How Many People Saw The Inside Of Bessler's Wheel?

[rocky]

I have been on this site for years and understood that only one person saw the inside of Bessler's machine: Count Karl.

But a Donald Simanek at:

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/people/people.htm

says:

"Only a few persons had the privilege of seeing what was inside the wheel and they were sworn to secrecy. These few who saw the inside of the wheel after removing the front panel said that it had many compartments around the perimeter of the wheel, each with a shifting weight inside. It is not at all clear whether they saw all compartments open at the same time. These people were not permitted to look at what might be hidden behind these obvious mechanical details, in the back panel of the wheel itself."

In all these years this is new information to me.

I have never seen a reference to compartments around the rim of the wheel before. Bessler said:

“Ask any of those who have groped inside my Wheel and grasped its axle – and you will be assured that my axle is not like that. Rather it <the axle> has many compartments and is pierced all over with various holes.� AP 326
(these compartments are at the axle)

Does anyone know who these other persons were and the source of the quote?

[John Collins]

News to me too, Rocky. Simanek does quote from various sources but uses his own words so he may have been careless in his account, combining what Frank Edwards said with other comments. As far as I'm aware only Karl saw the interior. I don't think even Bessler's brother saw inside, the maid didn't. I have not seen any documentation that suggests anyone else saw it and the circumstantial evidence supports this. Bessler was still paranoid about revealing the secret up to his dying day.

JC

[Oystein]

John, I wonder. If Besslers brother Gotfried(?) when Bessler was injured, was showing off the wheel during private examinations, as Bessler wrote. Why do you assume that he did not have a single peek inside, before/after those demonstrations? Are there any documentation confirming your view? I am very curious.

Logic would tell that Gotfried knew the inside. Words written on paper could tell another story? Did Bessler write that Gotfried didn`t know the inside?

[rocky]

In 1959, American writer Frank Edwards book “Stranger Than Science� had a chapter called “Bessler’s Wonderful Wheel�. Edwards wrote:

“When the oiled cloth was stripped away, said Count Karl, he found himself gazing upon a very simple arrangement of weights and levers. Orffyreus explained that he had conceived a system whereby the weights on one side of the wheel were farther from the axle than the weights on the other side of the wheel, creating an imbalance which caused the wheel to move. The secret, if there was a secret, lay in the ingenious manner in which the weights on the ascending side of the wheel were prevented from following their normal path next to the rim. Count Karl said that these weights were blocked by small pegs which swung back out of the way as the weight passed the zenith. The Count prudently hastened back to his quarters and wrote an account of what he had seen.�

Edwards died in 1967 and because no source is quoted from Edwards, we view this as an unsubstantiated clue.

However American physics professor Donald E. Simanek is still alive and can be reached by email at:

https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/vitadon.htm

He is professor of physics at The Pennsylvania State University.

I just emailed him and asked for the source of his quote ...

“It had many compartments around the perimeter of the wheel, each with a shifting weight inside.�

... and does he have the names of all the people who looked inside the wheel.

[AB Hammer]

Interesting Rocky

I remember where the axle of Bessler's wheel had many compartments. Also noting that the ends were of 1inch pens. This IMHO leaves many possibles of use with that axle design. It either directs thought to the axle or it could of been part of redirection of thought for those who witnessed. The other compartments as in the article would leave other thoughts for misdirection.


Thank you for posting what you found.

[rocky]

Professor Donald Simanek was quick to reply to my email.
He believes Bessler was a fraud:

Robert,

Thanks for pointing this out. Since I can't document the language of this passage which I wrote many years ago, and have no motivation to dig it out of my files, I should rework that passage on my web page to something like this. After all, it doesn't matter whether only one or just a few saw the innards of the wheel, except that we apparently have no independent accounts to compare.

Various sources say that Count Karl is the only person privileged to have a look inside the wheel, and he judged what he saw to be simple enough that anyone could make it. But what exactly was he allowed to see? Was it the entire inner workings, or only part of them? Supposedly he saw that it had many compartments around the perimeter of the wheel, each with a shifting weight inside. That was a common perpetual motion idea of the time. Were these weights the real secret of the wheel, or merely clever distractors? It is not at all clear whether he saw all compartments open at the same time. Was Count Karl permitted to look at what might be hidden behind these obvious mechanical details, in the back panel of the wheel itself? We don't know."

After all, it doesn't matter wether only one or just a few persons saw the innards of the wheel, except that we apparently have no independent accounts to compare. Frankly, I think "various sources" is probably implying too much, for all I've seen derive from one source. I've long ago lost interest in this "cold case", but I may find a bit of time to clarify some references. Has there been anything really new on this during the last 20 years that I should know about? As I recall, there's an abundance of armchair speculation and very few hard facts about the things we'd really like to know about how Bessler pulled this scam. I think the most interesting thing about Bessler is his collection "Machinen Tractate" (excuse if my memory is faulty) in which he catalogues perpetual motion ideas from the earliest history of the subject, some well known from other sources, some perhaps his own variations. You'd be surprised how many of these turn up in my email from inventors claiming the idea as their own, and apparently totally unaware that Bessler was there first.

The trick of letting people see a fake mechanism inside a box was already established in Bessler's time by various charlatans. The automated chess player is a fine example. The fake mechanism could distract from and hide the real secret of the deception. My point is that whether one or even more saw something inside the wheel does not in any way help us to discern the real secret. I'm continually amazed that so many people still believe that Bessler had devised a mechanical over-unity machine.

-- Donald

[John Collins]

Simanek is right when he suggests that we do not know what Karl saw, but by the same token we also don't know what he saw because he never described anything that he saw, other than to say it was very simple.

The professor says 'Supposedly he saw that it had many compartments around the perimeter of the wheel, each with a shifting weight inside' But that is from Edward's book and bears no relation to documentary evidence. Karl adhered to his oath to the end of his life and never revealed anything other than the quoted statements about its simplicity.

He suggests that it would have been easy to fool people, which is the whole reason for Bessler's many test as suggested to him By Gottfried Leibniz.

The precise tests were suggested as a means of proving as well as possible that there were no tricks involved and therefore no scam. What else could he have done to prove it was genuine? Other than reveal the workings and then he would lose any chance of a reward.

JC

[rocky]

This was my replied to Professor Simanek:

Dear Professor Simanek,

Thank you for the quick reply. I see that you believe that Bessler was a Fraud. I do not.

It is interesting to me that you are a Professor of Physics. I am a retired Electronics Engineer. I had a year of physics in high school and another year of physics in college.

Could I pay you for your time to go through your old notes to find the source of your quotes?

Like John Collins of England who research Bessler, so did I. I have been to the library in Kassel Germany and looked at the original documents of Bessler and Count Karl. I even had a portable UV Black Light source that I checked documents for hidden ink drawings or messages since Karl was a mason and they used hidden messages.

Karl interests me greatly since he supplied his German mercenary army to England to fight us in the American Revolution. He was known to be very honest and had an interest in engineering. He had the first steam engine on the continent to pump water in his castle garden.

Royalty did not take kindly to frauduent people. They were put to death.

It seems to be your opinion that Bessler did show Karl the interior of the machine but somehow fooled him. I don’t believe this. Karl had a good knowledge of mechanics and would have seen the fraud.

Here are more reasons why I think Bessler was not a fraud:

1. “Another point in Bessler’s favour concerned his patron Karl, the Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel. He took the inventor under his wing and allowed him to construct a new machine and live as a guest at his castle. This man insisted that before he accept Bessler and his machine, he must be allowed to ascertain for himself whether the machine was genuine. Bessler allowed him access to the machine and he satisfied himself as to the validity of the inventor’s claims. He is quoted several times as saying that the machine was so simple that he was surprised that no one had ever discovered the secret before. Now there are only three possibilities to consider in Karl’s case:

1) He was party to a criminal deception, in which case we might as well accept that Bessler was a fake.
2) He was taken in by a plausible rogue, and the same applies.
3) The machine was genuine.

I have studied the history of the man, Karl, and the evidence is presented in the book, and it quickly became clear that the Landgrave of Hesse-Cassel, was most warmly regarded by all the top scientists of the day, men such as Gottfried Leibniz and Christian Wolff chose to acknowledge his merit in numerous letters. Karl was a sponsor of Denis Papin prior to Bessler’s arrival, and it was only the former’s decision to move to England to be close to the Royal Society that ended their partnership in some of the most epoch-making steam experiments ever undertaken. France which was Papin’s country of origin still claim that he invented the steam engine. The Landgrave was also famous for his collection of the latest scientific instruments with all of which he was thoroughly familiar.

But Karl was also well-regarded by all the leading powers in Northern Europe as a steadfast ally in the many wars which took place at this time. He was in constant conference with the Kings of England, Poland, Prussia and Sweden and any hint that he might have been party to a fraud would have affected his high-standing among these powerful men. He was in constant demand as an “honest broker� at the highest levels including attempting a settlement between Peter the Great of Russia and King Charles XII of Sweden. There is no doubt of his honesty.

When Karl came to power his country was poor, but he worked hard, encouraged inward investment, provided a haven for the expelled Hueguenots, developed industry and when he could afford it, engaged in many large building projects including the digging of a canal to open up the inland port of Karlshafen, and as a result, when he died he left his country in excellent financial health. In summary then Karl was honest, scientifically and practically knowledgeable, and nobody’s fool.

Karl was aware of the maid’s accusations and merely commented that he took no notice because he knew that the machine was genuine. He never, in the following eighteen years up to his death, revealed the secret because he had pledged to keep it secret until the inventor had received just payment for his invention. It is simply impossible to concede that Karl would have connived in a fraud that could be of no benefit to him either in reputation, power or money. Equally it is extremely unlikely that he was taken in by a fraudulent mechanism. There is so much evidence of his intellectual ability that to suggest that gullibility was a trait of the Landgrave’s is as crass as believing he would even consider taking part in a fraud that would for ever ruin his hard-won standing among the European Monarchy.� - FE John Collins comment

2. “In his Apologia, Orffyreus states on more than one occasion that if he is revealed as a fraudster and his wheel is not what he claims, then he must forfeit his life by having his head chopped off. If that seems an unlikely consequence, one only has to consider the unfortunate end of Edward Kelley. He was an English alchemist. In 1595 having travelled to Prague to see King Rudolf’s personal alchemist’s laboratory, he lost his life by having his head chopped off. The court of Rudolf II of Prague took a dim view of the fact that Kelley’s attempts to turn base metals into gold had failed repeatedly. He was not the only man to lose his life through attempted fraud.

Rulers were interested in scientific toys and would gladly pay for the privilege of possessing such items, sponsoring the development of them, and paying the inventor great riches if successful. Those same rulers would react with extreme violence to anyone who sought to defraud them. Punishment was severe and immediate; no powerful ruler could afford to let anyone get away with blatant deception. An example had to be made to deter others from similar adventures.� PM 42 John Collins comment

3. “Landgrave (Count) Karl von Hessen - Kassel (1654-1730) has one of the most important parts to play in the legend of Orffyreus’ wheel.

At the end of the thirty years war, although many of the soldiers were allowed home, three companies were retained to guard the palace of the Landgrave, and these were to form a nucleus of the Hessian Guard, the core of the Hessian army. The great powers in Europe, needing large numbers of soldiers and unable to conscript and maintain large enough armies from their own resources, turned to men such as Karl for additional men. Hesse received subsidies for fighting, from which ever power hired them. Karl’s original three companies had, in six years, grown to eighteen companies of foot soldiers and five of horse.

He spent a fortune equipping his troops with the best of everything. He fought in several wars, acting as both ruler and general and always led from the front. But in 1699 he took a break, and started a journey to Italy, travelling as far as Naples and taking every opportunity to visit as many treasures and sights of Italy as possible. He left the care of Hesse-Kassel to his son Frederick, later to become King of Sweden. This trip suggests that beneath the tough, disciplined soldier, lay another, more thoughtful man, interested in the arts and sciences of both the past and the present.

In 1710, he established a Chamber of Commerce which was to promote and supervise the province’s products and produce. Orffyreus was made Commercial Councillor when he joined Karl at Hesse-Kassel in 1716 and was part of that organisation. Karl concluded subsidy treaties with Holland and England and in 1726 joined the Hanoverian Alliance.

Karl’s greatest visible memorial, part of his tremendous building activities, was the construction of the Hercules Octagon with its cascades at the Wilhelmshohe, Kassel. The water tumbling down the cascade was pumped to the top of the cascade by the first steam pump to arrive on mainland Europe, an event of vital significance to the Orffyrean saga. Karl’s interests included not only objet d’arts but curiosities of all kinds. This included his large collection of antique and modern gems and coins, maps, physical and astronomical instruments which he had brought back from his Italian journey and exhibited in an art gallery built by him. Envoys from England, Russia, Sweden and Prussia all speak of Karl in respectful terms and often comment on the disparity between the power that this man wielded at the conferences and the actual size of his country. His influence was undeniable.� - PM 76 John Collins comment

Again, I would be happy to pay you for your time Professor to find your source notes of your quotes about Bessler. Thanks for your writing back Professor,

-Robert (B.S.E.E.)

[rlortie]

Rocky,

It appears to me that you have compiled information taken in brevity from multiple sources. These include but are not limited to Al Bacon (Glenn Rouse) rendtion of "Das Triumphirende Perpetuum Mobile Orrffyreanum" where the mention of pegs is quoted. Glenn is also noted for patenting MT 137.

Another source is by Dr Ramish Menaria:
http://orffyre.tripod.com/bessler/index.html

What caught my interest in your topic is the statement:

These few who saw the inside of the wheel after removing the front panel said that it had many compartments around the perimeter of the wheel, each with a shifting weight inside.

My current build which has set idle for the last year and 1/2 due to the illness and loss of my late wife has a total of seventy compartments around the perimeter, each containing a weight of less than four pounds.


It is not at all clear whether they saw all compartments open at the same time. These people were not permitted to look at what might be hidden behind these obvious mechanical details, in the back panel of the wheel itself."

“Ask any of those who have groped inside my Wheel and grasped its axle – and you will be assured that my axle is not like that. Rather it <the axle> has many compartments and is pierced all over with various holes.� AP 326
(these compartments are at the axle)

Possibly a play on words by Bessler, he does not elaborate as to whether the witnesses could actually see and feel these so called compartments. As for the pierced holes, they could be quite obvious, yet for my intent would be unnecessary and only red hearing to throw ones mind away from the obvious.

Although one would imagine these compartment as perpendicular divisions in the axle, It is my contention that these compartments are inside the axle longitudinally not unlike the depiction shown in the "AP" drawing "And ye still do not understand"...

By coincidence or by fate, a cross section of my axle shows the same depiction. I did not copy; it just ended up that way as requirement to fulfill my designs (hopeful) function of operation.


Does anyone know who these other persons were and the source of the quote?

“It had many compartments around the perimeter of the wheel, each with a shifting weight inside.�

I believe you will find that the majority of the following quote a hypothetical/fictionalized rendering by Dr. Ramish Menaria

“When the oiled cloth was stripped away, said Count Karl, he found himself gazing upon a very simple arrangement of weights and levers. Orffyreus explained that he had conceived a system whereby the weights on one side of the wheel were farther from the axle than the weights on the other side of the wheel, creating an imbalance which caused the wheel to move. The secret, if there was a secret, lay in the ingenious manner in which the weights on the ascending side of the wheel were prevented from following their normal path next to the rim. Count Karl said that these weights were blocked by small pegs which swung back out of the way as the weight passed the zenith. The Count prudently hastened back to his quarters and wrote an account of what he had seen.�

I remember where the axle of Bessler's wheel had many compartments. Also noting that the ends were of 1inch pens. This IMHO leaves many possibles of use with that axle design. It either directs thought to the axle or it could of been part of redirection of thought for those who witnessed. The other compartments as in the article would leave other thoughts for misdirection.

Very true! we have no idea of how many compartments or the configuration of these so called compartments. As for the axle, AP shows, they may have been a hollow tube or pipe within a pipe within a coopered axle drilled with holes! These holes may have been for the passing of rope to suspend/lift and or relocate weights. I am apprehensive to these thoughts as we all know moving weights closer the the axle on the ascent will not work! It is called "height for width syndrome".

The mass of the ascending weights must either be somehow grounded or placed in such manner that they are totally suspended by the axle.

As for my own perimeter compartment design, I hope to start a thread related to it in the near future.

Ralph

[jim_mich]

After Rocky FIRST posted some hours ago, I went back to the original German words of AP, part two, chapter 10(b) where John Collins translated AP as, "Ask any of those who have groped inside my Wheel and grasped its axle - and you will be assured, in no uncertain terms, that my axle is not like that. Rather, it has many compartments, and is pierced all over with various holes." since these words don't make sense to me.

The original German is at the end of the original pg 29 and beginning of pg 30. It may be read and translated by anyone who wants. But note that the sentence structure is very complex and choppy, because it's a poem.

From my initial rough translation of about ten lines in question, it is quite clear that this been wrongly translated.

Bessler never wrote about his wheel having, "many compartments, and is pierced all over with various holes." Rather, Bessler wrote about a witness, who while the wheel was being tested, was reported to have looked thru cracks (holes) and now thinks the wheel had compartments and this witness thinks he somewhat understands how Bessler's wheel worked.

Thus, we still have only Karl as an actual witness, and Professor Christian Wolff (the witness) who peeked thru some cracks and thought there were compartments.

There seems to have been no witnesses who groped/felt inside the wheel. The compartments were what Professor Christian Wolff thought were inside the wheel.

(Note that I've only real quickly skimmed all the other posts after Rocky's first post. I'll now go back and read them in detail.)

[Nobody]

Dear all and Rocky,

thanks for your comment and protective words and facts about Karl and Bessler. I sometimes wonder how high educated
(intelligent) people in our days think, how simply Bessler fooled dozens of the most high educated (intelligent) people and
scientists living during that period and time.

Hello Jim_Mich,

to my opinion the translation
-"Ask any of those who have groped inside my Wheel and grasped its axle - and you will be assured, in no uncertain terms,
that my axle is not like that. Rather, it has many compartments, and is pierced all over with various holes."-
hits the original German words very well and is not wrongly translated.

The important clue that the axle had compartments and holes is given to us by the inventor Bessler personally. Who else
could know this better than himself, therefore I take his words concerning the structure of the axle very serious.

With best regards,
Nobody

[cloud camper]

Thanks Nobody!

Of course by now everyone and their dog knows that whenever JM states that "Bessler never wrote xxxxxxxx" this means that the official translations
do not support JM's personal wheel concept and therefore must be "corrected"!

[rlortie]

cloud camper,

Your statement: [do not support JM's personal wheel concept and therefore must be "corrected"!]

I find this a little misleading, to date we have no substantiation that Jim_ Mich has a personal wheel concept, other than his PVC fluid fiasco!

But then again it is April Fools Day in my part of the world!

[jim_mich]

The important clue that the axle had compartments and holes is given to us by the inventor Bessler personally

Sure, Bessler wrote about "compartments" in reply to Wagner's 1716 critique of Bessler's wheel, where Wagner imagined there to be "compartments" inside Bessler's wheel. But Bessler never said that HIS OWN WHEEL contained any compartments. Such compartments were other peoples ideas.

Please, I assume that you, Nobody, read, write, and speak German. Please translate this. Bessler begins by saying to Wagner, "Du sprichst:", meaning "You Speak:" followed with a colon, meaning Bessler is quoting Wagner's words. Bessler was not describing what was inside his wheel. Read it for yourself...

Du sprichst: Mein Werk sol auch so sein; x.
Das leugst du in den Hals hinein. x.
Frag’ die, so in mein Werk getastet,
Und dessen Welle angefastet;
Alsbalde du versichert bist,
Daß meine Welle nicht so ist,

AP pg 173, (pg 30)
Sondern, sie hat vielmehr viel’ Fächer;
Ja, durch und durch verschiedne Löcher. NB.
Der sieh’t, wer nur etwas versteh’t,
Daß mein Werk nun ganz anders geh’t.
Ja, freilich muß mehr Witz dran gleißen,

Sol es ein Perpetuum heißen,
Sol es nicht aufzuziehend sein,
Sol es auch sonst was treiben fein,
Und sol nach Wagners Wuht und Lügen
Kein Rad sich in mein Rad verfügen,
Und sol sein von der Welt erkannt

Der Wagner, als ein Diffamant. &c. NB.
Der mein perfecter Ehren-Stehler,
Und Lügen hält für keine Fehler. x.
Schau’ nur, du saub’rer Christian,
Was du vor Bosheit mir thust an,

Nobody, you and others hang on to the false concept that Bessler's wheel had compartments and holes so as to support your own wheel ideas. You can open your eyes and read Bessler's original words, and then understand the full context of what Bessler wrote.

Or you can be like others, such as that "filthy Jew" cloud camper, who keeps bashing me, who sticks his fingers in his ears and exclaims, "No, no, no. You are wrong." without showing a shred of evidence to support his claim that my understanding of Bessler's writings are wrong.

I've offered to discuss Bessler's writings with a number of people, but all run and hide, claiming that since I've already decided what Bessler wrote, they don't want a discussion. It seems that many are fearful that their cherished beliefs might be put at risk. And they don't want to take such a risk.

[primemignonite]

Rocky, I'm surprised that you got out of him what you did.

This particular physicist personage is clearly of the very loud antagonistic camp, and you are treating with THE ENEMY, his smiley face side shown or not.

One of his still-viewable trashy looking pages addresses a supposed "psychology" of P-M seekers, and is a fine classic of the bigoted, strutting-elitist sort.

Since when has this ONE become also a psychologist fit for such analysis, and as well, adding smarmy, back-of-the-hand opinionation for peppery effect to the whole ugly, venomous swirl? (This query is not in the least one rhetorical; it is requiring of an answer. WHEN?)

What might be the purpose of it all, other than to some low-level, cheap sadistic belly twist of a thrill? It is amazing the novelties some types will resort-to, in order to PUNCH some last little spark of live feeling through an otherwise dead pelvis, and, soon-to-be body! (And, some DARE make spectacle of wondering 'why' demon cancer is ever on-the-rise. Ha!)

Sadly, from him and his like I am sure you'll get nothing whatever, for all your fine troubles as gone-to.

Well, whether not or some little bone thing is tossed out to the teeming acceptance hungry, something very open and very beckoning (as in a yawn dankly smelling of earth and worms) soon awaits this way too-self-satisfied, glib lowlife. I've an obit check set up to find out the very moment it is published.

Cigars Cognac and merriment, will be that eve's order, when the last shovelful is known to have been tossed onto the no longer physicist corpse!

So-be-it and, the sooner the better, I say.

(Good! Let 'im sue me!)

James

PS I think he is retired and now 'emeritus', but still he is dangerous to The Cause, he and his prideful anti-Bessler minions of future perdition.