Gravity Wheel -or- Motion Wheel

[Andyb]

Hi all,i think bessler meant swinging and moving,he also said a 1/4 can lift a lb latter he said he could lift the lb with a 1/5 meaning the lose system being the lighter system now has less of a lose making the system faster.This clue of these weights work in pairs must refer to the 1/4 and the lb so the 1/4 takes up a position closer to the centre whilst the lb moves further away but it is left unclear maybe this was deliberate to cover up a very simple system,he speaks of impetus i believe the 1/4 creates the impetus at a right angle to the axis as bessler said which must also move,i keep repeating this, nothing must ever reach a point of rest in fact you must prevent it .

So lets think on the clues people actually heard, i think that can be seen as solid information,a weight could be heard rolling across the zenith ,thats movement, the swinging would not be heard the best place to move the heavier driving weight would be across the zenith making one side heavy and full whilst the other is empty and light ,this refers to his compartments and the zenith,the other thing that keeps coming up for me is ,they spin on there vortices, rolling weights spinning in a chamber driven by arms with weights on there tips creating the impetus to rotate the wheel by pushing and pulling these larger weights in and out

All the clues fit but i have said this too many times now i am begining to lose faith in myself ,any how maybe someone will relate to this question,if you place a weight on the end of a bar and cause it to have a effect not only is the weight having a effect but also the bar that is attaching the weight and to the pivit point ,if you however extend the bar out a equal distance then the bar is no longer a lose or gain, could this possibly be the crossbar he was talking about,what has been done by creating a equal cross bar is reduced the negative torque factor for the bar to zero its all ways in balance no matter what position it is in the wheel ,providing of coarse the weights are all ways in constant motion ,this leaves the 1/4 to do its work and thats its only lose,i did ask this as a question when in fact i have already answered my own question does any body have any thing to add to this ,is this a revelation or am i just stupid ,please be kind i am fragile and tired of winter,all the best Andy b ps nice blog again Jim hope you are well i feel sometimes Jim you have the wheel in your head

[jim_mich]

Bessler told us everything we need to know about how to build his wheel, EXCEPT for one thing. He held back and never fully described the 'motion' that is needed for his wheel to work. But he did tell us the 'motion' could be found by combining portions from different MT drawings.

So what do we know?

* We know that the machine took the form of a wheel.

* We know that it used weights.

* We know that the weights moved within the wheel.

* Bessler said the weights work in pairs with one weight moving out as another moves in, then they swap again and again, which indicates they were equal.

* We know that the weights banged against something within the two-way wheels.

* Bessler said he used springs, but they were not the wind-up type.

* Bessler said that he used a cross-bar, which we can assumed was some type of linkage between things.

* Bessler said the weights gained force from their motions.

----

So, we have a rotatable wheel containing paired equal weights that move reciprocally, which are interconnected by one or more cross-bars, with one weight moving inward as another weight moves outward, with the weights hitting something at the ends of their motions, and the motions of the weights cause a gain of force that rotates the wheel. Only Wagner talks about rising and falling weights, while Bessler talks about in and out moving weights.

Did I forget anything? Oh, yes! What about the springs?

The springs were most likely used to cushion the impact of the weights as they hit the wheel, thereby reducing damage to the wheel. Since springs produce a unique twang when hit, its likely the springs had a strike plate made from hardwood to eliminate the twang.

So there you have it... , straight from Bessler himself... everything you need to make a Bessler's wheel... uhhh, except for the motion, the route, the shape of the unique path along which the weight pairs need to move back and forth so as to produce excess force so as to forcefully rotate the wheel.

[bluesgtr44]

Bessler told us everything we need to know about how to build his wheel, EXCEPT for one thing. He held back and never fully described the 'motion' that is needed for his wheel to work. But he did tell us the 'motion' could be found by combining portions from different MT drawings.

So what do we know?

* We know that the machine took the form of a wheel.

* We know that it used weights.

* We know that the weights moved within the wheel.

* Bessler said the weights work in pairs with one weight moving out as another moves in, then they swap again and again, which indicates they were equal.

* We know that the weights banged against something within the two-way wheels.

* Bessler said he used springs, but they were not the wind-up type.

* Bessler said that he used a cross-bar, which we can assumed was some type of linkage between things.

* Bessler said the weights gained force from their motions.

----

So, we have a rotatable wheel containing paired equal weights that move reciprocally, which are interconnected by one or more cross-bars, with one weight moving inward as another weight moves outward, with the weights hitting something at the ends of their motions, and the motions of the weights cause a gain of force that rotates the wheel. Only Wagner talks about rising and falling weights, while Bessler talks about in and out moving weights.

Did I forget anything? Oh, yes! What about the springs?

The springs were most likely used to cushion the impact of the weights as they hit the wheel, thereby reducing damage to the wheel. Since springs produce a unique twang when hit, its likely the springs had a strike plate made from hardwood to eliminate the twang.

So there you have it... , straight from Bessler himself... everything you need to make a Bessler's wheel... uhhh, except for the motion, the route, the shape of the unique path along which the weight pairs need to move back and forth so as to produce excess force so as to forcefully rotate the wheel.

Did you forget anything else? Here's some witness descriptions.....

PM:AAMS...pg. 50...Draschwitz....unidirectional wheel. J. Collins publication.

Having made an appointment with the inventor, we approached the machine and noticed that it was secured by a cord to the rim of the wheel. Upon the cord being released, the machine began to rotate with great force and noise, maintaining its speed without increasing or decreasing it for some considerable time. To stop the wheel and retie the cords required tremendous effort. The inventor is asking for one hundred thousand Thalers to reveal the mechanism or sell the machine.

What an astounding feat! In and of itself, this is something that is more than just off balance....it feeds on itself and isn't in need of any additional input. Instead, it needs to be regulated to maintain that speed, without increasing or decreasing.

We can regulate a larger power to hold it in check......what we can't do is regulate a higher power, which isn't even able to maintain itself. Bessler was regulating the output of his systems to ensure they didn't self destruct. Think about it......you don't need to regulate lack of speed......you regulate overspeed to a lower more controllable speed. He didn't want to take any chance what-so-ever of his work being compromised....i.e......self destruct. He had them well regulated, obviously.

Most of the witness descriptions of the uni-directional wheels have the same basis. They were tied off to hold them in place otherwise they would just revolve of their own accord. They accelerated at a very rapid pace until they reached their "equilibrium" or maximum regulated speed. There was a regulating device and I personally think it was a flywheel apparatus.

OK, tell me here if any of you do not think that the speed wasn't regulated to be even and fluid as described. To do that, the ability of the machine was to be even faster than the regulated speed. Are we all on the same page with this? This puppy had the ability to be pretty seriously OOB if this is the case......tell me how this couldn't be so in a huge way. Everyone of his wheels were regulated....check it out! If they ran smoothly......he took away from the overall power. There's no way that has been proven to work the other way.

Here's a witness (J. Weise) description of the Merseberg wheel.....G.B., pg. 68...J. Collins publication. Edited for brevity....

"....He did this with little difficulty, moving it by hand until a single weight inside it was heard to be falling. It then began to rotate of its own accord with such force that within a minute it had rotated 40 and more times, and could only be stopped by applying a great effort.

So.....it was regulated to maintain 40 rpm's. Please understand this.....if it is being regulated....or held back....it has the ability to actually move faster than what it is already moving. You cannot work this the other way as in providing more impetus to actually infer overspeed and thus, the need for regulation. Please point me out any situation at that time period where this would be necessary....

PM:AAMS....pg. 95....J. Collins publication. Edited for brevity....this is the Merseburg wheel that was bi-directional.

"...Having stopped it in this manner, it remained stationary. (and this sir, is the greatest proof of it being a perpetual motion), I commenced the movement very gently to see if it would of itself regain its former rapidiity, which I doubted, believing as the said in London, that it only preserved for a long time the impetus of th the impulse first communicated. But to my astonishment I observed that the rapidity of the wheel augmented little by little until it had made two turns, and the it regained its former speed, until I observed by my watch that it made the same twenty six turns a minute as before...."

So, working with your conjectures in this puzzle....you only have to figure out how to use CF to not only provide an impetus that is powerful enough to need regulation in this configuration, but also reset itself when in a unidirectional mode to have to be tied off.

This configuration appears to be loaded from square one. Once this is put into place.....it holds it's position and can't manipulate it's way out.

Does anyone else see and understand this?

I'm not disagreeing with anything Jim or any others have put forth.....only adding to the reality of what we are dealing with.


Steve

ETA: I have mentioned this before, I just want to point out that the importance of this mention is by the witness (J. Weise).

G.B., pg. 68...J. Collins publication....edited.

"...The most noteworthy detail regarding his particular experiment was that the wheel, while undedr this considerable load, continued to rotate at exactly the same rate as when it was running "empty""

Think about this aspect. The device had to be regulated and thus there would be excess power within the system that was being............regulated! The potential here is upwards......not downwards. This being the case, the limitations would seem to be more physical as far as the materials used than our "height for width" analogy as to get some kind of "movement". Bessler had a shift of proportion in some form or fashion that appears to have been a constant.

[bluesgtr44]

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

Welcome back, James....even if it's for a short time. Really enjoy your style my friend.

They can't move faster and faster unless they have the ability to overcome those factors we're already familiar with. Show me that.....and you got a winner!


Steve

[jim_mich]

So, working with your conjectures in this puzzle....you only have to figure out how to use CF to not only provide an impetus that is powerful enough to need regulation in this configuration, but also reset itself when in a unidirectional mode to have to be tied off.

The motions of the internal weights act like pendulum to cause the regulated speed. Your concept of what "well regulated" means needs a little work. It does not mean "held back". It simply means the speed was regular. The speed did not increase and decrease like a windmill or horse power or dog power or even a water wheel that slows down when a load is applied.

There is a "Regulator" brand of clocks. They have been around for a very long time. The name "Regulator" implies that their speed is very "regular" and steady. Most power sources of Bessler's time were unsteady. Bessler's wheel turned at a nice steady regular speed, which impressed the witnesses.

[ovyyus]

The speed did not increase and decrease like a windmill or horse power or dog power or even a water wheel that slows down when a load is applied.

Really? How can this be true when the Kassel wheel speed was reported to have decreased under load?

This wheel [Kassel] turns with astonishing rapidity, making twenty-six turns in a minute, when the axle works unrestricted. Having tied a cord to the axle, to turn an archimedean screw for raising water, the wheel then made twenty turns a minute. This I noted several times by my watch, and I always found the same regularity.

Fischer's reference to 'regularity' seemed more to do with perceived consistency.

[jim_mich]

The speed variation of the Kassel wheel was minor when compared to the inconsistent speeds of windmills, horses, and dogs. Waterwheels run at a steady speed under steady loads, but their loaded speed compared to when free-wheeling is significantly slower.

I was trying to show that 'regularity' means consistence. A horse or dog will not always walk a same speed. Wind blows faster and slower. These don't provide a 'regular' consistent speed. Bessler' wheel ran a 'regular' consistent speed when loaded and a different but 'regular' consistent speed when working.

[primemignonite]

If I might be allowed to jump in here to hazard a guess?

It is that I think the things regulated their own selves ("it's alive - ALIVE!") according to mechanical necessity; that their ranges of speed were limited interiorly (internally), and could not ever-continue on account. (Good thing!)

As for those fore/aft penduli supposed to be for regulating of speeds, who ever reported seeing the weird oddments actually attached and going? (As creatures for transmission of the hidden and meant, they were/are exquisite.)

(I, as well, reserve that usual "right".)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Steve!

I am humbled by what you said. Thanks very much for the most kind words, and for being welcomed back so enthusiastically.

Yes, it was awhile being in self-imposed exile (sub Terra), but Father Time works quite hard to repair most of our bruised feelings, ill begotten or otherwise.

I am gladdened they you fancy somewhat the way I write but, I suspect others here positively loath it, believing it mere affectation for attention-getting. C'est la vie, non?

In the future I'll try harder to write things most plainly as well as otherwise, as the feelings may hit me. One cannot please everyone all the time, so it will just have to devolve to about 50/50 pleased and not, I suppose.

I note that you really are onto and into this topic. I've not much to add that's positive, honestly. Being the Perpetualist First-Class is as wearying as C-I-C, as it turns out. No mercy there is for the wicked.

Cheers!

James

[eccentrically1]

"Bessler' wheel ran a 'regular' consistent speed when loaded and a different but 'regular' consistent speed when working."

?
Do you mean different when unloaded? I thought working meant the same as loaded, unless you mean the friction was the load/work instead of boxes of weights, which is obviously a heavier load than the wheels' own friction. I don't think we ever reached a conclusion about the speeds under different loads.
Could some of the witnesses have miscounted revolutions?

[daxwc]

Jim :

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.

Besslers never mentions the word gravity in any form. Here is Stewarts translation.

I] want indeed [to] briefly describe it here also:
namely a craftwork/artwork must drive itself
by many individual pieces [of] lead,
which are now always two and two,
one thing takes the outward position,
so the other drives/goes to the shaft,
this is soon here and that there,
and so it alternates on and on. &c.
(and it is precisely this principle,
about which Wagner [held me at fault]/[blamed me]
and completely untrue brought on me,
I would have made it known to nobody;)
For now may everyone guess,
through what kind of wonderful doings
this turns/sweeps heavily towards the centre,
and that drives/goes upwards. &c.
Because I must not speak German here,
nor open all shutters;
however want [to] put this rather friendly
notabene here still:

He also never mentions they are pairs; he says he was falsely accused that they act in pairs.

[jim_mich]

Yes, I should have typed 'unloaded' or 'free-running' instead of 'working'.

[jim_mich]

Concerning Bessler using the word 'gravity'. I thought I had made a mistake in claiming Bessler never used the word 'gravity', and so I attributed to him this one use. But it seems I was wrong in thinking I was wrong. Stewart's translation shows that the one time where the translators said that Bessler wrote 'gravitate' was actually a miss-translation. So Bessler never spoke of gravity or gravitate. The fact remains that Bessler talked of weights moving inward and outward, then claims Wagner talked of weight moving to the center and then back upward. I maintain these are different principles.

[rlortie]

Jim,

True, he does not speak of gravity per say, but yet a discerning eye might catch the following, and the capabilities of it being used in more than one form or terminology;

For now may everyone guess,
through what kind of wonderful doings
this turns/sweeps heavily towards the centre,
and that drives/goes upwards.

Ralph

[Andyb]

Hi all ,bessler said that when you can lightly cause a 1/4 to lift a lb then you have it ,the point i was trying to really make clear is that the the cross bars create this, i will post a photo of my latest prototype they say a picture says a thousand words ,thank god for that ,oh James i too enjoy your poetic use of language you bring colour to a black and white world keep um coming,Andy b.

[jim_mich]

I think Bessler was taunting Wagner when Bessler wrote about the 1 lifting 4. Go back and read it again and again. Read the paragraphs just before Bessler made this statement. Wagner kept talking about rising and falling weights. And Bessler wrote back that anyone who could make a lighter weight lift a heavier weight would be a really great craftsman. I don't think Bessler was talking about his own wheel. Bessler does not say that 1 lb lifting 4 lb was his (Bessler's) solution. He says anyone doing that would be great. I think he was taunting Wagner about what would be needed if you were to use gravity. Wagner kept talking of weights rising and falling. Bessler says that you would need for a 1 lb weight to lift 4 lb when using rising and falling weights as was being discussed by Wagner. Bessler says if you could make such a wheel where 1 lb can lift 4 lbs then, yes, you would have a PM wheel. But if you cannot, then all your hard work will be in vain. And the true fact is that a 1 lb weight cannot lift 4 lbs. This is why Bessler wrote this as a cautionary note.

Bessler talks of weights moving toward the wheel center then back out again. Wagner talks of rising and falling weights. The difference between the two concepts is totally lost on Wagner, and also by most people reading Bessler's words.

Bessler said that Wagner was right. Then Bessler added that he (Bessler) was also right. If Wagner was right, then by Bessler's own words his (Bessler's) wheel could not be a gravity wheel. It was a motion wheel with weights moving in and out. The in and out motions of the weights caused the weights to gain force and rotate the wheel.

In past threads it has been suggested that there should probably be some example in nature of Bessler's principle. Simply look at spinning ice-skaters who can cause their rate of spin to increase by pulling their arms inward.