Wheel acceleration...

[bluesgtr44]

What a rude awakening. Sorry to have opened up some old scabs, guys. I am fairly new...ok....real new and haven't been through a lot of the cyles here.

I am really on the side of..."there is an internal mechanism"...what it is, I do not know. This mechanism "drives" the outer "wheel". It comes back to some of my earlier statements about an eccentric inside of a concentric. The outer wheel "runs" the weights to the outer edge. Now, I believe I might have gotten this backwards in an earlier statement, but basically....I get that there are 2 mechanisms, an inner mechanism (I believe o be the "driver") and an outer mechanism (I believe to be the "runner")...because this outer mechanism will provide the "runners" for the weights to travel on.

This is the aspect I am approaching. This is why I needed clarification of the statements...is it 2 mechanisms?

Fletch! Thank you! This is so important to this equation. The acceleration would be greatly increased if the weight from that quadrant were removed (like by a pendulum, Ralph). Now, I understand this is in no way a verification...would like to really hear from some of those who can work up dome demos.

Look, I know this might sound crazy...but, like I said...this is the way I work. ALL questions are relevant. Read my message by Al Einstein. "....asking the right questions." ALL questions are relevant.

To find out if there is an inner device, I looked at all the information I had dissemenated. Then from that information I moved them to "sections" that I thought would be relevant to the answer I needed.

Let it be known that most of my information comes from this sight and linked sights by most of the people I have shown a lot of respect for in my postings. I own none of the publications. My conclusion is....there is something inside that there darn wheel...and it either "shifts" the weights or "lifts" the weights to provide a disproportionate alignment of the overall weight within the "concentric" wheel.

So, the next step was to figure out which..."shifting" or "lifting"...and the only solid evidence I could see presented to me to figure this out was...acceleration. I know the acceleration speed. It reached maximum speed within 2 to 3 revolutions. OK, not being the mathmetician, this is where I came to solicite the advice of my mentors. The acceleration Speed. My experiments led me to believe that to reach this speed the "device" is lifting...not shifting.

I hope this makes things a little clearer as to where I am headed and why. I want to thank Ralph for standing up for what he sees. After all, most of this is a vision...isn't it?

Steve

[Stewart]

Ralph,

Your right DSU did not offer German language, on the other hand they did not teach that Besslers active device was made up of only one wheel.

I don't think anyone has said here that there definitely isn't another wheel inside the main wheel - no one could say that for sure without working out exactly how Bessler did it, which to my knowledge nobody has done yet. What I am trying to do is give an accurate translation and show that the one on this site is wrong.

They did however teach that if you are educated and cannot find agreement, it is easier to change the text to match your point.

Quite frankly I'm offended by this. I've just spent a large chunk of my day painstakingly translating that paragraph of DT for the members of this board when I had many other things I should have been doing. I did this because it grieves me to see others devoting their time and effort on wheel designs based on false information. I certainly haven't changed the text to match my point, as I don't know how Bessler's wheel works yet. My only motive is to get to the truth. Ignorance is no excuse - I didn't learn German at school either but since becoming interested in Bessler I have made the effort to learn about German writing and do my own translations. If you don't want to get involved in studying Bessler's writings, then please don't attack those of use that do.

I refuse to follow the flock in the pursuance of one wheel and no pendulums. when I first joined this forum, my first or second thread was regarding pendulums and crank journals. I was politely informed that the member consensus was that Bessler did not use either one. Now the pendulums are back and the question is, are there two wheels and for what purpose the pendulum.

The pendulums and cranks have always been there in Bessler's writings and drawings, and their purpose is explained by Bessler, the only thing that was pointed out to you was that there are no witness testimonies that talk about pendulums being seen attached to the wheels. Going by Bessler's comments it would seem that the pendulums are not needed for the wheel to work.

do I have to give away my whole secret or just quit posting on besslerwheel.com.

Ralph, I value you contributions on this board, and I'm sure others do to, but please don't become one of those annoying people who waste our time by dangling carrots trying to get us to guess how their theoretical wheel design "works".

Do you not understand that "accordingly" means a minimum of two.

No I don't - please explain.

It is all right there in writing, If you can not see it please do not re-interpit the translation of the text in a biased way to fit your needs.

I take it you are referring to the translation provided by "Al Bacon" on the DT page of this site. That translation is seriously flawed. If you want a more accurate translation then read John's DT translation or mine. In both John's and my translation the text has not been biased to fit any "needs".

I and one other member will likely be posting less here and doing more lurking. It will be hard, as this forum has proven to be addictive.

Best of luck to you (and the mystery member) in your research.

Regards,
Stewart

[Fletcher]

There is another way too Fletcher, it would be the wheel rotated solely by the means of springs which in turn got their power from weights. I don't think this idea has ever been considered, and if it has it hasn't been discussed much. In other words instead of gravity partially driving the wheel and partially powering springs which also partially drive the wheel, a wheel is completely driven by springs which get the power from weights. The wheel resets the weights positions only.

Hi Mike,

I just whipped this up after reading your post. It was the first wheel I ever built in my garage many years ago. It might be similar to what you are talking about.

The yellow weights on the ends of arms are attached via ropes & pulleys to springs which connect to an offset cam arrangement.

The idea was that the weights have most leverage when horizontal at about 12 o'cl & fall (sag) towards the center of the wheel (the wts can't fall outside the rim at any time). This tensions the springs via the ropes & pulleys. Although my quick wm2d doesn't show the wts entirely in the correct positions you can get the gist. The idea was that the wts would keel lowering the CoG but that the spring tensions would then pull the wt sets around etc.

[rlortie]

Stewart,

In regards to your post addressed to me I would like to state the following.

I did not aim my statements at you or John. I believe that you have both did you unbiased best to interpret these writings.

If as you say I have offended you, please be advised that you were not intended to be a part of my statement. If I ruffled your feathers I apologize.

If you would be so kind as to review the posts in this thread from the beginning, including your own, then maybe you will understand the reasoning for the statements I made. I believe it is called interpolation and in my thinking this thread got carried away with it.

I am not here to dangle carrots but to add input and research my own ideas without others exploiting them. In this respect I know that there are others who have there secrets to hide also.

I am a big boy with integrity and only wish to stand up for what is right. I feel that Steve had and has valid point and I only wished to agree, defend and stand behind him.

As for the term "in accordance" my dictionary difines meaning to be in accordance or correspondendly, so consequently. I derive that to mean, consequently their are two wheels that correspond with each other accordingly.
Regards

Ralph

[Jonathan]

>As for the term "in accordance" my dictionary difines meaning to be in accordance or correspondendly, so consequently. I derive that to mean, consequently their are two wheels that correspond with each other accordingly.<
This is a moot point because I've done the translation and the word just isn't there. It seems to me that it was added in the process of making the text readable. Ted took the first sentence of this section, and broke it into five for readability, "Accordingly" occurs at the beginning of the third.
I move that a disclaimer be given at the top of Ted's translation.

[ovyyus]

A big second from me.

[bluesgtr44]

Who's Ted? Where is his interpretation?

Thanks Jim and Stewart...first Jim:

a wheel to call wants, then the main piece of my Machine can is also in such a way called; and therefore this wheel...

This was a three beer peice of reading, Jim. He seems to separate the two here to me. If you want to call this a wheel, then you can also call the main part of my machine a wheel. Then he goes on..."and therefore THIS wheel, like he is pointing to the outer wheel, is covered with blah blah yadda yadda. But, I do see where interpretation can lead in both directions.

Stewart:

For if one wants to refer to a rotating disc or shallow cylinder, fixed horitzontally about its axis in the manner of a grindstone, as a "wheel", then the main piece of my Machine can also be called this; and so this "wheel" consists...

I see the same thing, that word "also" seems to separate. If you call this a wheel...he is pointing to the canvas covered part...Then the main part of the machine can ALSO be referred to as the same thing.

Got to avoid the trap of desire here...if you look for something hard enough, you'll find it...even if it really isn't there. That's why I like discussion like this that opens other avenues even if it doesn't fit ones "desired" direction. I believe it is safe to say that Mr. Bessler did not put forth as much effort to lead us to the solution as he did to hide it. Hazy discriptions and broad interpretations was what he wanted.

Maybe I need to buy the book, huh?

Has anyone else besides Fletch given any real thought to the acceleration theory I'm trying to figure out?

Steve

[scott]

OK Bill and Jonathan. What do you want the disclaimer to say?

[rlortie]

Steve,

I am sorry that I cannot help you on your acceleration problem. I am not by no means a mathematician(another DSU problem). But I offer my thoughts in this respect. please do not consider this as my firm belief, it is conjecture only.

Besslers first wheel is said to have been only 4" thick and only turned in one direction. It had to be tied down to stop it. The other bi- directional wheels were of thicker size and required a substantial push to start.

Ken asked if it was possible to put a wheel inside a wheel only 4" thick. My reply was yes but it would be very impractical unless he was limited on resources and time.

Now with the wider wheels we start throwing in "dogs on a leash, roaming horses, cats chasing juicy mice, spreading peacocks tail, ETC. Would all this also fit in a 4" wheel? I think not. Therefore I believe that after his first discovery he may have used the basic concept to modify more than one principle in updating each wheel. As Henry Ford went from a model "T" to a lincoln Town car.

This could be part of the descriptive problem in translation, as we are confused by what wheel may have contained what. Maybe this was done with forethought for that reason. Just more variables to consider.

With a calm and patient attitude I am open for discussion and or refute of this conjecture.

Ralph

[John Collins]

In one way you may be right Ralph. Bessler does say somewhere, that he has, since making his first discovery, found other ways of achieving the same result.

On the other hand I can say with confidence that all of his drawings, and I do mean all, may contain information that should lead to a device using the same method. This implies that he designed all of his drawings right back at the beginning, perhaps roughly or in his mind's eye, and released them gradually over a period of time, encoding the same method of driving his wheel in a continuous stream of hints in several drawings.

I don't think that the intention was primarily to leave information for us, although he does allow for that, but rather for the purpose of being able to produce published proof should someone else make and sell a similar machine. In which case the clues to the evidence are difficult to find without pointers to the starting place.

In fact this is not a bad idea for whoever among us solved this problem. Produce encoded description and post it or publish it for all the world to see - and not see - if you see what I mean!

John Collins

[Jonathan]

Maybe something like: "This translation is disputed as it can be taken different ways". But whatever you think is right.
This is Ted's translation.
When I read Jim's translation, I hear the emphasis of "this" in my head more like how an alien would say it: "This wheel, as you earth-men call it,".
As for Stewart's translation, "also" is no problem. He starts the sentence with a hypothetical: "For if one wants to refer to a...". Then he describes this imaginary object, and says 'if you'd call that thing a wheel, then that is the best way to describe the main piece of my machine (because it is of the same form)'. "Also" implies two wheels, however context indicates that the first is just an example.
It is important to realize that a PMM needn't be a wheel, and Bessler is trying to put some information out there so his idea is protected as his own, so that he is from our veiw being unnecessarily picky and verbose. This is much like a patent, where they are so specific can clear to make sure that there is no misunderstanding, that the writing itself is incomprehensible; it's really hard to read sentences half a page long!

[jim_mich]

Bessler made many statements describing his wheels. But in all of his writings he purposely left out certain details of his Principle of Perpetual Motion. This is the driving force that propels a workable wheel. Without knowledge of that Principle I think it is impossible to build a successful self-turning wheel. Bessler knew that, therefore all of his drawings and writings contain information that might be useful background information, but they lack all details about that one single vital piece of knowledge.

If someone else would have made and sold a similar machine then any published proof by Bessler would have done him no good. There were no patent or intellectual property laws during his time, which is why he was unable to sell his idea. The buyer would be in the same circumstance as Bessler. Once the idea became known any carpenter could build such wheels without any compensation to anyone.

One of the reason that Great Britain and the United States grew to be industrial giants is they protected the rights of individual inventors to prosper from there inventions. Without that posibility of some reward most inventors will not expend the time and money to pursue an idea.

[Michael]

There were no patent or intellectual property laws during his time, which is why he was unable to sell his idea. The buyer would be in the same circumstance as Bessler. Once the idea became known any carpenter could build such wheels without any compensation to anyone.

I could be wrong, or better yet this other person could be wrong but I had seen information posted by someone once saying that there was a type of patent law system back then. Can anyone help with this?

Mike

Actually I just found this from here so there were patens back into the 1600's.

http://www.mwtca.org/mwpat.htm

> BACKGROUND: Patents have been granted in some European countries (principally England and Italy) since about the 1600s. The United States began granting patents in 1790. It is unlikely that you will find a reference to patent protection on anything made in the 1700's or earlier. PATENT NUMBERS: As mentioned above, the United States started granting patents in 1790. However, no one saw fit to number the patents until 1836. Thus, there are 46 years of patents that fall outside the regular numbering system. This also means that patent number 1 was NOT the first U.S. patent. The vast majority of patents antique buffs are likely to encounter are in the regular numbering system that began in 1836. If there are no special letters before the number (or if the letters are only "US"), you have a normal "utility" patent and can order the patent by that number alone. If by chance your patent was granted before 1836 July 04, you will not likely be able to identify a patent number. If you do, it will be an "X-" number (e.g., X-4,963). However, copies of these patents can be ordered by citing the inventor's name and the patent date (year, month, and day), without the need for the number. Design patents (patents granted for the appearance of an object, rather than its function) are in a separate numbered series and begin with the letter "D" (e.g., D 142,030). Design patents may sound similar to copyright registrations, but they are quite distinct (that is a story for another time and place). Plant patents (not likely to be found by an antique buff) are also in a separate numbered series and begin with "P.P." (e.g., P.P. 392). An inventor's improvement to his own invention was, for a short time from 1838 to 1861, given a separate numbered series beginning with "A.I." (e.g., A.I. 278). If you happen to come across one of these numbers, you may also want to look up the original patent on which the improvement is based. Reissue patents (granted to correct defects in an original patent) are in a separate series beginning with "Re" (e.g., Re 1,611). Unlike some other countries, the U.S. gives patent numbers only for granted patents (applications have a different numbering system which becomes largely irrelevant once the patent is granted). Thus, when you see a U.S. patent number, it is for a granted patent.

GETTING COPIES OF PATENTS: If your antique has a patent number on it, you are in luck! The U.S. Patent Office has many patents available on line which you may retrieve directly from their site, you will find their site listed on our links page.You can order a copy of the patent from the patent office by sending the patent number(s) and a check (payable to the Assistant Commissioner for Patents) for $3.00 per patent (December 1995 price, no postage or handling charge) to:

[Michael]

Hi Fletcher,


Yes something like that. I guess that didn't work though.

Edit: I've decided to start a new thread for this idea.

[rlortie]

John,

THank you for your affermitve quick response. With respect I quote the following:

On the other hand I can say with confidence that all of his drawings, and I do mean all, may contain information that should lead to a device using the same method. This implies that he designed all of his drawings right back at the beginning, perhaps roughly or in his mind's eye, and released them gradually over a period of time, encoding the same method of driving his wheel in a continuous stream of hints in several drawings.

Here is where I see the perpetual rock and a hard spot. "In confidence all drawings may contain information that should lead to a device etc".

I am sorry John but this statement sounds more like something a politician would say, Not the John Collins I have communicated with and respect.

It is my contention, that he designed all his drawings at the beginning in his minds eye as he researched the possibilities of each conception, releasing them after he conceived and tried them. I do not believe that all drawings are related to only his ideas but more of a historical collection that he researched to include in his attempts.

A corelated attempt to assemble a puzzle of design pieces, as you state, may lead to the conclusion.

This is simply my feelings and as such are regardless to the outcome of referencing them with the poetic parables that we have to work with. I feel safe to state: We know that the pictures represents some limited mechanical means of energy tranferance. which one or ones change limited to PM.

Regards,

Ralph