One pound can cause the raising of a weight more than one pound.
And yet to date, an implement for such has no man found.
Both points are true, I dare tell you, but have you realised why?
Only if you do know how true mechanics are applied!
Anyone got the answer? I dont! lol
Alex
My Version of Bessler's Riddle
Moderator: scott
My Version of Bessler's Riddle
"A great craftsman would be that man who can 'lightly' cause a heavy weight to fly upwards!..." (Page: 291)
See: Gravity Wheel -or- Motion Wheel
It is my opinion that 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.
Wagner was telling Bessler that gravity cannot cause perpetual motion. And Bessler was answering back, mocking Wagner for his very long detailed writing about how falling weights cannot make heavier weights rise back up.
Bessler claimed a perpetual motion wheel. He never claimed a gravity wheel.
Bessler said that his wheel was rotated using weights. Many people assume that the gravity force of the weights rotated Bessler' wheel. But Bessler said the weights gained force from their moving/swinging. He never said they gained force from their gravity force.
Bessler said the weights in his wheel move in and out. Many people assume that gravity force acting on unbalanced weights rotated Bessler' wheel. Few people think about the ice-skater effect where extending and retracting of arms causes change of rotational speed. Why not look for a way of pumping the wheel rotation by weights moving in and out, rather than by gravity, which science tells us is a conservative force that cannot add perpetual energy to a rotating wheel.
Bessler's later wheels were balanced when at rest. Must we assume that they became suddenly gravitationally unbalanced one direction when rotated one way and gravitationally unbalanced in the reverse direction when rotated the other way? It seems more logical that his balanced wheel became inertially unbalanced when rotated fast enough for centrifugal force to move the weights, rather than becoming gravitationally unbalanced. When rotated very slowly, his two-way wheels did not become unbalanced. Only when rotated a little faster did the weights inside the wheel begin to move and then it started to self-rotate, and when the speed increased a little, it then quickly accelerated up to speed.
I'm sorry, I started typing and my fingers didn't want to stop. I almost erased this and didn't post it. But then I thought, why not post this.
Remember, I could be wrong.
Or I might be right and Bessler's wheel was a motion wheel and not a gravity wheel.
It is my opinion that 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.
Obviously if you can make a lighter weight lift a heavier weight, then you can make a gravity wheel.Bessler wrote: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.
Wagner was telling Bessler that gravity cannot cause perpetual motion. And Bessler was answering back, mocking Wagner for his very long detailed writing about how falling weights cannot make heavier weights rise back up.
Bessler also said that Wagner was right, and that he (Bessler) was also right.Bessler wrote: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!
Bessler claimed a perpetual motion wheel. He never claimed a gravity wheel.
Bessler said that his wheel was rotated using weights. Many people assume that the gravity force of the weights rotated Bessler' wheel. But Bessler said the weights gained force from their moving/swinging. He never said they gained force from their gravity force.
Bessler said the weights in his wheel move in and out. Many people assume that gravity force acting on unbalanced weights rotated Bessler' wheel. Few people think about the ice-skater effect where extending and retracting of arms causes change of rotational speed. Why not look for a way of pumping the wheel rotation by weights moving in and out, rather than by gravity, which science tells us is a conservative force that cannot add perpetual energy to a rotating wheel.
Bessler's later wheels were balanced when at rest. Must we assume that they became suddenly gravitationally unbalanced one direction when rotated one way and gravitationally unbalanced in the reverse direction when rotated the other way? It seems more logical that his balanced wheel became inertially unbalanced when rotated fast enough for centrifugal force to move the weights, rather than becoming gravitationally unbalanced. When rotated very slowly, his two-way wheels did not become unbalanced. Only when rotated a little faster did the weights inside the wheel begin to move and then it started to self-rotate, and when the speed increased a little, it then quickly accelerated up to speed.
I'm sorry, I started typing and my fingers didn't want to stop. I almost erased this and didn't post it. But then I thought, why not post this.
Remember, I could be wrong.
Or I might be right and Bessler's wheel was a motion wheel and not a gravity wheel.
re: My Version of Bessler's Riddle
Jim
Thanks that you have taken the time to post! I have read your opinions also concerning this and I am in much favour with the idea and agree with you. Gravity alone is not enough to cause perpetual motion. If a simple gravity wheel cannot work then complicating one just adds more weight but no work. However I dont believe that gravity and centrifugal force is enough either because though centrifugal force varies, once that weight is out at the rim its got to fight against centrifugal force to get back near to the axle again. Using the inertial momentum of the weights once they are moving seems a right step forward but it still leaves me hanging because once those weights in momentum begin to do work they begin to lose momentum.
I have recently tested a very simple wheel diesign which I expected to work but as far as I can tell the action does not work. I thought upon what Bessler had said concerning children playing with his motive force in the street. I once read on here the suggestion that Bessler may have been refering to the "hoop and stick" game which my grandad used to play as a young boy. I thought about the matter and came to a simple yet possible design.
My thinking was that a rolling wheel has a greater centrifugal force at the top of the wheel than at the bottom because the bottom of the wheel that rolls along the ground does not move as fast as the top area of the wheel that travels in a large ark. So I got a wheel and attached two weighted levers one on each side of the rim across from each other and connected them together via come cord. I then rolled the wheel along the ground in hope that the weight passing up above would fling out and pull the bottom weight up into the centre because the bottom weight is experiencing a lesser strength of centrifugal force. I have tested this but it is very difficult to see whats taking place because the wheel rolls fast and the weights look like a blur. The only thing I can think is that it is failing to work because though the speed at the bottom of the wheel is slower, the angle of the curve it takes is greater than that at the top which is probably resulting in an equal centrifgual strength at the bottom and top of the wheel.
For this reason I dont think centrifugal force alone will work either.
And thus far my story is:
Perpetual Motion I have sought through many odd designs.
Iv'e drawn and tested physical models and none showed any signs.
The possibility must be there but where I cannot tell.
Iv'e searched for such in natures laws but nothing rang a bell.
Iv'e played with weights and springs and such but none retained their motion.
Iv'e even looked at water wheels but still I have no notion.
For all my searching I am still without this work of art.
I long to gain this understanding, build, and watch it start.
:) Alex
Thanks that you have taken the time to post! I have read your opinions also concerning this and I am in much favour with the idea and agree with you. Gravity alone is not enough to cause perpetual motion. If a simple gravity wheel cannot work then complicating one just adds more weight but no work. However I dont believe that gravity and centrifugal force is enough either because though centrifugal force varies, once that weight is out at the rim its got to fight against centrifugal force to get back near to the axle again. Using the inertial momentum of the weights once they are moving seems a right step forward but it still leaves me hanging because once those weights in momentum begin to do work they begin to lose momentum.
I have recently tested a very simple wheel diesign which I expected to work but as far as I can tell the action does not work. I thought upon what Bessler had said concerning children playing with his motive force in the street. I once read on here the suggestion that Bessler may have been refering to the "hoop and stick" game which my grandad used to play as a young boy. I thought about the matter and came to a simple yet possible design.
My thinking was that a rolling wheel has a greater centrifugal force at the top of the wheel than at the bottom because the bottom of the wheel that rolls along the ground does not move as fast as the top area of the wheel that travels in a large ark. So I got a wheel and attached two weighted levers one on each side of the rim across from each other and connected them together via come cord. I then rolled the wheel along the ground in hope that the weight passing up above would fling out and pull the bottom weight up into the centre because the bottom weight is experiencing a lesser strength of centrifugal force. I have tested this but it is very difficult to see whats taking place because the wheel rolls fast and the weights look like a blur. The only thing I can think is that it is failing to work because though the speed at the bottom of the wheel is slower, the angle of the curve it takes is greater than that at the top which is probably resulting in an equal centrifgual strength at the bottom and top of the wheel.
For this reason I dont think centrifugal force alone will work either.
And thus far my story is:
Perpetual Motion I have sought through many odd designs.
Iv'e drawn and tested physical models and none showed any signs.
The possibility must be there but where I cannot tell.
Iv'e searched for such in natures laws but nothing rang a bell.
Iv'e played with weights and springs and such but none retained their motion.
Iv'e even looked at water wheels but still I have no notion.
For all my searching I am still without this work of art.
I long to gain this understanding, build, and watch it start.
:) Alex
"A great craftsman would be that man who can 'lightly' cause a heavy weight to fly upwards!..." (Page: 291)
re: My Version of Bessler's Riddle
Jim:
Momentum / swinging which still doesn’t exclude out of balance wheels.But Bessler said the weights gained force from their moving/swinging.
What goes around, comes around.
Re: My Version of Bessler's Riddle
Alex,Alexioco wrote:One pound can cause the raising of a weight more than one pound.
And yet to date, an implement for such has no man found.
Both points are true, I dare tell you, but have you realised why?
Only if you do know how true mechanics are applied!
Anyone got the answer? I dont! lol
Alex
welcome back!
But pls don't come to remember us such sad stuffs... 8(
My view for the set is this, since I think JB wasn't exactly nuts:
* 1 pound 'element' find 'position' and 'complete' a sum total weight at other a side.
* then at opposite more than 1 pound rises against 1 pound.
Best!
M
re: My Version of Bessler's Riddle
Hey murilo
Its nice to see that you are all still posting on the forum!
So by what you said, if I understand correctly, are you saying that you find the position of a one pound weight within a wheel and calculate a sum total of the weight on the other side of the wheel?.
Alex
Its nice to see that you are all still posting on the forum!
So by what you said, if I understand correctly, are you saying that you find the position of a one pound weight within a wheel and calculate a sum total of the weight on the other side of the wheel?.
Alex
"A great craftsman would be that man who can 'lightly' cause a heavy weight to fly upwards!..." (Page: 291)
re: My Version of Bessler's Riddle
Alexioco:
I thought about the matter and came to a simple yet possible design.
My thinking was that a rolling wheel has a greater centrifugal force at the top of the wheel than at the bottom because the bottom of the wheel that rolls along the ground does not move as fast as the top area of the wheel that travels in a large ark. So I got a wheel and attached two weighted levers one on each side of the rim across from each other and connected them together via come cord. I then rolled the wheel along the ground in hope that the weight passing up above would fling out and pull the bottom weight up into the centre because the bottom weight is experiencing a lesser strength of centrifugal force. I have tested this but it is very difficult to see whats taking place because the wheel rolls fast and the weights look like a blur. The only thing I can think is that it is failing to work because though the speed at the bottom of the wheel is slower, the angle of the curve it takes is greater than that at the top which is probably resulting in an equal centrifgual strength at the bottom and top of the wheel.
Pequaide: Centrifugal force is caused by spinning and the bottom of the wheel is spinning just as fast as the top. Lets say the wheel is rolling to the left at one meter per second. That means the center (and center of mass) is moving one meter per second to the left. This means that the top is moving one meter per second to the left in relationship to the center. And the bottom is moving one meter per second to the right in relationship to the center. They are both spinning around the center at one meter per second, so their centrifugal forces will be the same.
But lets look at their real velocities. The mass at the top is moving 2 meter per second to the left. The mass at the bottom is not moving at all: Zero meter per second. Let the wheel be a two point mass wheel with one kilogram at the bottom and one kilogram at the top. The wheel itself is moving one meter per second to the left for 1/2* 2kg*1m/sec*1m/sec = 1 joule of energy. But the top of the wheel has 1/2 *1kg*2m/sec*2m/sec = 2 joules of energy. The top of the wheel has more energy than the wheel itself.
What if the wheel was sliding at one meter per second on dry ice; but then it was caught on the bottom. The energy of the wheel would immediately double.
The fact that the mass is moving to the left is not a problem. Pendulum masses rise just as high as a mass moving straight up. And pendulum masses are moving left or right at the bottom.
I thought about the matter and came to a simple yet possible design.
My thinking was that a rolling wheel has a greater centrifugal force at the top of the wheel than at the bottom because the bottom of the wheel that rolls along the ground does not move as fast as the top area of the wheel that travels in a large ark. So I got a wheel and attached two weighted levers one on each side of the rim across from each other and connected them together via come cord. I then rolled the wheel along the ground in hope that the weight passing up above would fling out and pull the bottom weight up into the centre because the bottom weight is experiencing a lesser strength of centrifugal force. I have tested this but it is very difficult to see whats taking place because the wheel rolls fast and the weights look like a blur. The only thing I can think is that it is failing to work because though the speed at the bottom of the wheel is slower, the angle of the curve it takes is greater than that at the top which is probably resulting in an equal centrifgual strength at the bottom and top of the wheel.
Pequaide: Centrifugal force is caused by spinning and the bottom of the wheel is spinning just as fast as the top. Lets say the wheel is rolling to the left at one meter per second. That means the center (and center of mass) is moving one meter per second to the left. This means that the top is moving one meter per second to the left in relationship to the center. And the bottom is moving one meter per second to the right in relationship to the center. They are both spinning around the center at one meter per second, so their centrifugal forces will be the same.
But lets look at their real velocities. The mass at the top is moving 2 meter per second to the left. The mass at the bottom is not moving at all: Zero meter per second. Let the wheel be a two point mass wheel with one kilogram at the bottom and one kilogram at the top. The wheel itself is moving one meter per second to the left for 1/2* 2kg*1m/sec*1m/sec = 1 joule of energy. But the top of the wheel has 1/2 *1kg*2m/sec*2m/sec = 2 joules of energy. The top of the wheel has more energy than the wheel itself.
What if the wheel was sliding at one meter per second on dry ice; but then it was caught on the bottom. The energy of the wheel would immediately double.
The fact that the mass is moving to the left is not a problem. Pendulum masses rise just as high as a mass moving straight up. And pendulum masses are moving left or right at the bottom.
re: My Version of Bessler's Riddle
Hi Alex,ive built a few now and realize every thing has to retain the power of free motion nothing must ever reach a point of rest,this is how i have managed to get a wheel to rotate to 40 rpm i will not even begin a build unless it is free to rotate,and i have built enough to know, still the answer to how exactly this can be done i am not sure,but i would say,that the system needs to be tapped at certain points and on top of that it is out of balance all the time the tap simply creates more energy to get over the friction of the system then momentum takes it roll, my thoughts on creating more energy are based on shapes that these weights rotate in, Bessler said some thing about the energy created was down to the size of the compartment, and probably the size of the weight,it seems to me that the impacting weight is due to cf and momentum working together on the fall side but no impact on the lift side, makes sense,to me anyway i hope my ramblings have been helpful.
All the best Andy.
All the best Andy.
Only by making mistakes can you truly learn
Re: re: My Version of Bessler's Riddle
Yes, Alex.Alexioco wrote:Hey murilo
Its nice to see that you are all still posting on the forum!
So by what you said, if I understand correctly, are you saying that you find the position of a one pound weight within a wheel and calculate a sum total of the weight on the other side of the wheel?.
Alex
If we have a 12 hammers wheel, with symmetry, we deal to 6 at each half.
The 7th switched at straight side will force balance break.
If the set has already some KE, stuffs will turn fine.
So, 1 pound will move more than 1. A JB bad joke but true mech? 8(
re: My Version of Bessler's Riddle
Hi Alex.
I have read your postings.
It was very interesing ideas.
I aleady suggest the method of lifting heavy weight using small weight.
But No one agree to my method.
In my sim draw, which I have posted, I can lift 3.75kg using 1 kg.
In a special condition it is possible.
My on-building wheel, I use 1kg small weights and 15kg big weights.
Four small weights can lift two big weights.
30 kg is lifted by 4 kg.
The ratio is decided by lever length and pivot point.
It is the main concept of my wheel design.
SK
I have read your postings.
It was very interesing ideas.
I aleady suggest the method of lifting heavy weight using small weight.
But No one agree to my method.
In my sim draw, which I have posted, I can lift 3.75kg using 1 kg.
In a special condition it is possible.
My on-building wheel, I use 1kg small weights and 15kg big weights.
Four small weights can lift two big weights.
30 kg is lifted by 4 kg.
The ratio is decided by lever length and pivot point.
It is the main concept of my wheel design.
SK
I don't say I can do it, I do it until I can.
re: My Version of Bessler's Riddle
Hey Pequaide
Thank you for the very imformative post!
So the bottom of the wheel is spinning just as fast as the top of the wheel in relation to the centre of the wheel and thus their centrifugal force is equal at both the top and the bottom. However, in relation to the ground, the top of the wheel is traveling faster than the bottom of the wheel. I hope I have correctly understood what you said.
This seems interesting to me becaus there muste therefore be some possible advantage to this if the top of the wheel in relation to the ground is always faster than the bottom of the wheel. There must be a continual state of imbalance between the top and bottom of a rolling wheel which may open up possibilites.
Hey Andy
The use of centrifugal force and momentum is also in my opinion an interesting area of thought.
The part concerning the size of the compartment I agther that you are refering to is:
"To this end they are enclosed in a structure or framework, and coordinated
in such a way that not only are they prevented from attaining their desired equilibrium or ‘point of rest’, but they must for ever seek it, thereby developing an impressive velocity which is proportional to their mass and to the dimensions of their housing."
So the velocity of the weights was proportional to how much mass they contained and to the dimensions of their housing which to me seems to imply that the reason Besslers wheels rotated at a certain speed was for this reason.
When Bessler says about retaining the power of free movement I gather this to imply that parts affected other parts within the wheel without each individual part losing its own power of free movement. Bessler is calling free movement a power so maybe parts within the wheel had a double use:
1. That a part affects another part
2. Its own independant movement some how also contributes to the motion.
Just speculation really...
Hey sequeen
Hope that you progress with your build. Are you close to finishing it?
Alex
Thank you for the very imformative post!
So the bottom of the wheel is spinning just as fast as the top of the wheel in relation to the centre of the wheel and thus their centrifugal force is equal at both the top and the bottom. However, in relation to the ground, the top of the wheel is traveling faster than the bottom of the wheel. I hope I have correctly understood what you said.
This seems interesting to me becaus there muste therefore be some possible advantage to this if the top of the wheel in relation to the ground is always faster than the bottom of the wheel. There must be a continual state of imbalance between the top and bottom of a rolling wheel which may open up possibilites.
Hey Andy
The use of centrifugal force and momentum is also in my opinion an interesting area of thought.
The part concerning the size of the compartment I agther that you are refering to is:
"To this end they are enclosed in a structure or framework, and coordinated
in such a way that not only are they prevented from attaining their desired equilibrium or ‘point of rest’, but they must for ever seek it, thereby developing an impressive velocity which is proportional to their mass and to the dimensions of their housing."
So the velocity of the weights was proportional to how much mass they contained and to the dimensions of their housing which to me seems to imply that the reason Besslers wheels rotated at a certain speed was for this reason.
When Bessler says about retaining the power of free movement I gather this to imply that parts affected other parts within the wheel without each individual part losing its own power of free movement. Bessler is calling free movement a power so maybe parts within the wheel had a double use:
1. That a part affects another part
2. Its own independant movement some how also contributes to the motion.
Just speculation really...
Hey sequeen
Hope that you progress with your build. Are you close to finishing it?
Alex
"A great craftsman would be that man who can 'lightly' cause a heavy weight to fly upwards!..." (Page: 291)
re: My Version of Bessler's Riddle
Alexioco wrote in answer to pequaide:
This was taught to me at an early age using a steam engine as an example. the engine rolls over the wheels laying them down and picking them up as it advances. Same with a crawler tractor, if the cleats on the ground are moving then the machine is stuck.
Ralph
You got it! but here is another example: In relation to the ground if the tire is spinning you are not going anywhere, you are stuck! In reality the top and bottom are spinning at the same rate, only in reference with the ground the top is turning twice as fast as that not moving setting on the pavement.So the bottom of the wheel is spinning just as fast as the top of the wheel in relation to the centre of the wheel and thus their centrifugal force is equal at both the top and the bottom. However, in relation to the ground, the top of the wheel is traveling faster than the bottom of the wheel. I hope I have correctly understood what you said.
This was taught to me at an early age using a steam engine as an example. the engine rolls over the wheels laying them down and picking them up as it advances. Same with a crawler tractor, if the cleats on the ground are moving then the machine is stuck.
Ralph
re: My Version of Bessler's Riddle
Heya Ralph long time no speak :)
Looks like another one of my ideas is shot down again :P. Back to the drawing board...
Ralph, I have read alot of what Jim Mich says concerning gravity, centrifugal force, and momentum and I am persuaded that he is on the correct path. I have looked at so many gravity only designs and they all seem to suffer from that same fate that a weight cannot rise any heigher from which it has fallen. However centrifugal force has its problems in bringing a weight back in toward the centre of a wheel after it has shot outwards. Momentum itself decreases when it is put to any work... So reverting back to the topic, Bessler must have achieved the raising of a heavy weight by a light weight in a way which is not how anyone would normally assume.
When Bessler says:
"On one side it is heavy and full; on the other empty and light, just as it should be."
This would imply that the wheel was overbalanced, but Bessler also says:
"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."
So though his wheel was overbalanced in weight and thus revolved this by itself is not enough to cause perpetual motion.
What do you think?
Alex
Looks like another one of my ideas is shot down again :P. Back to the drawing board...
Ralph, I have read alot of what Jim Mich says concerning gravity, centrifugal force, and momentum and I am persuaded that he is on the correct path. I have looked at so many gravity only designs and they all seem to suffer from that same fate that a weight cannot rise any heigher from which it has fallen. However centrifugal force has its problems in bringing a weight back in toward the centre of a wheel after it has shot outwards. Momentum itself decreases when it is put to any work... So reverting back to the topic, Bessler must have achieved the raising of a heavy weight by a light weight in a way which is not how anyone would normally assume.
When Bessler says:
"On one side it is heavy and full; on the other empty and light, just as it should be."
This would imply that the wheel was overbalanced, but Bessler also says:
"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."
So though his wheel was overbalanced in weight and thus revolved this by itself is not enough to cause perpetual motion.
What do you think?
Alex
"A great craftsman would be that man who can 'lightly' cause a heavy weight to fly upwards!..." (Page: 291)
re: My Version of Bessler's Riddle
Being in relationship to the ground is a big advantage. The ground is what you build your tower on to catch the thrown mass, and the frame for your Atwood to cause the motion in the first please. The top mass does have more energy and it will fly up.
It is a throw; not a balance.
Throw the top mass.
It is a throw; not a balance.
Throw the top mass.
re: My Version of Bessler's Riddle
Alex,
You ask, what do I think:
I think you can take about 95% of what Bessler says and throw it out with the trash! I have after all these years of turmoil came to the conclusion, you are better off striking out on your own and forget Bessler.
One side is full the other empty: Ok, where is he standing when he points this out, is he looking at it from the rim, left or right or front to back? For that matter he could be referring to the top and bottom halves if you stretch it a wee bit.
As for centrifugal force, your well aware that Bob Koski has been trying to prove his machine can run on CF for how many years? He has added pneumatic pistons to untold number of builds and still cannot produce more power than his air compressor puts in.
As Jim_Mich points out; Bessler does not say that his machine can lift a heavy weight while a light one falls. He says it would take a great craftsman to acquire this feat.
You can take just about any design, and by using Bessler's play on words describe your machine. I am currently building one of my own design on an idea sparked by forum member "Erick". I can describe it as follows without lying.
It has weights that work in pairs, They move in and out, if it works then I can add; seeking but never finding. I can also say it is a balanced wheel, bi-directional and has a lever sticking through the axle not unlike the Merseburg drawing. Used for stopping, starting and changing direction of rotation.
None of the above is in any attempt to duplicate Bessler's wheels or his written text. It is in fact influenced more by the 1771 disquisitions of William Kendrick (1725-1779)... It is not recorded as to what his knowledge of Bessler was known, but he most certainly had something up his sleeve!
It is my opinion that if you waste one decade attempting to build by Bessler's alleged clues, you will waste 10 years of your life as I readily admit exceeding.
Ralph
You ask, what do I think:
I think you can take about 95% of what Bessler says and throw it out with the trash! I have after all these years of turmoil came to the conclusion, you are better off striking out on your own and forget Bessler.
One side is full the other empty: Ok, where is he standing when he points this out, is he looking at it from the rim, left or right or front to back? For that matter he could be referring to the top and bottom halves if you stretch it a wee bit.
As for centrifugal force, your well aware that Bob Koski has been trying to prove his machine can run on CF for how many years? He has added pneumatic pistons to untold number of builds and still cannot produce more power than his air compressor puts in.
As Jim_Mich points out; Bessler does not say that his machine can lift a heavy weight while a light one falls. He says it would take a great craftsman to acquire this feat.
You can take just about any design, and by using Bessler's play on words describe your machine. I am currently building one of my own design on an idea sparked by forum member "Erick". I can describe it as follows without lying.
It has weights that work in pairs, They move in and out, if it works then I can add; seeking but never finding. I can also say it is a balanced wheel, bi-directional and has a lever sticking through the axle not unlike the Merseburg drawing. Used for stopping, starting and changing direction of rotation.
None of the above is in any attempt to duplicate Bessler's wheels or his written text. It is in fact influenced more by the 1771 disquisitions of William Kendrick (1725-1779)... It is not recorded as to what his knowledge of Bessler was known, but he most certainly had something up his sleeve!
It is my opinion that if you waste one decade attempting to build by Bessler's alleged clues, you will waste 10 years of your life as I readily admit exceeding.
Ralph