A theory about why the number five is so prominent in Johann Bessler's works.

[John Collins]

Most people are aware of the ubiquity of the number 5 encoded in all of Bessler's publications and many don't see any significance other than perhaps a nod to some kind of mystery school teaching designed to hint at the inventor's knowledge of ancient wisdom. I don't believe that theory, I'm convinced that Bessler was passing on information.

I have always thought that there were two hard facts established about the internal workings of Bessler's wheel and one of them was that there were five mechanisms. The other was that the weights worked in pairs. All else is open to conjecture. But one certainty is that Bessler thought that this piece of information was extremely important and even encoded it in his name right from the moment he adopted the pseudonym, Orffyreus.

I believe that five mechanisms were required because for me there is no other sensible interpretation to be taken from the clues - the number five is indicated by both the numeral five in text and code and by the presence of the pentagram in the drawings. I cannot think of any other reason for its presence so here I try to understand why it's a necessity to a working wheel.

Five mechanisms would need the wheel to be divided into five equal parts of 72 degrees each. Although I understand the argument that even one or maybe two mechanisms should be enough to demonstrate the principle, I think more will be required to achieve a useful rate of rotation. Let's suppose that each mechanism only produces a mechanical advantage (or overbalance) once in each rotation; then each one must be able to produce it sufficiently to turn the wheel at least 72 degrees, but less than, say 90, otherwise four mechanisms might suffice. Maybe it can just about reach 90 degrees but perhaps that isn't enough to maintain rotation? There would have to be an overlap of mechanical advantage (or overbalance) for each mechanism in order to maintain rotation and
the greater the overlap the faster the acceleration.


Bessler wrote that "one cross bar makes the machine revolve slowly, just as if it can hardly turn at all. But on the contrary when I arrange to have many crossbars, pulleys and weights, the machine revolves much faster". (from Apologia Poetica - published by John Collins). If the mechanical advantage (or overbalancing effect) only amounted to a little over 72 degrees, and this happened only once in a single rotation, and there was only one such mechanism on the wheel, then the rest of the turn would have to take place with the wheel in a condition of balance. One can see how such an arrangement would produce a wheel which could hardly turn. Two, three, or four mechanisms would have little different effect if the overbalance only amounted to just over 72 degrees as there would be no continuity between each mechanism's action. An overlap of overbalancing would be required and if the mechanisms can only achieve an overbalance for, say 80 degrees of any single rotation, then anything less than five mechanisms will result as Bessler has described.

But if five mechanisms were introduced, then with more than a 72 degree portion of the full rotation for each mechanism, you would get the required overlap and an accelerating and continuous rotation.

This argument presupposes that the reader accepts the possibility of a gravity driven wheel - as I do! ;-)

JC

[jim_mich]

A balanced wheel will coast and only slow down relative to any friction.

[A] If a CW rotating wheel becomes unbalanced for, say 5 degrees at 3 o'clock during each rotation, then the wheel will ever so slowly speed up, coasting between each acceleration.

If the same wheel as [A] were to become unbalanced for, say 10 degrees at 3 o'clock during each rotation, then it would speed up about twice as fast.

[C] If the same wheel as [A] were to become unbalanced five different times during each rotation, each for a duration of only 1 degree, then it accelerates more evenly, but would still speed up just as fast as wheel [A], no more and no less.

Note: This assumes a perfect world where the weight becomes instantly outward then instantly back inward.

My point being that an unbalanced weight for any portion of rotation would be sufficient to produce rotation if we assume the wheel is balanced during the rest of the time. Such a wheel would coast in between being driven.

Looking at this slightly different...
Take a balanced wheel. Give it a small tap once each rotation. If the tap if more than the friction then the wheel will keep speeding up with each tap, until a speed is reached where air and other friction matches the tapping force.

To say that the wheel needs to be unbalanced for some minimum portion of the cycle (such as 72 degrees) is just not logical. Being unbalanced for only 1 degree would turn the wheel if it were balanced for the other 359 degrees, if we assume little or no friction.

One could make a balanced wheel with a solenoid rod that moves outward when energized with a spring return, and then position photo sensors on the rotating wheel to energize and de-energize the solenoid for any duration desired. If the solenoid received but a single pulse type movement at 3 o'clock then it would be enough to rotate a well balanced wheel that has very good bearings.

[ovyyus]

To say that the wheel needs to be unbalanced for some minimum portion of the cycle (such as 72 degrees) is just not logical...

Jim, such reasoning can't logically apply to Bessler's first two wheels which were described as unbalanced in all positions (including when held stationary). The Gera and Draschwitz wheels both acted as though they were wound up with a hidden spring, ie they exhibited constant torque. This attribute gave rise to accusations of a hidden wind-up fraud and Wagner's (misguided) attempt at a wind-up replication.

This argument presupposes that the reader accepts the possibility of a gravity driven wheel - as I do! ;-)

John, I have no problem accepting that Bessler's wheel was driven by gravity. But it was not powered by gravity :)

Sorry, I have no useful thoughts about a possible prominence of any number in Bessler's documents.

[justsomeone]

quote from John:

I have always thought that there were two hard facts established about the internal workings of Bessler's wheel and one of them was that there were five mechanisms.


How can you possibly say five mechanisms is a hard fact? More of a fact would be: " I assure you there is something special about scissors jacks "

I respect your opinion John but unless you can show me where Bessler says he used 5 mechanisms, you can not say it as a hard fact.

[John Collins]

Yes I did say "I have always thought that there were two hard facts established about the internal workings of Bessler's wheel and one of them was that there were five mechanisms".

I meant that I considered it a hard fact because, as I went on to say, "because for me there is no other sensible interpretation to be taken from the clues - the number five is indicated by both the numeral five in text and code and by the presence of the pentagram in the drawings. I cannot think of any other reason for its presence so here I try to understand why it's a necessity to a working wheel."

So it was my personal conviction that that was the only explanation for the frequent occurence of the number 5, and I therefore consider a 'hard fact'.

Given that consideration, the purpose of the post was to offer a theory as to why it might require five mechanisms when apparently fewer would do the job.

So it's not a hard fact for you, jso, but it is for me in this context.

JC

[John Collins]

Jim, I suggested that the wheel had to return to a balanced condition in the case of a single mechanism when that was not applying overbalance, because without that the wheel would not achieve even a single rotation. This is, of course, because the mechanism would have to reset itself at some point in the rotation and I think it would have to occur within half a rotation, when the wheel had reversed its orientation relative to its orientation when the overbalance was applied.

We cannot know where exactly in rotation the reset would take place and the secondary position of the mechanism might be counteracting the positive initial effect achieved, so a reset would be required - and it would need to be in a position from which it could start its action again in the next rotation. If reset happened before the orientation of the wheel had been reversed then a negative imbalance might still be present and therefore a balance, set for when the mechanism was in its secondary position would be desirable - but difficult to achieve.

If the reset did take place in less than half a rotation it seems to me to indicate that an odd number of mechanisms will be required. Taking in to account the possible limit of just over 72 degrees for the complete range of movement achievable with the mechanism as designed by Bessler, that leaves us with five mechanisms.

Point taken Bill.

JC

[path_finder]

if the motion is a succession of balanced/unbalanced periods, and whatever the ratio and the number, the most important aspect is: the flywheel must supply the loss of kinetic energy (friction and rotational inertia) and the centrifugal force must restore (at least overpass) the loss of the flywheel's kinetic energy. Depending of the number of mechanisms this process will be aliased, reducing the variations of rotational speed.

[Michael]

John can you provide me with some information on what some people have been saying regarding their thoughts that Bessler was relaying ancient wisdom? I've studied these ancient mystery schools so it's of interest to me. Thanks.

[John Collins]

On reflection, Michael, I probably shouldn't have used the phrase 'mystery schools'. What I meant was that some people have suggested Bessler had links to the Freemasons, because of the association of Kassel with them later. They have drawn attention to Desaguliers' strong involvement with them.

This plus his (and mine) obsession with the number 5 and the pentagram and the five elements; the references to 'language of nature'; the 'writings of Angels'; and those of Nicodemus, and of course his stay in Prague, the Alchemical centre at the time, have led to the assumption of some knowledge of the ancient mystery schools. The references I have briefly suggested are not really connected with mystery schools so I apologise if the phrase was misleading for you, Michael.

I am not aware of any direct reference to 'mystery schools' by Bessler, although that does not mean they were not a subject of study by him.

JC

[daxwc]

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/code-mysteriou ... 11926.html

http://www.livescience.com/16731-secret ... acked.html

[john]

Most people are aware of the ubiquity of the number 5 encoded in all of Bessler's publications and many don't see any significance other than perhaps a nod to some kind of mystery school teaching designed to hint at the inventor's knowledge of ancient wisdom. JC

John,
I did a quick check and found that the pentagram was used by some to represent the 5 wounds of Jesus. With Bessler having used the Freemasonry symbol, it might be possible.
With his statement of one cross bar barely rotating the wheel, it could have been an early attempt in demonstrating a principle he had realized.
In believing the wheel was able to sustain continuous rotation is inferred by the reader as Bessler did say he added more cross bars and pulley's. This seems to me that the wheel required more work to have sufficient mechanics to sustain it's motion.

John

edited to add; searched freemason and pentagram and found this;
"Central on our Rosicrucian Altars in the S.R.I.C.F. is the figure of the pentagram.
I searched S.R.I.C.F. and found this;
SRICF - www.yorkrite.cpm
US national headquarters of The Masonic Rosicrucian Society in the United States of America. Often abbreviated as "MSRICF".
Didn't Bessler use the Masonic symbol in some of his drawings ?

One example of cross bars.
http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index. ... Mt_040.gif

[justalabrat]

A balanced wheel will coast and only slow down relative to any friction.

One could make a balanced wheel with a solenoid rod that moves outward when energized with a spring return, and then position photo sensors on the rotating wheel to energize and de-energize the solenoid for any duration desired. If the solenoid received but a single pulse type movement at 3 o'clock then it would be enough to rotate a well balanced wheel that has very good bearings.

I have been thinking of a wheel like this. The trick would be to replace the solenoid and battery with some kind of mechanical linkage and Voilà! working wheel!

[Michael]

John I know you like the idea of five mechanisms. Bessler made mention that he was an astronomer and had been doing so since he was a child. Have you tried considering that the pentagram was an indication towards the planet Venus?

[nicbordeaux]

There is abslutely no proof or supporting evidence for Bill to make the statement he did, eg "I have no problem accepting that Bessler's wheel was driven by gravity. But it was not powered by gravity :) "

Lack of evidence is not evidence. And a statement such as "it was not driven by gravity" requires serious proof. Notably a "PM" wheel device which is powered by something other than gravity ?

[John Collins]

Michael wrote

John I know you like the idea of five mechanisms. Bessler made mention that he was an astronomer and had been doing so since he was a child. Have you tried considering that the pentagram was an indication towards the planet Venus?

Curiously Michael, I have.

May I point to you to the bottom of the following page in my web site at www.theorffyreuscode.com.

http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/html/2nd_portrait.html

In it you will find a connection to the planet Venus, although possibly not the one you were expecting?

JC