Johann Bessler’s Various Perpetual Motion Machines

There is a curious consistency about all four of Johann Bessler’s wheels, which is interesting and leads one to certain speculations about them.  The details which follow are all taken from www.orffyre.com.  This website is run by an old friend and correspondent of mine dating back to our earliest research days, and his information is accurate to date. From the afore-mentioned website:

(Bessler used the Leipzeg ell in his measurements - 1 ell = 22.3 inches

First wheel - Gera

Diameter = 4.6 feet

Thickness = about 4 inches

Speed = over 50 RPM unloaded

Rotation = uni-directional, required restraint when not in use

Axle = unknown

Sound = unknown

Power = unknown

* size in ell units: reported diameter = 2.5 ell = 4.6 feet; reported  thickness = 4 Leipzeg inches = 3.7 inches *

Second wheel - Draschwitz

Diameter = 9.3 feet

Thickness = 6 inches

Speed = over 50 RPM unloaded

Rotation = uni-directional, required restraint when not in use

Axle = 6 inches diameter (probable diameter = 1/4 ell = 5.6 inches)

Sound = loud noise

Power = unknown

* size in ell units: reported diameter = 5 ell = 9.3 feet; probable thickness = 1/4 ell = 5.6 inches *

Third wheel - Merseburg

Diameter = 12 feet

Thickness = 11.15 inches

Speed = 40 RPM or more

Rotation = dual-directional, required gentle push start in either direction

Axle = 6 inches diameter (probable diameter = 1/4 ell = 5.6 inches)

Sound = banging noise at descending side of wheel

Power = estimates range from 20 Watts to 100 Watts

* size in ell units: reported diameter = 6 ells = 12 feet; reported thickness = 1/2 ell = 11.15 inches *

Fourth wheel - Kassel (Weissenstein Castle)

Diameter = 12 feet

Thickness = 18 inches

Speed = 26 RPM unloaded - 20 RPM under water screw load

Rotation = dual-directional, required gentle push start in either direction

Axle = 8 inches diameter (probable diameter = 1/3 ell = 7.4 inches)

Sound = about 8 bangs per revolution at descending side of wheel

Power = estimates range from 25 Watts to 125 Watts

* size in ell units: reported diameter = 6 ells = 12 feet; probable thickness = 3/4 ell = 16.7 inches

Bessler's apparent use of the Leipzig ell suggests he probably built his wheels to whole ell units and simple fractions thereof. The above diagram shows feet and inches derived from Leipzig ell conversions as listed in the data above.)

Ok, this me!  The first thing to notice is that the first three wheels turned at a speed close to 50 rpm. Given the difference in the sizes of all three devices we might have expected a larger variation in their output.  The fourth wheel, the Kassel wheel, the largest one tested, only rotated at 26 rpm, but given that it was designed to undergo an endurance test of several weeks, it would be surprising if Bessler had not designed it to turn at approximately half the speed of the others.

It seems likely that he increased the thickness of the wheel to compensate for the reduced weight-lifting capacity caused no doubt by reducing the speed or the actions  of the internal mechanisms, thus slowing its rotation.  Although we know little about the interior of the machines we can speculate on what alterations he might have made to the mechanisms within the fourth wheel,  (the Kassel wheel) compared to those earlier ones to make turn more slowly.

In the most basic terms, we know that there were weights which must have moved about relative to the axle, and they had to be able to move from one place to another, and then return within one rotation.  There seem to be limited potential  variables, and I ruled out alterations in the mass of the weights. This leaves only a variation in the number of weights, and the distance they can move.

Again if we take into consideration the common rotational speed between the first three wheels, (Gera, Draschwitz and Merseburg) we might speculate that although the distances the weights moved might vary from wheel to wheel, perhaps their effect was controlled by the amount of torque each one could produce, and regardless of weight and mechanism size, perhaps no variation could occur, other than a reduction in top speed due to friction or work.

The first two wheels (Gera and Draschwitz) would begin to spin spontaneously as soon as a brake was released.  We can infer that they were both in a state of permanent imbalance.  I ignore suggestions that the wheel was stopped in a certain position in order to provide this effect.  Besides Bessler stating that they had to be locked to stop them continuing to rotate, there is plenty of evidence from onlookers that he spoke the truth.

The second two wheels (Merseburg and Kassel) did not have this feature, but would begin to spin after being given a gentle nudge in the desired direction.  They were capable of being started in either direction from which point they accelerated to their  top speed. Clearly their two-way capacity led the two directions being balanced when stationary.  This leads us to another question.  If the first two wheels could attain a speed close 50 rpm, it seems surprising that the third wheel (Merseburg) also achieved the same speed in either direction.  We can leave aside for the moment, the slow-turning Kassel wheel because we know it was designed to be slow.

One might think, as I did, that the two-way wheels had a second set of mechanisms designed to turn in the opposite direction, which allowed the wheel to be turned either way, but that might seem to create resistance in one mechanism being turned the wrong way which would either prevent the wheel turning, or lead to it turning more slowly.  This apparently did not happen because the two-way Merseburg wheel was able to match the speed of the earlier one-way wheels. If a duplicate, but mirror image mechanism was installed within the Merseburg wheel, it was twice the thickness of the second wheel which would probably provide enough space for a double mechanism.  

Given this problem perhaps he had found another way to allow just one set of mechanisms to cause rotation in either direction, this would have been the ideal solution, it would have simplified things.  But we cannot work out how he might have done this until we know how his one way wheel worked. 

So what is it that seemed to allow the first three wheels to reach around 50 rpm?  Well we do know that several witnesses remarked on the great regularity of all the wheel’s evenness of rotation.   There was no jerkiness nor bumpiness in each rotation.  I presume there would be a limit to how fast the weights could move and this could be a limiting factor, regardless of size of any internal mechanisms.  This could possibly be improved in these modern times, not just by reducing friction but by improving the configuration of the each mechanism.  It would be a curious feat if one could improve the speed up-to 60rpm, measuring exactly one minute.

A single second was, historically, established by calculating the time it takes for the Earth to rotate once about its axis and dividing the time by the 86,400 seconds in each solar day, (60 x 60 x 24 = 86,400).  Of course we have a much more precise method now, but in 1656, Dutch scientist Christiaan Huygens invented the first pendulum clock. It had a pendulum length of just under a meter which gave it a swing of one second, and an escapement that ticked every second. It was the first clock that could accurately keep time in seconds. By the 1730s, 80 years later, John Harrison's maritime chronometers could keep time accurate to within one second in 100 days.

But, if Christian Huygens pendulum clock had a pendulum length of just under a meter which gave it a swing of one second (39.27 inches), might that give us a hint at the length of levers in Bessler’s clock? Were they also just under a meter in length to time the wheel to close the 60 rpm? Allowing for friction that might have slowed the rotation to what it actually was.

I suspect that Bessler’s weighted levers had a much longer swing than Huygens’ 6 degree swing because it was generating force rather than measuring minutes, but given the work they did, they moved more slowly than any clock pendulum, so being close to 60 rpm may or may not be just coincidental.

JC

Johann Bessler and a Few Coincidences?

There seem to be some related features within Bessler’s documents which may be coincidental, or not - so I have tried to draw conclusions from them by assuming that they are deliberate.  I’m sure some will disagree but I think it worth pointing them out, just in case they were intended to catch our eye for some reason.

It’s sometimes easy to see things as coincidences rather than intentional occurrences.  For instance I like the fact that Bessler stresses the importance of the number 5, and 55.  My birthday is on the 5th day of month 2, obviously a coincidence, how could it be otherwise?  I was born in 1945, Bessler died in 1745 just another coincidence.  There is one more example which I’ll mention later. 

The document I have always referred to as the “Toys” page is numbered MT 138, 139, 140 and 141.  This is logical as it follows MT 137. There are actually five drawings on the page lettered A B C D and E plus what appears to be a late addition of a hand drawn figure with the number 5 adjacent. So we appear to have four pages, apparently with five drawings labelled with letters plus one more number 5.

At first sight I believed the intention was to show that this page was intended to replace four others, destroyed or buried, after his arrest.  But this assumes that either he was charged but not imprisoned otherwise he might not have had time to prepare for searches or confiscation of his documents, so the charges he was accused of made him hurry to take precautions against such actions against him.  This is possible, but why would he need to remind himself of four pages buried or destroyed?

The total of 141 is interesting.  It seems as though he wanted to get to that number and not beyond, but numbering the ‘Toys’ page 138 would seem to have been good enough.  141 is not a prime number and it’s only factors are 3 times 47.  If we turn to MT 47 we discover that inserted within  the drawing which is numbered 47, another number 47, twice in fact because one is the mirror image of the other so there are three number 47s present on the page. Is this a pointer to the number 141 or the reverse or is it just a coincidence?

Bessler’s ‘Declaration of Faith’ which appears in his “Apologia Poetica” chapter 55, contains numerous Bible references, 141 to be precise.  So if we assume the same link as before, what is the relevance of the number 47?  The first thing which occurred to me was Euclid’s 47th proposition. Was Bessler drawing attention to it for some reason.

“In any right triangle, the sum of the squares of the two sides is equal to the square of the hypotenuse.” It’s also a 3, 4, 5 triangle, see below.  I’m sure I needn’t go into any detail about this, but the figure also relates to the Freemasons symbol as you can see further below. Maybe this was the connection he sought to hint at.

There other pointers to the Freemasons and I guess it’s up to people if they think the above is relevant.  But most likely, in my opinion it points to Pythagoras who is believed to be the originator of much of Euclid’s Propositions, and thus to geometry, which ties in with Bessler’s second portrait in his Das Triumphirende book (DT)

One other coincidence for now, which I wrote about in 2019.  I wrote “I have a copy of a document, a panegyric addressed to Karl annually, but it has something unique.  As many will know, Bessler was very fond of chronograms, which is a phrase or inscription in which letters such as M, D, C, X, L, I, W and V can be read as Roman numerals giving a date. He provides dozens and dozens of them in some of his documents and curious as they are, they don’t appear to hold any coded information.

This particular one includes the year.........2019! He also wrote them for 1519, 1619, 1719, 1819 and 1919.  But why 2019 and why did he stop,there? It could have been the year his solution was discovered - what a coincidence that would have been.  If it had, everyone would have believed that Bessler had somehow predicted the future, but it didn’t happen, and if it had, it would still be just a coincidence.

In my experience I find that Bessler added more clues, hints and implications as and when they occurred to him, consequently one often comes across new and exciting ‘coincidences’ seemingly added almost as an afterthought.

Of course the following is just  a happy coincidence, my new house which I hope to move into before the end of this month is numbered 47.  No!  I wouldn’t buy a house because I liked its number!  And I’m not into the Freemasonry.

JC

Some Thoughts Worth Considering in Designing a Gravity Wheel

I used the term ‘Gravity Wheel’ in the title of this blog in place of ‘Bessler’s Wheel’ to show that gravity wheels might have different configurations to Bessler’s Wheels, although from what I know I don’t think the basics will differ very much.

Fletcher made a comment in my last blog which touched upon a point which most of us will be aware of but which maybe some people missed the potential beneficial consequences of including its actions in our designs. I know its action is used in Bessler’s wheel.

fletch wrote, “ By my reasoning, therefore, for a Bessler wheel to gain in Angular Momentum and be everlasting in motion etc, then some part of the local available Angular Momentum pool must be compensatorily depleted to give the runner Rotational Kinetic Energy.”

A couple of years ago I realised the importance of something connected with gravity wheels which I had been aware of all my life but never considered it’s potential as a source of free energy, additional to that which we already know about, i.e, gravity enabled falling weights.

We design weights to be able to move around with the intention of causing the wheel to overbalance. We can calculate the work done by gravity in making the weights fall, but of course the path of the falling weight is not needed because we only need the perpendicular height of the fall. But if the weight is required to do work as it falls, and still overbalance the wheel, the extra time which the weight takes to fall because it’s doing work, does not affect the calculation, because in the simplest terms, time is not a necessary ingredient. 

Therefore if we simply configure the mechanism to react to the position change of the wheel and use gravity to make a weight move into position which overbalances the wheel, we miss the opportunity to use the weight’s action or motion under the force of gravity, to do some work during its fall. 

If the weight is in free-fall, it has no potential energy to unleash as kinetic energy, until it lands, but if it does work as it falls then it is using kinetic energy as it does so and it can still cause the desired overbalance by its eventual completion of its fall. The argument is similar that used in describing the friction generated in a brick sliding down a slope but in this case the work/friction could be used to help lift a fallen weight. This action may explain von Erlach’s description of each weight “landing gently on the side towards which the wheel turned”. There was little or no padding because the weights were slowed down by doing work, and made reduced noise as they landed. 

This idea I believe might correspond to fletch’s comment that “….some part of the local available Angular Momentum pool must be compensatorily depleted to give the runner Rotational Kinetic Energy.”

JC

My Way Works for Me, I Hope! Maybe It Will Work for You?

 I’ve mentioned this before, but anyway here I go again!  

There is so much talk about doing the maths, vector dynamics, velocity and acceleration analysis, gravitation and orbital mechanics, geometry etc (apologies to Tim for borrowing his words, but it supported my point perfectly).  Surely you can work out if it might have potential by sketching it out on paper, draw in the various weight positions, and if it still looks possible do what I suggest next. There is too much speculation about the maths in my opinion.  I can visualise a mechanism and watch it turn, and I’m sure lots of people in this field can do so too.

Surely anyone can test a theoretical design with cheap materials.  Cardboard, card, lolly sticks, straws, cotton thread, brass split-pins, fishing weights, washers, nuts and bolts.  Threaded rods or bolts. Old second hand Meccano sets even if they are missing most their original content are still a good source of pulleys etc.  These are the things I use and have done so for many years, much of it recycled from one design to another.  I used to make my prototypes out of good quality materials, but subsequently, I always kept in mind that this first model was for my eyes only, just to prove the design to myself.  A more attractive construction would follow my first successful build.

There are some people who are so focussed on reducing friction to a minimum that I think they’ve for gotten that Bessler’s wheel did work, lifting 70 pound chests, turning an Archimedes pump, not to mention running for several weeks.  Why worry about friction at all, if it works, refining everything can be done afterwards when it works.

There are others who spend inordinate amounts of time and money, producing beautiful mechanisms that are a joy to behold, yet still remain as motionless as a statue.  

Many people seek to solve Bessler’s wheel by trying to jump straight to the bi-directional wheel, which Bessler admitted gave him problems initially.  I’ve always concentrated on trying to duplicate the one way wheel first.  It is clearly the simpler of the two options.

Now of course I know that time after time I’ve been told that simulations are the way to go and I’m sure that’s true, but firstly I’m too old to learn how to use this kind of software, but more importantly I enjoy building models.  I find that I can learn more from building than looking at designs, whether on paper or in a video, and a few months ago I learned something I believe to be crucial to Bessler’s design simply because I was holding a piece of mechanism and just handling it, watching it operating my hands.

But I know sims are popular and even though I doubt I can understand it all, and actually I’m so busy that I have little time to learn about them, if I get a working model I have contacts who I’m sure would be happy make a sim of my wheel in action. I’m not convinced of their necessity given the success of a physical build, but I will bow to the consensus opinion, if I’m successful.

JC

Provable Scientific Facts Mean More than Expert Opinions

No matter how famous and celebrated some scientists may be, they are all prone to promoting scientific fallacies. One example everyone is familiar with is Lord Kelvin’s statement in 1895,  that “heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible”, only to be proved definitively wrong just eight years later by the Wright brothers’ flight.  But Kelvin wasn’t alone, the number of scientists and engineers who shared his conviction is too large to count.

Almost every top scientist you can mention made firm comments at some point in their otherwise illustrious careers, about some areas of scientific research which later proved to be wrong. I include Charles Darwin, Fred Hoyle, Linus Pauling, Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan to mention just a few.

“In 1847, a 26-year-old German medical doctor, Hermann Helmholtz, gave a presentation to the Physical Society of Berlin that would change the course of history. He presented the original formulation of what is now known as the First Law of Thermodynamics, beginning with the axiomatic statement that a Perpetual Motion Machine is impossible.

Axiom - A statement or proposition that is accepted as true without proof.

No one had ever succeeded, he wrote, in building a Perpetual Motion Machine that worked. Therefore, such machines must be impossible. If they are impossible it must be because of some natural law preventing their construction. This law, he said, could only be the Conservation of Energy.

But a profound reversal of reasoning has occurred in the last century. Helmholtz originally said "Because a Perpetual Motion Machine is impossible, therefore the First Law of Thermodynamics;" while in any physics text book today one will find the statement that "Because of the First Law of Thermodynamics, a Perpetual Motion Machine is impossible."

Skeptics are quick to cite the Laws of Thermodynamics to disprove Bessler's claims. In fact, the argument is circular. The Laws of Thermodynamics do not prove that Bessler's machine is impossible. On the contrary, they are deduced from the "leap of faith" of first presuming it is impossible.”

So given the doubts about Helmholtz’s axiom and Bessler’s validated claim to have invented such a machine, how can we ignore the potential benefit of a machine which costs nothing in energy to run?

There are many fields occupied by so-called pseudo-scientists and that is one of the more respectable names I’ve been called.  But how much more pseudo-scientific can you get than Helmholtz’s ridiculous axion, especially when Johann Bessler had proved him wrong over 130 years earlier?  It doesn’t matter that he made some significant discoveries in unconnected fields of science, so did the celebrated people I mentioned above, but just because someone excels in a particular field doesn’t necessarily mean that everything they say is correct.

There are surprisingly few proven facts in science. Instead, scientists often talk about how much evidence there is for their theories. The more evidence, the stronger the theory and the more accepted it becomes. 

Scientists are usually very careful to accumulate lots of evidence and test their theories thoroughly. But the history of science has some key, if rare, examples of evidence misleading enough to bring a whole scientific community to believe something later considered to be radically false.

Johann Bessler’s wheel has been ignored or dismissed by the vast, heavyweight scholarship of countless teachers and scientists who have defiantly promoted this paradigm, invented by Helmholtz as if it came directly from God.  It didn’t, it’s misleading and it’s wrong!

Most of the above quotation comes courtesy of the Besslerwheel forum with huge thanks to its moderator.

JC

Johann Bessler’s Perpetual Motion Needs a Paradigm Shift

Some people who visit this blog may be tempted to dismiss our whole raison d'être because they don’t know why we might even wish to be promoting such an apparently long-discarded theory of science.  The fact is that this old and hoary theory has been so resoundingly denounced, trampled on and blown out of the water, that anyone who raises the merest possibility that some form of practical perpetual motion might be possible is regarded with scorn, pity or utter contempt,  I know, I’ve been there!

But amazingly there is strong but circumstantial evidence that actually a continuously rotating device, powered only by the falling of a succession of weights mounted in a particular configuration upon a wheel, for instance, is possible.  But even more amazingly it was invented and exhibited to the public for more than ten years, over three hundred years ago!

Some of you who read this will be sceptical and I don’t blame you.  You have been taught that this device is impossible and this has become an embedded tradition which has continued for more than the 300 years since before Johann Bessler first revealed his invention. Even then he had to fight the scientific institutions to try to prove his machine was genuine and nothing has changed.

I have spent my whole life researching this man’s claims, and I’ve self-published five books, one a biography about him and the other four are translations of his own publications.  

The fascinating thing is that Johann Bessler suspected that he might never be able to sell his machine and he wrote that he would accept acknowledgement for inventing a real machine, posthumously, if he failed to be recognised in his lifetime.  To this end he left an incredible collection of coded information with which he intended to reveal his secret mechanism.  I have made great advances in finding and deciphering much of this hidden information, in fact I know enough to know exactly how his machine worked.  My intention is to reveal everything I’ve discovered in the hope that someone will use it to build the first replica of Bessler’s wheel in over 300 years.  I would prefer to build it first, partly for my own satisfaction, but also because I fear that simply publishing the solution, explaining the clues and what they mean, may result in it being simply ignored and disregarded like many other publications which call into question assumptions deeply lodged within the subconscious.  Ones mind is constantly filtering and bringing to your attention information and stimuli that affirms your preexisting beliefs (known in psychology as confirmation bias) as well as presenting you with repeated thoughts and impulses that mimic and mirror that which you've done in the past.

To change this paradigm will take more than a book of explanation.There has to be a working demonstration model to accompany the publication. 

One more thing - when Karl the Landgrave of Hesse was shown the interior of Bessler’s wheel, he expressed surprise at how simple it was and marvelled that no one had discovered the secret before.  When I finally learned the secret, I too was shocked that neither I nor anyone else had found it.  It really is so simple that you can understand it as soon as you see it. Nevertheless, I’m going to prove it first before I release the details.

JC

The True Story of Johann Bessler’s Perpetual Motion Machine.

On 6th June, 1712, in Germany, Johann Bessler (also known by his pseudonym, Orffyreus) announced that after many years of failure, he had 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, who was able to examine the device, he devised a number of demonstrations and tests designed to prove the validity of his machine without giving away the secret of its design.

Karl the Landgrave of Hesse permitted Bessler to live, work and exhibit his machine at the prince's castle of Weissenstein. Karl was a man of unimpeachable reputation and he insisted on being allowed to verify the inventor's claims before he allowed Bessler to take up residence. This the inventor reluctantly agreed to and once he had examined the machine to his own satisfaction Karl authorised the publication of his approval of the machine. For several years Bessler was visited by numerous people of varying status, scientists, ministers and royalty. Several official examinations were carried out and each time the examiners concluded that the inventor's claims were genuine.

Over several years Karl aged and it was decided that the inventor should leave the castle and he was granted accommodation in the nearby town of Karlshafen. Despite the strong circumstantial evidence that his machine was genuine, Bessler failed to secure a sale and after more than thirty years he died in poverty. His death came after he fell from a windmill he had been commissioned to build. The windmill was an interesting design using a vertical axle which allowed it to benefit from winds from any directions. 

He had asked for a huge sum of money for the secret of his perpetual motion machine, £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 viewing the internal workings. 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.


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 77). 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.

Not long after I was able to read the English translations of his books, I became convinced that Bessler had embedded a number of clues in his books. These took the form of hints in the text, but also in a number of drawings he published. Subsequently I found suggestions by the author that studying his books would reveal more information about his wheel.


For some ideas about Bessler’s code why not visit my web sites at 

http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/

Take a look at my work on his “Declaration of Faith” at 

http://www.orffyreus.net/

Also please view my video at 

https://youtu.be/5BWVKtpuzn0

It gives a brief account both the legend and some more detail about some of the codes.

The problem of obtaining a fair reward for all his hard work 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. He implied that he was prepared to die without selling the secret and that he believed that posthumous acknowledgement was preferable to being robbed of his secret while he yet lived.


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 his codes and I am confident that I have the complete 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. 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's three published books are entitled "Grundlicher Bericht", "Apologia Poetica" and "Das Triumphirende...". I have called Bessler's collection of 141 drawings “Maschinen Tractate”, but it was originally found in the form of a number of loosely collected 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 use them in his planned school for apprentices.

You can order copies of the books from my website at 

www.free-energy.co.uk

Printed books direct from the printer can be obtained from here

https://www.lulu.com/spotlight/johncollins

Or from the top of the right side panel under the heading ‘Bessler’s Books’.

There are also links lower down on the right side panel.

As I often say, the solution to this device is needed now. Anything that might help cleanse the planet of pollution and help to reduce green house gas emissions, by providing a clean cheap alternative energy source should encouraged in its discovery and development to counter global warming.

JC

More reflections on the Two-Way Wheels

The Merseburg wheel and the Weissenstein or Kassel wheel were two-way ones and could both be turned in either direction with a gentle push in the desired direction.  I have always believed that the way this was achieved was by placing a pair of one-way wheels on the same axle, but with one wheel designed to turn in the opposite direction to its twin.  This would create a balanced wheel, with no restrained impulse to turn it in any direction.  

Giving it a push sufficient for one weight to fall would initiate the impulse to begin to turn in that direction. Once begun, the sequence would be repeated continuously.  When a twinned wheel was to be turned in reverse it had to be designed with one of two options; firstly it could be allowed to move as dictated by the positions the rotation caused it to adopt, with little or no negative effect on the mechanical advantage being generated by it’s paired wheel; or there was a feature or device designed within each mechanism which locked it into whatever position it was in as soon the first weight in the other half of the twinned wheel fell..

Many years ago I tested this theory using models of two Savonius windmills mounted on one axle, but not fixed to the axle.  Each one was designed to turn in the opposite direction to its twin.  Firstly they were allowed to turn independently of each other and when placed in the path of a fan, each began to rotate in opposite directions.  Next I coupled the two windmills together.  Now neither moved when in the path of the wind.  I gave the joined windmills a little nudge in one direction and the assembly began to turn in one direction.  The same thing happened in the other direction of rotation.  I gave a full account of the above experiment in my biography of Bessler, “Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery Solved?”

The resultant rotation was about half the speed of the uncoupled windmills.  In this example the concave portion of the Savonius windmill when moving against the wind led to a braking effect, hence the slower speed of rotation.  However in the Kassel wheel the half speed of rotation was a desired effect to reduce wear on the bearings.  In the Merseburg wheel I think Bessler found a way to lock and block negative action in the wheel which was forced to reverse.

If the reversing mirror-imaged wheel generated some resistance to the forward motion of its twin, Bessler must have found a way to wipe out all of it in the Merseburg wheel, because it was able to rotate at about the same speed as the other one-way wheels.  Or it might have been possible to stop all mechanical action in the reversing wheel, because without any weight movement there,  the wheel would not be out of balance at anytime. Unless the mechanisms stopped in one position which would have led  to an imbalance at one point in rotation.  It might have been this that Bessler said, gave him a headache trying to set it correctly - stopping the weights from moving at all in the reversing wheel was one task but how to achieve that neutral point of balance at any point in rotation, automatically?

JC

Reflections on Johann Bessler’s Perpetual Motion Machines

When Johann Bessler’s largest wheel, the two-way version, was demonstrated at Kassel, it was recorded that the sound of eight weights were heard to land softly on the side towards which it turned.  I have often suggested that there might have been ten weights, but two of them, one in each half of the wheel, given a thick layer of felt to deaden the sound of their impact, giving the impression that there were only eight weights. However if that was the case, the rhythmic thumping noise heard from the wheel, turning at 26 rpm means each turn took 2.3 seconds.  Counting 8 thumps every 2.3 seconds it’s no wonder von Erlach said “about” 8 thumps per turn. Even so, if there were two silent weights operating, their silence would have introduced two gaps in the rhythmic thumping.  Surely this would have been mentioned?

The description of each weight landing “softly” suggests they were all felted.  The official reports specifically mention the great evenness of the wheel’s rotation which I think, obviates my suggestion of one or more silenced weights.  So perhaps there were two sets of eight weights each set driving the Kassel wheel in a particular direction.  The reason why I introduced the idea that there could have been two inaudible weights was because I could not understand why some researchers said that they were trying to make a two-way wheel which according to Bessler was very difficult; while others were using the eight weight description which applied to the two-way Kassel wheel to make a one-way wheel.  We have no knowledge of the sounds emanating from the one-way wheels other than that they were very noisy.

The Kassel wheel was designed to turn more slowly than its predecessors each of which were able to turn at about double the speed.  The Kassel wheel was built to withstand the wear and tear it expected to undergo during the endurance test of 30 days which, in the end, ran for 54 days before it was stopped. It’s speed of rotation was slowed by a half to preserve the integrity of its bearings and I assume this was achieved by reducing the distances of the movements within the mechanism.  This design might have reduced the mechanical leverage obtained in the previous wheels, but increasing the mass of the weights might retrieve the lost lifting power.  This may explain the increase in the thickness, or depth of the Kassel wheel, compared to its predecessor, the Merseburg wheel. In support of this suggestion Bessler said that he could make wheels turn very slowly and lift greater weights or turn very quickly, of small size or of great size.

All this tells us that we have documented evidence of one wheel using eight weights, turning at 26 rpm and nothing about the others except they each rotated at around 50 rpm yet were all of different dimensions.  That sounds to me like 50 rpm was the best speed available with Bessler’s design, regardless of size and the 26 rpm version was the modified design.  If the mechanisms inside the Kassel wheel moved through a limited range compared to the others, then perhaps there were more of them inside than in the others - 8 or more?  Fine if you are committed to building the two-way wheel, even though you don’t know how the one-way wheel worked, but I think the one-way one is the way to go!

Above courtesy of  

http://www.orffyre.com/Wheel-Evolution-Large.gif

JC

Update February 2022 Draw, Describe, Simulate, Build, Publish.

It seems as though our move to our next house is looking at least three months away, so I’ve decided to change my plans.  I’m going to complete a drawing of how I believe Bessler’s wheel worked,  I’m also trying to complete the book detailing all the information Bessler gave us about how how his wheel worked and I will explain the simple concept which made it work.   I will also get a sim made according to my design

The book will be available in both printed and digital format - possibly through my new web site or on Amazon. By the time it’s ready for publication there will be a sim demonstrating how it works, and the sim will be real without any camouflage or deliberate or accidental failure or bugs which prevent anyone viewing it or making their own version.  The design is simple to understand although it may take me a while build it, which is why I’m taking the time before we move to try and prepare everything I might need.

I will just point out that over the last twelve years that this blog has been running I have posted details about information I have deciphered from Bessler’s clues and they have generally all been dismissed or ignored.  I haven’t minded, but I am kind of surprised that the same errors of misunderstanding or misinterpretation have continued to proliferate and become embedded in the surrounding trivia, so that it become difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff.

It was always my intention to offer information based purely on documentary evidence, ignoring from the beginning the assumption that Bessler’s wheel must be a scam because such a machine was said to be impossible.  I studied the evidence in those documents and knew that that assumption was wrong.

Some of the translations were mildly inaccurate, but not so much that they misled people. Thanks to the work of several people those inaccuracies were corrected. Thus we have this corpus of texts which should be our starting point.  Speculation is useful but it must be recognised as such and not embedded in the rest of the real evidence where it can mislead or slant opinions without foundation.

People are welcome to research this material as they like, but I would urge them to keep it simple and not, for instance try to invent the two-way turning wheel, such as the Merseburg and the Weissenstein wheels. Bessler himself mentions how difficult they were to complete successfully.  In which case using the reports by Fischer von Erlach which described the sound of eight weights landing on the side towards which the wheel turned is of no use if you are trying to make a own-way wheel, and why would you want to start with the hardest one to replicate, surely the simplest one, the one-way wheel is the one to start with?

So I believe that once people can see my work on deciphering Bessler’s clues and the solution, the sound of headdesking will be like a worldwide rolling roar of thunder - an example of a physical expression of extreme frustration, aggravation and annoyance or resignation that you didn’t see it yourself!

JC

The True Story of Johann Bessler’s Perpetual Motion Machine.

The Legend of Johann Bessler's wheel.

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, who was able to examine the device, he devised a number of demonstrations and tests designed to prove the validity of his machine without giving away the secret of its design.

Karl the Landgrave of Hesse permitted Bessler to live, work and exhibit his machine at the prince's castle of Weissenstein. Karl was a man of unimpeachable reputation and he insisted on being allowed to verify the inventor's claims before he allowed Bessler to take up residence. This the inventor reluctantly agreed to and once he had examined the machine to his own satisfaction Karl authorised the publication of his approval of the machine. For several years Bessler was visited by numerous people of varying status, scientists, ministers and royalty. Several official examinations were carried out and each time the examiners concluded that the inventor's claims were genuine.

Over several years Karl aged and it was decided that the inventor should leave the castle and he was granted accommodation in the nearby town of Karlshafen. Despite the strong circumstantial evidence that his machine was genuine, Bessler failed to secure a sale and after more than thirty years he died in poverty. His death came after he fell from a windmill he had been commissioned to build. The windmill was an interesting design using a vertical axle which allowed it to benefit from winds from any directions. 

He had asked for a huge sum of money for the secret of his perpetual motion machine, £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 viewing the internal workings. 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.


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 77). 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.

Not long after I was able to read the English translations of his books, I became convinced that Bessler had embedded a number of clues in his books. These took the form of hints in the text, but also in a number of drawings he published. Subsequently I found suggestions by the author that studying his books would reveal more information about his wheel.


For some ideas about Bessler’s code why not visit my web sites at http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/

Take a look at my work on his “Declaration of Faith” at http://www.orffyreus.net/

Also please view my video at https://youtu.be/5BWVKtpuzn0

It gives a brief account both the legend and some more detail about some of the codes.

The problem of obtaining a fair reward for all his hard work 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. He implied that he was prepared to die without selling the secret and that he believed that posthumous acknowledgement was preferable to being robbed of his secret while he yet lived.


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 his codes and I am confident that I have the complete 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. 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's three published books are entitled "Grundlicher Bericht", "Apologia Poetica" and "Das Triumphirende...". I have called Bessler's collection of 141 drawings “Maschinen Tractate”, but it was originally found in the form of a number of loosely collected 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 use them in his planned school for apprentices.

You can order copies of the books from my website at www.free-energy.co.uk

Or from the top of the right side panel under the heading ‘Bessler’s Books’.

There are also links lower down on the right side panel.

As I often say, the solution to this device is needed now. Anything that might help cleanse the planet of pollution and help to reduce green house gas emissions, by providing a clean cheap alternative energy source should encouraged in its discovery and development to counter global warming.

JC

Suppose You Succeed! What’s Next?

What will you do if you succeed in building a device which is based on the same concept as Bessler’s wheel, or appears to be similar?  I know that I have different thoughts about the best way forward, and I change my mind from time to time.

I guess it depends on what you hope to get out of it, or even if you don’t want anything material, you just want it out there.  Most of us, in my opinion, want security for the future for themselves and their families, which means some kind of financial reward.  Others would like recognition as the rescuer of the lost Bessler technology; some would like acknowledgement of their part in its resurrection without the attendant fame.

Those who did not want anything other than seeing the machine recognised as a unique source of free and clean energy, would willingly share it with one or more people as long as their anonymity was maintained.

I understand and sympathise with all of these scenarios, as I have considered each and every one of them at length over many years. But in the end I came to the conclusion that family gets to put their point of view above all the others and security for your loved ones whether, old, middle-aged, youthful, child or baby; or friends, neighbours or people you admire or want to help - they all have a stake in your decisions and will likely affect what course you take.

So financial reward looks the most likely deciding factor in my opinion -  you might disagree, probably will - so how would you deal with success?

Many of us have expressed the opinion that patenting is the right way to go.  I have always believed that it would be a mistake for reasons I have explained many times here and I don’t want to go into it in detail again.  Others think that licensing a patent is one way do it, but licensing a product without a patent can be done if you know how to do it correctly. One approach is to get a provisional patent, where you'll pay a specific fee and complete a form. When you show it to possible buyers, you'll put the words "patent pending" on the item. You won't have to go through a complicated process of getting a patent this way and are still able to protect the invention from potential competitors who might steal your idea.

Another way to sell a product without needing to get a patent is to work with an invention submission company. There are many companies out there that offer help to inventors for a fee. A variety of services are offered, and some help you just get a patent  while others will help you with possible sales. 

Courtesy of https://www.upcounsel.com/licensing-a-product-without-a-patent

There are so many other ways to earn yourself what ever financial reward you believe you deserve. Interviews for  books and magazines both digital and printed; TV, radio; forums, social media.  Of course there may be documentaries and films. The possibilities are endless.

I mentioned films and one popular discussion point  over the years has been the important but difficult decision as to who would be the best actor to play Bessler. I have my ideas but I’ll wait and see if there are any suggestions.  😁

JC

Johann Bessler’s Legacies.

Bessler’s wheel is one obvious legacy and although there are some who believe that it’s potential power output is too limited to be of practical use, I disagree.  You only have to look at the enormous windmills which are spreading like a rash across the green hills of this country to see that it’s a matter of scale. As Bessler suggested, you could have several wheels in series mounted on the same axle to multiply the output.  The other legacy is buried within Bessler’s publications.

I’ve always felt I was destined to find the solution to Bessler’s wheel. Ever since I read the story of  ‘The Wheel of Orffyreus’, as written by Rupert T. Gould, in his book, ‘Oddities’, I knew in my heart that here was a story I could tell and a mystery I could try to solve.  Although that was more than 50 years ago, and despite all the years during which I researched the life and times of Johann Bessler, I never doubted that I would discover the secret of Bessler’s Perpetual Motion machine.  But between knowing you have the answer and proving it lies a significant gap!

I’m sure that everyone else who is working in this field feels the same, but over the years gradually, bit by bit, I’ve discovered and understood many of Bessler’s clues, hints, inferences and apparently non-sensical text. There is one thing to take away from what I’ve learned about Johann Bessler - well actually several things - but in his publications there are no mistakes, everything in them is deliberate even if it looks wrong.  There are no errors and therefore anything that might seem crazy is actually a clue to be identified, interpreted and understood.  It is also true that many of these apparent mistakes or odd phrasings that are actually clues, also contain two or even three ways of getting the same answer. This is how he confirmed if you were on the right track.

Having said that, I’m still learning, discovering new nuances of each clue which can sometimes lead you on to a new discovery. In my opinion, once the solution is revealed and the amazing mind that found it originally, and then hid it in plain sight, with very few overt indications, all those who sneered and jeered and dismissed his claims as fanciful nonsense, will be astounded and amazed at the beauty, intricacy yet simplicity of his work.  His geometrical connections and inferences will become a subject of study in years to come as more and more clues and codes are identified and deciphered.

One other thing I’d like to comment on; the apparent paradox of being so extremely secretive about his machine and how it worked, that he dare not even utter a single word which might give away his secret - and yet placing literally hundreds of clues which if solved could reveal the secret of his perpetual motion machine. Why?  In my opinion, he was confident that no one would ever decipher his clues, so the point must have been either to have given public lectures demonstrating his clever use of the codes and the general obfuscation which hid the clues - or he hoped to sell a book detailing all his clues and how to understand them - or he intended to use the clues and codes in his apprentices school. Why else?

JC

Johann Bessler and His Wonderful Machine

Some people believe that Johann Bessler built a machine that could turn continuously enabled purely by the effect of gravity on several weights.  

These weights were configured in such a way that the wheel was permanently out of balance.  This feature of the wheel is supported by several witnesses at different times to the fact that the wheel had to be tied down, or locked, once it was brought to a stop. Once released it would immediately begin to turn again, quickly reaching its top speed when not under load, of around 50 rpm. Among numerous tests he also allowed one wheel to turn for 54 days.  I am one of those who believe Bessler’s, so-called Perpetual Motion machine, was genuine.

Of course I’m familiar with the immediate response of all those (everyone else!) who’ve been taught that such machines are impossible but there is so much more to this story than meets the eye.  Right from the beginning, aged about 15 years old, I was convinced that Bessler’s machine was genuine. But at such a young age it might be suspected that I was naive, ignorant or easily misled etc, but no, the facts documented in the legend are not open to dispute, and therefore they should be examined by teams of funded researchers. A quick and fair study of the facts will convince anyone of the truth.

Fortunately there is an amazing group of people from all around the world who share a common belief that Bessler’s claims were genuine and that the machine needs to reappear now, just at the time it is most needed - to provide clean, free energy. They (you) are striving to find the secret of Bessler’s wheel.

The vast number of people have no idea that Bessler’s wheel even existed, let alone that it worked.  The struggle to get official recognition that his machine was genuine is proving to be a momentous task, and it is widely acknowledged by his supporters that there is really only one way to get that recognition and that requires a working model to be revealed in all the media that abounds in our world.

When I first began to publish my books about and by Johann Bessler, I imagined the world would be fascinated by my work.  I was convinced that within a very short span of time Bessler wheels would have been invented; there’d be thousands of them in every country generating electricity; the combustion engine would rapidly becoming obsolete; windmills redundant; climate change halted; pollution reduced. I was wrong; I was too impatient, but we will get there……eventually.

JC

HAPPY NEW YEAR To All.

I hope everyone had a Merry Christmas, we certainly did, and the New Year 2022, looks like being the best ever, when the secret of Bessler’s wheel is revealed. 

It is easy to forget why we are all still believers in Bessler’s claim to have invented a perpetual motion machine.  Yes, we are all familiar with Bessler’s words and the witness statements, but what evidence is there against his perpetual motion machine?  One - they are said to be impossible, but that only applies to isolated systems with no external source of energy.  The second piece of evidence is that of Bessler’s maid.

 I have copied and pasted a paragraph from my book about Bessler, published in 1996!

‘In a document dated 28th November 1727, Orffyreus' maid makes the following statement, as recorded by Strieder:

"The posts had been hollowed out and contained a long thin piece of iron with a barb at the bottom which was attached to the shaft journal. Turning was carried out from Orffyreus' bedroom which was close to the machine, on a shelf behind the bed."

The first area of concern was the statement that the maid made concerning the secret mechanism. It was frankly, impossible. Whatever mechanism moved that wheel, there is absolutely no way that it could be driven by the means described. Twelve feet across or 3.6 metres - eighteen inches thick or 45.7 centimetres and weighing an estimated 700 lbs or 318 Kilograms, and the whole construction turned on a pair of bearings measuring just three-quarters of an inch! And what is more, accelerated from a very slow speed to one of between twenty-five and twenty-six revolutions per minute, in just three revolutions. The maid says that the posts were hollowed out and a barbed piece of iron inserted and connected to the shaft journal. Anyone giving reasonable consideration to this account of the maid's, will see that the power and strength required to keep a machine of this size turning, by applying its force through the bearings, would be enormous - and besides where would one find a metal of sufficient strength to withstand the tremendous load placed on it. Not only that - it had to be kept turning for almost eight weeks - and was expected do work; raise a box of bricks weighing seventy pounds and turn an Archimedean screw. Forget the problem of actually devising a mechanism which would operate inside a wooden post connected to a bearing at one end and a small wheel at the other!

Bessler’s wife had died in 1726 and only a few months later on the 28th November 1727,  the maid accused Bessler of fraud, this was shortly after Karl retired and although removing his patronage he gave Bessler the use of a house and garden in Karlshafen.  He also dismissed the maid’s accusations. He advanced Bessler five years salary to enable him to continue to develop and sell his wheel.  This marked the end of Karl’s protection against the slanderous publications of his enemies, Gärtner, Wagner and Borlach.  They grabbed the opportunity to lambast Bessler and his wheels with enthusiasm, driven by either jealousy or indignation.

The maid, Anne Rosine, from Mauersberg, a town less than 5 miles from Bessler’s father-in-law had been brought to Hesse Kassel, by Bessler and his new wife, as agreed between Bessler and his future father-in-law.  She had been a constant thorn in the side of the mayor and chief physician of Annaberg-Bucholz, Dr Christian Schumann. He had had her imprisoned twice for spreading malicious gossip about him and his family.

Christian Schumann agreed to the marriage as long as Bessler took the troublesome maid with him to Gera, some one hundred miles away in those days, plus of course a dowry.

The maid was often seen about the Landgrave’s court as witnessed by one of the female courtiers and it is possible that she met with Christian Wagner and/or Gärtner. Although Gärtner died in February of that same year 1727, he may have been the guiding force trying to out Bessler as a fraud.

As soon as he moved out of the castle and took up residence at Karlshafen, Bessler’s wife’s mother, now a widow with no money, suddenly arrived with her two other daughters and son-in-laws.  They joined forces with Bessler’s erstwhile maid and began to try to extort money and favours from him.  Suddenly out of Karl’s protection and being harassed by a small family of criminals, Bessler soon lost all of his money to their controlling and coercive behaviour.

So two pieces of evidence against Bessler and both deeply flawed.

JC

Bessler’s Wheel vs Von Helmholtz’s Axiom.

I have always believed that Bessler’s wheel was genuine and it was enabled to turn by the action of gravity upon the weights inside.  This is not a dramatic revelation nor something that is against what Bessler said about his machine. I think that Herman von Helmholtz was incorrect to say that because no perpetual motion machines had ever been invented it was safe to make it an axiom that they were impossible.  The definition of Perpetual Motion has changed somewhat since 1847 when he wrote his treatise on the conservation of energy, and more so since Bessler’s claims in 1712. But I believe Helmholtz was wrong to say such a machine had never been invented, he ignored Bessler’s, so his axiom was indisputably incorrect, which throws into doubt everything he deduced from the axiom

The difference is clear; Helmholtz was referring to an isolated machine with no external source of energy which might spin for short time if given a push but would stop once that initial energy was used up.  Bessler was referring to a machine which had a continuous external source of energy.  The energy came from the falling of certain weights which were moved by the force of gravity. These were two different machines even though we refer to both as PM machines.

Here we come up against the belief that this cannot be a perpetual motion machine because the weights have to be lifted once they have fallen and the energy available was used in the fall of each weight. Clearly Bessler found a way to lift each weight using certain attributes of his configuration of the internal mechanisms.  One clue lies in the witness statements which informed us that  the first wheels were self starters, beginning to rotate as soon the brake was released; they were in a permanent state of imbalance.

JC