Gravity Wheel -or- Motion Wheel

[jim_mich]

I'd like, at this point, to give a brief description of it. So then, a work of this kind of craftsmanship has, as its basis of motion, many separate pieces of lead. These come in pairs, such that, as one of them takes up an outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axle. Later, they swap places, and so they go on and on changing places all the time.

(This principle is in fact the one that Wagner said he owed to me - but I was quite wrongly implicated, as I'd never informed anyone about the matter.)
At present, as far as I'm concerned, anyone who wants can go on about the wonderful doings of these weights, alternately gravitating to the centre and climbing back up again, for I can't put the matter more clearly.

Notice the difference between Bessler's description of the weight movement and Wagner's description. Bessler talks of weights moving in and out. Wagner's description, according to Bessler, is of weights gravitating to the center then climbing back up. This is the only time Bessler mentions gravity, and he is simply repeating what Wagner talked about.

Bessler said that as far as he was concerned, anyone can go on (discuss) the doings of these weights (as described by Wagner). Bessler says he could not make the matter clearer.

The reason was that if Bessler made the matter clearer he would need to disclose how his wheel worked. So he let people believe what Wagner said. If they wanted to listen to Wagner and ignore what Bessler said, then so be it. They can go on about how they think the weights move.

So let me put this very clear. Bessler said the weights move in and out. One weight moved in and one moved out, then they swap, and on and on they go. Wagner said the the weights gravitate to the center then climb back up again.

But I would just like to add this friendly little note of caution:
- A great craftsman would be that man who can "lightly" cause a heavy weight to fly upwards! Who can make a pound-weight rise as 4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall. If he can sort that out, the motion will perpetuate itself. But if he can't, then his hard work shall be all in vain.

Here I think Bessler is mocking Wagner, saying anyone would be really great if they could make a lighter weight cause a heavier weight to rise. Bessler knew that rising and falling weights would only turn a wheel if you could make a light weight cause a heavy weight to rise. He said if you could do that then you would be a really great craftsman.

He can rack his brains and work his fingers to the bones with all sorts of ingenious ideas about adding extra weights here and there. The only result will be that his wheel will get heavier and heavier - it would run longer if it were empty! Have you ever seen a crowd of starlings squabbling angrily over the crumbs on a stationary mill-wheel? That's what it would be like for such a fellow and his invention, as I know only too well from my own recent experience!

This is one of the most informative messages that Bessler gives us. Bessler is saying that trying to add weights here and there so as to cause a wheel to rotate will only make the wheel heavier.

The reason was that Bessler's wheel wasn't turned by the heaviness of out-of-balance weights. Bessler said that the weights gained force from moving. He never said his wheel was turned by gravity. He simply let people think what they might, and thus their erroneous thinking has kept his principle a secret for 300 years now.

[path_finder]

Dear jim_mich,
Excellent analysis. I'm fully in accordance with.

[charly2]

One more:

Many would-be Mobile-makers think that if they can arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the centre than the others, then the thing will surely revolve. A few years ago I learned all about this the hard way.

Most of the MT drawings (or all of them) are a good sample of the hard way Bessler mentioned.

[ovyyus]

Wagner's description, according to Bessler, is of weights gravitating to the center then climbing back up.

Yet Wagner actually proposed a spring wound, counter-weight turnspit mechanism.

[jim_mich]

In my second quote of Bessler, in my first post of this thread, Bessler was not talking about Wagner's proposed wheel. Bessler was talking about Wagner's critique of Bessler's wheel. Bessler plainly says that this principle (the rising and falling of weights) was one that Wagner said he owed to Bessler. and Bessler told Wagner point blank that he (Bessler) was wrongly implicated, for he had never informed anyone about the matter.

Bessler was talking about Wagner first critique where Wagner talks extensively about rising and falling weights...

Now it is necessary to mention briefly the Merseburg text again and to be rightly astonished that its author errs so grossly and is able to bring to market such absurd and nonsensical principles and postulates which are contrary to nature and in conflict with every law of motion, be it purely natural or artificial mechanical motion. The falsity can be grasped by anyone who understands nothing about mathematics, mechanics or physics but only follows healthy good sense. The same can be said of the question which is formulated in the very beginning of the text. just mentioned and the answer given to it, namely: is an artificial mechanical perpetual motion possible in nature, in other words, can an everlasting motive power of rising and falling, in other words life, be imparted to material, heavy, otherwise lifeless bodies? The author confidently answers yes, and on page 2 he right away reprehends everyone who considers perpetual motion an impossibility; for they are unable to imagine how a heavy material body (like the weights) could behave against its nature, according to which it is constantly inclined toward -- the center of the earth in opposition to the cause of the rising; he says something to the following effect: it could move against its nature and hoist itself into the air (a perpetual motion machine must be so constructed that when the weights come to rest at the lowest point of the wheel they rise again and thereby turn the wheel again); that this is impossible in the natural order of things will be demonstrated thoroughly in the following.

If we read the whole of Wagner's first critique, he writes many pages of text about weights rising and fall and as to why such rising and falling weights cannot rotate a wheel. And Bessler says point blank that Wagner was right, but that he (Bessler) was also right.

Through the whole Bessler wheel story, people wrongly assumed things. This rising and falling of weights verses in and out moving of weights is a prime example.

[primemignonite]

[This is a really nice and useful discussion, I think. My hat is doffed to it's the author for by it much is to be learned, I'm sure.]

Jim, in-part you stated ". . . Bessler said that the weights gained force from moving. . . ."

As I recall from the translation (for the better-or-worse, as found) the word used there was "swinging", was it not?

Or, as put in an other way, he implied that weights gained in kinetic energy (our terminology of now) by virtue of their swinging.

Assuming it so, this is most particular and thus is exceedingly useful in-fact, I believe. (How could it not be?)

It is a solid, pat statement as to some interior wheel operation that comes directly from Bessler. (And so, on account, I think a re-re-translating of it from the German might now be in order. Stewart! If you have not so-done already, mightn't you consider it now?)

And also, notable is that Bessler's use of the terminology "in and out" lacks context, whereas the more suspect because of the source ". . . weights gravitating to the center then climbing back up." one, compliments of stinging hornet Wagner, is simply brimming with it, this because being essentially unambiguous, though ultimately useless.

Even though the third dimension of motion (fore and aft) is not in-play (thank goodness), still "in and out" means what actually in relation to what? This could be to various of things . . . actually.

James

[rlortie]

As previously stated, I do my best thinking and receive sparks of innovation while reviewing or posting on this forum. This is not the first time that James has kindled the fire.

His above post brought to mind the following idea, which to my knowledge has never been mentioned in any way shape or form.

We are to assume that Bessler's coopered axle was eight inches in diameter, it's length from center to end is approximately the same as the radius of the wheel. the weights were of cylinder shape of four pounds and by either Jonathan or Jim_Mich were compared to a small V8 juice can.

One end of the weights was not exposed, so assume that it had a swivel attached to it. inside the axle their is a linear snail cam or Archimedes screw. Via rope and pulleys there are four weights each side traversing this screw in linear progression. Once reaching the end, not unlike the "drop" of a snail cam the weight is released and guided through the center, passing the three weights in progression.

As for what could or happens from this point, and the possibilities I leave to your imagination.

Ralph

[jim_mich]

James, Cynic-In-Chief,

Of course Bessler did not say any of the things that I've quoted, for I write in English, and Bessler wrote in old German and sometimes he wrote in Latin, so we must depend upon translations. As far as moving or swinging go, the old German word that Bessler used could be translated in either way. Since moving includes swinging while swinging is a more limited subset of moving, I use the broader word moving. If it makes you feel better, and if it fits your pet wheel theory, you can think of it a as Bessler saying swinging rather than moving. The concept is more or less the same. The weights gained force from moving/swinging.

There is no need to re-re-translate. We have hashed this out a number of times in the past. There is no way to determine Bessler's exact meaning, for that is the way languages just are.

Besides, Bessler was a master of using subtle double meaning words so as to hide his secret while speaking truthfully. But when he talks about what other people wrote about him, Bessler usually gets straight to the point, often with stinging sharp words.

"In" means inward toward the center. "Out" mean outward away from the center. This is very clear.

Wagner's used the words "rise" and "fall". Wagner was most definitely talking about an unbalanced gravity wheel. It is obvious from reading Wagner's writings that Wagner thought that Bessler was claiming a gravity wheel where weights rise and fall, while Bessler (as far as I can discern) always claimed to have a "Perpetuum Mobile".

People learn their first language at an early age, starting during their first year of life. They learn their language from the people around them. They learn the little subtle meanings, they learn different nuances from their parents and from their siblings and playmates. People from different location may speak the same language, but use slightly different words, of their words may have slightly different meanings. People from southern Michigan will talk of having a 'pop', i.e., a 'soda pop', which people from the rest of America would not easily understand. In the 50's Detroit had a bottling company that bottled 'Faygo Red Pop', a fizzy cherry flavored drink. They also bottle another soda labeled 'Uptown', which had a strong caffeine kick, much like Mountain Dew. If I repeated the Faygo slogan heard on early TV, you might not understand my meaning. "When you're too pooped to participate, live it up, up, up, with Uptown" was sung by a simple animated cartoon guy. If you didn't live in south-eastern Michigan during the late 50's, you would not understand "Faygo" or "Red Pop" or that "Uptown" was a "soda pop"

So, let me get to my point. I grew up in a little community in south-east Michigan, about 30 miles from Ann Arbor and about 80 miles from Detroit. This little community was of German descent. Until the First World War, the predominant language spoken on the streets of that little community was German. The sermons in the Emanuel Lutheran 'German' church were preached in German. When the US went to war against Germany in the First World War, the local people stopped speaking German on the street, and changed to speaking English, as was common with most emigrants to the USA. By the time I was born, at the end of the Second World War, everyone spoke English, except for the older grand-parents, who still spoke German among themselves.

So, let me get to my point. More than half of my classmate were of German descent. Their grand-parents spoke German. In high school only one foreign language was available, and it was German, since many of the kids already knew the language from their grand-parents, it was an easy class for them.

I was an outsider, I was "English". My ancestors, came mostly from England and Ireland. But my point is, the language I learned as a child, and learned from my classmate, had more of a German way of thinking than an English way of thinking. There were a few German words mixed into the language of my classmates. Because English is derived from German, the meanings were often the same, just a slightly different 'mouthing' of the how the word was spoken.

Now, to get to my point. Many times I read here on the Bessler wheel forum, of people struggling to understand the meaning of Bessler's writings. To me, his writings are rather clear. I read the translated words, and even though they are English and his words were originally old German, I fully understand the thought that he was trying to convey. After all, language is simply a means of conveying thoughts.

When I read of in and out on a wheel, I understand it. Yes, it could mean sideways in and out, but that would be less likely. If you get a nail in your tire, it is a nail "in" the tread, not "through" the sidewall.

My point is, I have no problem understanding Bessler's words. I don't question whether Bessler meant moving or swinging, because to me, the meaning is almost the same. Such double-meanings of words are imbedded in my mind from my earliest usage of language. The English that I learned as a child had a slight German 'tint' or accent. We had a couple of teachers that would sometimes "roll their R's", which was a German way of speaking.

When we first discussed 'swinging' here on the forum, there were some people who thought of "swinging" only in the context of a weight on a string or of momentum swinging. But to me, swinging simply means motion. A door swings. The turn-signal lever on your car swings up and down. Swinging can mean oscillating due to momentum and gravity, but it is not limited to such. Swinging, to me, means motion one direction then motion back the other direction. And this is what Bessler was speaking of. Motion "in" and then motion "out". Yes, that can be called swinging, but it also can simply be called moving. The German word that Bessler used had a double meaning that included both swing and move.

Since some people think of swinging as hanging from a rope or such, I've taken to using the word 'moving'. I do not think that Bessler's words meant a weight swinging at the end of a rope. I think his meaning was a weight, probably on a pendulum type rod or lever, moving/swinging in and out as the wheel rotated.

At the witnessed speeds of his wheels, the moving/swinging of weights would have been influenced more by CF than by gravity.

Sorry for the long post.

[Furcurequs]

I don't have Bessler's "Maschinen Tractate," but for those who are concerned with the most accurate translations of Bessler's words, maybe you could compare the language he used to describe the movement of these dudes (assuming there is a description) with perhaps similar language in other places:





...just a thought.

Dwayne

[jim_mich]

Bessler only wrote descriptions up through MT54.
Bessler didn't write any descriptions for MT85 and MT86.

See: http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index. ... =Portal:MT

[primemignonite]

Ralph:

I do hope that I have not inflamed within you some thought of fraud on the part of Bessler's, as you seem to have suggested? (Or, have I mistaken what you actually intended?)

If so, what a horrible notion to indulge!

But . . .

If such were were found to be so, then we all would have an instant easy-out and, I could conclude my book finally and entitle it The Eternal and Romantic Search for the Everlasting Mobile, or something like that.

However . . .

I do hope that it was genuine ultimately and, that one of us perfervid strugglers will ferret-out it's authentic design.

I believe it will be . . .

James

[primemignonite]

Jim:

I really do appreciate your small essay, done in response to my brief offering, which has now netted me just what I needed:

"If it makes you feel better, and if it fits your pet wheel theory, you can think of it a as Bessler saying swinging rather than moving." - jim_mich

On both counts as you suggest it might, it does! Thank you.

(If only ALL such like-things could turn out so nicely!)

As for the rest that you shared of your own 'legend and lore', so-to-speak, it was revealing and multitudinously helpful to the ends of deeper understanding - no doubt.

And to end, necessary would be a technical note: Actually Jim, I am retired from being CIC here.

Mr. Tim won the contest for that active position hands-down, and I deferred to him publicly some time ago. By comparison, in that way, I am an order of magnitude the lesser than he and besides, being that way only got me into endless, disheartening difficulties such as offenses done unto others that should not have been.

Against the old cynic I struggle hard to be 'the new man' - here friend to all and enemy to none. (Of course this does not apply to stinging Hell hornets living or dead, nor to out-of-bounds pseudo psychologist-like authors, ones that might better stick to their authentic specialties - such as they may be.)

All-in-all this day, here, progress has been achieved.

James

[John Collins]

I have always thought that the phrase Bessler used ' that the weights gained force from moving.' was a description of what happened once the wheel was moving.

Taking Bessler's words at face value, the wheel was overbalanced from the start, which is why the one-way wheels began to spin spontaneously.

The wheels accelerated up to a certain speed which seems an obvious feature when starting from a standstill. One of the consequences of this is that each weight which was moving, began to move faster as the wheel turned faster- each weight that swung, swung faster and faster, the result of which was that its swinging added impetus to the wheel's speed.

I see no need to read anything else into the words.

JC

[primemignonite]

John:

As you've just described succinctly and with eloquence

"One of the consequences of this is that each weight which was moving, began to move faster as the wheel turned faster- each weight that swung, swung faster and faster, the result of which was that its swinging added impetus to the wheel's speed."

As well as I see it; gathering and gathering for the feeding back of all "impetus".

"I see no need to read anything else into the words."

Ultimately I believe this will be found precisely the case, just as you say.

James

[Furcurequs]

Bessler only wrote descriptions up through MT54.
Bessler didn't write any descriptions for MT85 and MT86.

See: http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index. ... =Portal:MT

Hey Jim,

If my memory isn't failing me (which it certainly could be), I seem to remember times in the past when Bessler's MT commentary in the Bessler Wiki wasn't as complete as it is now and it was even being gradually added to over time.

So, not having an actual copy of the MT myself, I assumed that might still be the case.

Anyway, thanks for clarifying.

I'm personally not much of a stickler when it comes to the exact language/translation, anyway. Moving/swinging - moving/shaking - it's all good to me.

Didn't mean to stir the pot.

Take care.

Dwayne