Landgraf Karl von Hessen-Kassel

[ovaron]

Facts are:

In May 1718 Karl confirms that from 12th November 1717 onwards, the wheel had run for two months without clockwork or weights to be raised.

In the summer of 1721 the Austrian architect Joseph Emanuel Fischer von Erlach and the Dutch physicist Willem Jacob 's Gravesande examined commissioned and in the presence of the landgrave the machine. A little bit later Orffyreus himself destroyed the wheel.

In the same year in 1721 the Landgraf gave Fischer the order to place a newcomen steam engine to erect a fountain in front of the castle.


Make your own conclusions.

[MrVibrating]

I still feel as though Bessler's wheel was ahead of it's time in so far as optimum usage is concerned.Obviously it's value is great if it is providing electricity.However,it was shown to pump water and lift 70 lbs of bricks,something most folks can do on their own.A million bucks is a lot of money for something that does work that you can already do for free.

But to lift that 70 lbs a good ten meters or so, whilst maintaining the same constant speed regardless of whether the load is being raised, as it also ran unloaded... and furthermore, to immediately accelerate up to that speed within a few revolutions, despite being so heavy that it'd take "the devil himself" to move it between support posts with all its internal weights in place... it's the particular details of the wheel's performance characteristics, consistent between various witness reports and Bessler's own claims, which convince me that not only is the wheel over-unity, but that the degree of OU is dynamically responsive, ie. load-matching, just as Bessler claims when he says the mechanism gains yet further advantage from being attached to simple machines (ie. driving loads).


The evidence is overwhelming that the particular form of OU is an effective N3 violation. This is why his wheels were statorless, with nothing hung internally from the axis and everything "going around together" - a truly remarkable property in its own right, but also precisely because that's the defining hallmark of an N3 break - a closed system gaining momentum, in this case, angular momentum.

The asymmetry of CW-CCW torques is an asymmetry of internal mass accelerations.

Bessler was somehow using gravity to cause either an unbalanced or reationless acceleration / deceleration.

Faking these demonstrations with the resources of the day would be stretching credulity. But even then, if it could be done, why go to such lengths as emulating the characteristics of a particular form of thermodynamic asymmetry? The net effect was an OB 'gravity wheel' regardless, which was precisely what everyone thought they were looking at, and thus it wouldn't have made any difference if the wheel needed a stator or not. Yet not only were his wheels statorless... he insisted that this condition was an absolute prerequisite for OU, the "true perpetuum mobile".

So the veracity of Karl's endorsement is not a significant issue. If valid, it certainly adds credibility, but by far the strongest evidence is the multitude of independent reports from scientists and engineers of high esteem, all consistently corroborating the distinguishing characteristics of an effective N3 symmetry break, and none of whom had any clear concept of such a phenomenon at that time.

Arguably, Leibniz and Newton might individually have considered the implications of an N3 break, and the resulting divergent (accelerating) reference frame, and certainly would've if given enough time to bang their heads together. But of those who witnessed Bessler's demonstrations, they were just beginning to grasp how the world actually worked, rather than alternative ways it could, if tweaked, as is our particular fascination here today.

They would of course been prompted to such thoughts, in trying to work out how what they were witnessing was possible. But none of them came to the party with well-studied lists of various types of hypothetical asymmetric interactions and their respective properties. They were practical scholars and craftsmen, not OU researchers. And so none of them ever got it, despite all confirming the same details.

The most compelling footnote on this perspective is the later testimony of Andreas Weiss, who, struggling to rationalise what he'd seen, could only conclude that energy must've been flowing into the machine from the environment, somehow imperceptibly... to all intents and purposes, an accurate description of OU, and what happens in an effective asymmetric interaction - the energy source or sink is, by definition, the + vs - force / time delta (the respective force field, whatever its provenance, is thus an energy source).

In summary, multiple independent witnesses of high regard give accounts of details too particular to an effective N3 break to be either coincidental or "pro forma" - ie. bluff. None of them had any familiarity with the hypothetical implications of an N3 symmetry break, yet all described the same thing. Yet if it was merely a gravity wheel hoax, these very particular design constraints and performance characteristics would be unnecessarily complicating - for instance if the hoax employed a large store of PE in a hefty spring, then having a stator to apply torque against would actually help improve the mechanism, and furthermore, an infinite range of fake PMM's become possible... So why stick to vertical statorless wheels? It's not a necessary condition for a hoax, but it absolutely is for an inertial torque asymmetry, even if it looks ostensibly like an OB gravity wheel.

If, on the other hand, it had been a gravity wheel - if, say, Bessler had made consistent allusions that the trick was essentially some kind of leverage principle, and the witness testimonies were also consistent with this claim, such that the machine slowed under positive load and accelerated under negative load, then i would interpret this as far more damning evidence of fraud than, say, the absence of evidence of Karl's reputed corroboration, since a gravitational asymmetry simply has no prospect of underlying logic, let alone plausibility. But an inertial torque asymmetry ticks all boxes, providing both excess energy and momentum, load-matching / reactive CoP, statorless dependency, as well as remaining consistent with all of Bessler's own written clues (ie. masses alternating inner / outer positions), and independently-verified witnesses of the wheels' performance (ie. Leibniz's & Wolfe's handwritten letters etc.).

Faking a gravity wheel would be one thing, but doing so in a way that meticulously emulates the defining features of an N3 break - some other type of asymmetric mechanical interaction that nobody's ever really previously considered at that time, let alone today... that is what makes this case so compelling, and tantalising in its reductive consistency and simplicity. Everyone thinks they're looking at an asymmetric gravitational interaction - drop a weight when it's heavy, lift it when it's light. But it's actually, as Jim calls it, "motion from motion"; An asymmetric distribution of momentum from an otherwise fully elastic interaction (ie. disregarding dissipative losses).

Clearly, the reference frame of the wheel body itself - specifically its angular inertia, including that of all its co-rotating parts - is one of the two or more bodies involved in the asymmetric torque distribution. The other/s must therefore be parts that must at some point accelerate and decelerate relative to the rest of the wheel. That is, parts that are "going around together" momentarily accelerate and brake against the rest of the wheel, inducing unequal counter-torques, before returning to relative stasis and in turn being accelerated along with the rest of the wheel by the next such asymmetric torque exchange.

However this is achieved, gravity plays an essential role, and it just so happens that the result looks for all the world like an always-OB gravity mill. Yet gravity and mass are constant, so no amount of authority, no personal seal of approval, could validate the logically absurd.




As to why Karl wasn't so enthused as to buy it outright, by definition, he failed to see the value in it.

Which is a little ironic - whereas Besler's detractors certainly saw the potential meaning and value, they just couldn't believe it... Others, such as Karl, evidently saw things the other way around.

It seems Karl's foremost concern in the matter was the issue of the integrity of the claim, as a scientific curiosity. Authorities had previously tried to tax Bessler on earnings from and operation of his wheels, whereas Karl was a sponsor and benefactor of scientific research, for whom such patronage was dutiful as well as personal. He was clearly a ruler who capitalised on people - a strong army, agriculture, arts and science.

I assume he gauged the value of the machine purely in practical terms of its power to weight ratio, portability, cost of materials and construction, distribution etc.. concluding that the greatest potential value was to the rights holder, for distribution of those rights by whatever legal agreements. As a man of integrity he couldn't simply steal the IP, and sell it on himself.. and Bessler wouldn't agree to let anyone start independent R&D on the tech before he'd struck his deal, much less install working prototypes that anyone would be able to inspect (water fountain or mine pumps etc.)

So my guess is that Karl didn't buy the rights as he wasn't in the business of selling them, and also knew he'd be able to purchase and benefit from them along with everyone else once the IP was sold. In the meantime, as JC notes, steam engines were beginning to reach far superior power / weight ranges, requiring only such familiar things as fire and water. Plus there was a whole world of interesting science that steam engines made accessible - coefficients of expansion, as a function of pressure and temperature, adiabatic vs isothermal interactions and thus heat pumps, tangible thermodynamic principles, exciting, progressive stuff. Power / weight ratios Bessler's principle couldn't ever seem to contend with.

Karl, if he ever did see the internal workings, never saw the wood beyond the trees, unlike Weiss, who only ever saw the trees but in trying to discern the wind ultimately gave us the earliest first-hand account of what we now call vacuum energy, three centuries before its official discovery..

Karl saw a free-energy but weight-challenged emerging technology, with poor power-to-weight compared to other techs, and of commercial value only in any possible rights holdings, or else massive investment in monopolising its potential, building and selling it en masse, in a world with little to no international IP protection.

If he'd simply bought the exclusive rights anyway, he wouldn't be in much better position to sell them on than Bessler himself - no one's gonna buy a PMM they haven't verified as real, which means divulging the secret before closing a deal.

But what Karl didn't see was a directional vacuum energy coupler. He failed to see the cosmological and quantum implications of a divergent momentum. He wasn't particularly bothered about the energy flowing imperceptibly into the machine from the environment, about where that energy came from or whether it was just simply created, ex nihilo. It was a remarkable curio, with doubtless scientific and practical value, home-grown and nurtured by his responsible governance. It was not the stupefying sacrilegious profanity upon all nature that it appeared to Gartner and Wagner et al, with the kinds of heady cosmogonic implications we now derive from strict assumptions of CoE and CoM at all scales. It was just a spinny thing - speed-limited, bloody heavy for its power, murder to mass produce and distribute, and worse trying to protect the IP long enough to guarantee worthwhile investment.

[John Collins]

Karl had spent years sponsoring Papin's steam experiments. Then he learned of Newcomen's steam engine. Fischer von Erlach spent several months in London working on Captain Savery's steam engine, which was ackowledged to be far less powerful than Newcomen's. Fisher von Erlach and Professor Willem Jacob 'sGravesande each had considerable input into both steam engines and were therefore in an excellent position to advise Karl on the best way to pump water to the top of his mighty cascade, 179 meters.

Obviously there wasn't a pump in existence which could pump water that high but that was what Karl wanted. The two men must have advised Karl that Bessler's machine would be incapable of doing it

Even Newcomen's steam engine would require several of them, to push the water to the top.

SDo that is why Karl did not buy Bessler's wheel, it was no use to him, but an interesting intellectual curiosity.

JC

[daxwc]

In my opinion John you have it correct. Karl wanted an energy source and application to pump for his cascade, but also on a broader basis to pump out mines which were constantly being flooded. It was looked upon as a huge money maker and problem of the era. I don’t believe Karl was looking at leaving a legacy as much as he was looking at making a profit.

[ovaron]

Bessler destroyed his wheel when s'Gravesande tried to examine the axis more precisely. Wolff describes the axis as hollow in the expert opinion for the Zar. Is the mystery hidden in the axis, which Karl may not have observed at all? A fake I think is extremely unlikely, but not impossible. Also I don't think, that the design was so simple as many think. The description in Apologia describes many things, not only levers and weights. At least he describes also ropes and sliders.

[ovaron]

@MrVibrating
Very good comment. Thanks

[ovyyus]

...the degree of OU is dynamically responsive, ie. load-matching, just as Bessler claims when he says the mechanism gains yet further advantage from being attached to simple machines (ie. driving loads).

Bessler's wheel was not 'load-matching'. His largest and most powerful Kassel wheel turned 26 RPM unloaded and 20 RPM loaded.

Also, Bessler's claim that his wheel could drive various attached loads was a simple statement of fact.

[Fletcher]

@Fletcher

I found this comment from Oystein on John Collins blog.

Øystein20 May 2017 at 19:29
Hello again John. I'm now back from Germany after many family visits and some more own research. I was in the area around Nurnberg. At this time I'm researching just as much general practice of the 15-16-1700s, like font types, the use of Chronograms and especially Albrech Durer. As I have mentioned elsewhere, Bessler reveals and uses Albrecht Durers (Nurnberg) code, and reveals the secret Rosicrucian tradition (one and the same). The reason I think this is so important is Firstly that Albrecht Durers and later the Rosicrucians code is extremely exciting and important for our understanding of our intelectual and unwritten history (mostly math/science/art geniuses versus religion and the catholic church). Secondly and simply because it will make us able to separate what code was secret intellectual (masonic-like) tradition and what was spesific for Bessler and thus likely his machine. At the moment I am investing and saving money for future public approach. I hope to spend most of my later life doing this full time and also get to the bottom of Besslers machine-challenge. Please feel free to contact me for a chat. (e-mail etc.) I would also consider a friendly visit some day if you like. Best OR.

Thank you zoelra. I hadn't come across that update from Oystein. It reads to me as though he is less enthusiastic about his previous 'findings' where he had a high level of certainty previously from Dec 2012 thru Sep 2015. I guess that his prototype mechs and machine he was building didn't produce consistent asymmetric torque OB when all put together, else he would not need to 'get to the bottom of Bessler' machine-challenge" in his later life.

On a brighter note I hope he at least publishes his books on the various codes he found etc and gets some monetary payback and intellectual recognition for his herculean efforts thus far. It only seems fitting IMO.

[Fletcher]

Bessler destroyed his wheel when s'Gravesande tried to examine the axis more precisely.

Wolff describes the axis as hollow in the expert opinion for the Zar. Is the mystery hidden in the axis, which Karl may not have observed at all?

A fake I think is extremely unlikely, but not impossible. Also I don't think, that the design was so simple as many think. The description in Apologia describes many things, not only levers and weights. At least he describes also ropes and sliders.

Hi overon .. its been many years since I last read up on Bessler destroying his wheel after a s'Gravesande inspection, and I have forgotten what s'Gravesande found or speculated on. Obviously Bessler had a fit of pique about something, either something s"Gravesande did without authority or perhaps found ?

And I don't remember Wolff describing the axis as hollow, to the zar ?

Do you mind posting up your references relating to your comments above without me having to search for it all again. They give context and would be helpful if only to set my memory straight again.

[Fletcher]

... The evidence is overwhelming that the particular form of OU is an effective N3 violation. This is why his wheels were statorless, with nothing hung internally from the axis and everything "going around together" - a truly remarkable property in its own right, but also precisely because that's the defining hallmark of an N3 break - a closed system gaining momentum, in this case, angular momentum.

(snip)

Faking a gravity wheel would be one thing, but doing so in a way that meticulously emulates the defining features of an N3 break - some other type of asymmetric mechanical interaction that nobody's ever really previously considered at that time, let alone today... that is what makes this case so compelling, and tantalising in its reductive consistency and simplicity. Everyone thinks they're looking at an asymmetric gravitational interaction - drop a weight when it's heavy, lift it when it's light. But it's actually, as Jim calls it, "motion from motion"; An asymmetric distribution of momentum from an otherwise fully elastic interaction (ie. disregarding dissipative losses).

Hi Mr V .. to play devils advocate somewhat. Bessler was intrigued with finding the solution for the gravity mill, the classic OOB wheel. MT chronicles his thoughts and attempts, especially the first part with gravity only.

In the first 54 he adds commentaries to his wheels. Some with apparent steers such as MT15 with an obvious and chronic imbalance but no clue to how the weights are lifted high (the Prime Mover). And high they are lifted, higher than gravity alone can get them. There are a few others like that where something mechanical is missing.

We all know from our own attempts that it is not leverage that counts, but the loss of GPE in the Driver and the gain in GPE of the Load that dictates whether things will move internally in the first instance. IOW's a GPE profile must initially show a greater initial loss of GPE of the Driver than the GPE gain of the Load else nothing will move. Then they both can have KE if simultaneously moving. Then the profile is reversed and the KE's eaten up but at no time does the sum of the KE's and GPE's add more height to the Load (OU). That's the restriction of current physics understanding re CoE and Momentums etc.

So we are left pondering your scenario's of motion from motion and N3 breaks as a technical way forward (that I don't know how to achieve), or the exact same physical result can be achieved by simply raising the Load or 'target weight' higher than the GPE trade-off would normally allow (not counting frictional losses etc). I think they would look exactly the same to the observer IINM ?

And Bessler in MT wasn't adverse to the possibilities of lifting weights higher. From MT55 onwards there are multitudes of attempts to lift weights higher than norm using pneumatics, hydraulics, and buoyancy etc.

So he, at least at an earlier time, thought that any 'natural substance or ambient force' that aided the hoisting of weights into favourable positions for asymmetric torque was on the table and counted as 'true PM' to him. Of course that means an additional source of force and energy to enter the apparent closed system.

For all intents and purposes the observable result would be indistinguishable from a rarefied N3 violation, and to some a much more palatable solution, even if that is not also obvious to me.

So IMO the evidence is overwhelming for either and N3 break, or, substance assisted sustained rotation and external work capability. And if the latter then the power outputs become indicative of what that additional power source might be, hence Bill's wick and fuel Stirling attempts, perhaps with alcohol ?

[eccentrically1]

There is the possibility, and a very likely one, that Karl was led to believe he had seen the complete inner workings of the wheel, but not the prime mover. It could have been concealed or removed if necessary beforehand, and he only saw weights and levers and springs.

[Fletcher]

That's why the context is important. Did he see a rotating wheel which was then stopped and he shown inside. Or a stationary wheel opened for inspection but not run again after ?

One of the reasons I consider Bill's approach seriously is much more esoteric. It is the theory of synchronicity.

That is in relation to science, where two or more researchers (whether they be mechanics, tinkerers, experimental physicists, mathematicians, or academics) often have the same invention within days of each other, although they are unknown to each other or only have a casual knowledge of each other.

I saw a program months back where PHD's had analysed the occurrence of synchronicity in history and came up with it happening on at least 148 occasions. Much more than coincidence should account for.

Where is Bessler's synchronistic partner in gravity only power ?

But Savery and Newcomem were well at steam power at the same time as Bessler, presumably based in part on Hero's engine from the first century. There's that word 'hero' again (coincidence ?)

What if Bessler was using one of the five elements of spirit, earth, wind, water and fire to make an engine (he tried many of the other elements in MT), but using fire in a different way before the piston operated steam engine had been fully developed or the internal combustion engine ?

I'm just plagiarizing Bill here to a degree. Bill's heat engine solution for a Bessler type wheel is not a genuine piston type but possibly a close forerunner to it.

And what was that one word that could give it all away ? One word that would reveal his secret ! Makes you wonder.

[MrTim]

For all these reasons and more I take great stock in the ones prepared to tease out the codes etc in Bessler's writings and MT. That includes John and Oystein in particular and there are others.

There is definitely an 'X' code (it's basically teasing, and, giving the finger to Wagner), but he's hidden the secret at a deeper level (I have ideas, but have to reorganize before tackling it. I recently saved about 70 3.5" disks of obsolete material to a CD (about 33MB) just to keep it from getting mixed up with the new stuff. I had disks all over the place... ;-)
It's there, though it's going to take more time...

[daxwc]

Mr Tim:

It's there, though it's going to take more time...

I hope you are right and it will not be more taunting. I have my doubts the mechanical secret lies in the books; the timeline and motive is suspect for me. I also don’t believe he has hidden the main secret with Rosicrucian/Masonic codes although he was most likely a society member. My best bet would be a code system variation that he learnt but was then isolated from considering how paranoid he was. Some knowledge he thought very few people would know because he was no longer in contact with it.

[ovaron]

@fletcher
I'm not at home this week. But the comment about the hollow axle look at John Collins private forum. A year ago I Askese about it. It 's all in Johns book.