefully all will be revealed during the celebrations in May and June this year.

What if it does turn out to be blueprint for Bessler’s wheel? Someone will doubtless be asked to rebuild it and if they do and it works, what then?  Patent or released freely to the world at large.  Could it even be patented?

We wait with bated breath for the announcement of the box's contents.

EDIT, It seems my excitement at the prospect of discovering what lies within the mysterious box reputedly found in the harbour renovation was somewhat precipitate, as it now seems that the mystery box was a fictional element added to Bessler's life story, due to be enacted at the special event in May and June this year.  My apologies for this error which I blame on the ambiguous translation of the web page by google.

JC

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 .................................?



JC

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 CƆ), 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.

G
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?

JC

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.

JC