Bessler's Wheel a Fraud----How?

[John Collins]

Good enough for me Steve. Thanks.

JC

[rlortie]

Steve wrote (in context):

This arrangement of his was not just barely getting a bit of an over balance....he had a serious over balance, did he not? One of my first threads here dealt with "wheel acceleration" because after I had read some of the basic information provided here, I couldn't get past the witnesses that proclaimed the fast and robust ability of this contraption to get from 0 to 60 rpm's within the first 2 to 3 rotations. This was his first un-directional wheel at Gera. Do that! Come up with any kind of arrangement that can do that! Do you not see how totally mind blowing that would be?

I've said this before...and here it is again. Reaction forces in the dynamic system. Use them.......or lose them. It has to be one or the other unless someone can propose any other rationale. Thus, he used a gear ratio that fed a flywheel configuration of some sorts....or he was actually able to harness those reaction forces and that is what drives the system. This would be along the lines of what Jim is looking at with CF.

Fast inertial acceleration can define physical properties.
The wheel construction would have to be of very light mass with the majority of its weight close to axis at start up. Bessler stated something to the effect[/b]; is it a wheel? For it has no rim, if they wish to call it a wheel so be it. These are my words not his.

The first models being of lessor diameter were said to be covered with thin planks, I take this to be equivalent to thin veneer. The latter were covered with canvas either of hemp or cotton. Cotton canvas was introduced into Europe in the eighth century and would weigh less than hemp.

He leaves us hanging as whether the axle was split or ran through the wheel. He leaves this in quandary by stating that he did not tell Wagner, simply implying that he did not state such a matter.

To accelerate in its expedient time, there would be little mass toward the perimeter, yet gain mass quickly once set into motion, the centrifugal force centripetally held in check would have to come from the axle. Thus also acting as a governor keeping the RPM in ratio to wheel diameter.

Ralph

[Fletcher]

... So, that's the back and forth of these two. Once this was put together it shone a big light as to when Bessler was talking about how his wheel operated or if he was talking about Wagners turnspit design.

Some of what we thought were clues [wiki page clues] weren't even about his wheel.....they were describing Wagners.

Here's where this came about on the forum here.....

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... l&start=15

Here is where I put together the critiques of Wagner as it applied to GB.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/download.php?id=4977

I never finished putting in Besslers rebuttal as it applied from AP.

On top of that Steve the wiki page 'clues' are not all about Bessler's wheels as you say - besides likely descriptions of other workings not related to Besslers wheels there are some observations taken as clues about Besslers wheels which are actually the author of testimonials comments about general principles, unrelated to Besslers actual work, IINM.

IMO, the wiki clues section could be a great resource but really needs a proper tidy up for accuracy & authenticity, as has been said before - else take it with a grain of salt.

[bluesgtr44]

Steve,

Thanks for that information. It really helps clear up some of the questions I had. I'll also check out those other threads. It sounds like they could really help us in understanding the context of certain quotes that have been addressed a bit as of late, too.

My pdf copies of some of the translated Bessler materials are, unfortunately, on a somewhat flaky hard drive in another computer at the moment.

When I can, I'll also try to share some of my thoughts on the load test mentioned in Andreas Weise's quote about the Merseberg wheel in which the wheel supposedly didn't slow down.

I can definitely recommend getting the books. I have all of them from PM:AAMS to MT. I think I have put so many parts of John's works out there that I might be one of his best advertisers. ;-)

If you can down load the document on the back and forth from GB to wagner's critiques and experimental wheel it will let you in on some of these misunderstandings. I do regret not finishing this one up and I may be inclined to do so in the future. This has brought me back to reviewing AP again on some of those responses......it's right next to me now. I'm at a part where I'm going to fill in some info for Ralph here shortly.

You're definitely above me in the physics department, so I look forward to your input on how this could have maintained the "exact" same rate as when running empty. He was very pointed in this and everyone else must have agreed or they would not have also signed off on this. He was the official chief in charge of this demonstration.


Steve

[bluesgtr44]

Good enough for me Steve. Thanks.

JC

;-)....you put in a lot of hard work, John.

[bluesgtr44]

Steve wrote (in context):

This arrangement of his was not just barely getting a bit of an over balance....he had a serious over balance, did he not? One of my first threads here dealt with "wheel acceleration" because after I had read some of the basic information provided here, I couldn't get past the witnesses that proclaimed the fast and robust ability of this contraption to get from 0 to 60 rpm's within the first 2 to 3 rotations. This was his first un-directional wheel at Gera. Do that! Come up with any kind of arrangement that can do that! Do you not see how totally mind blowing that would be?

I've said this before...and here it is again. Reaction forces in the dynamic system. Use them.......or lose them. It has to be one or the other unless someone can propose any other rationale. Thus, he used a gear ratio that fed a flywheel configuration of some sorts....or he was actually able to harness those reaction forces and that is what drives the system. This would be along the lines of what Jim is looking at with CF.

Fast inertial acceleration can define physical properties.
The wheel construction would have to be of very light mass with the majority of its weight close to axis at start up. Bessler stated something to the effect[/b]; is it a wheel? For it has no rim, if they wish to call it a wheel so be it. These are my words not his.

The first models being of lessor diameter were said to be covered with thin planks, I take this to be equivalent to thin veneer. The latter were covered with canvas either of hemp or cotton. Cotton canvas was introduced into Europe in the eighth century and would weigh less than hemp.

He leaves us hanging as whether the axle was split or ran through the wheel. He leaves this in quandary by stating that he did not tell Wagner, simply implying that he did not state such a matter.

To accelerate in its expedient time, there would be little mass toward the perimeter, yet gain mass quickly once set into motion, the centrifugal force centripetally held in check would have to come from the axle. Thus also acting as a governor keeping the RPM in ratio to wheel diameter.

Ralph

Hey Ralph....

Fast inertial acceleration can define physical properties.
The wheel construction would have to be of very light mass with the majority of its weight close to axis at start up.

Not sure about the weight of the first two uni-directional wheels, but this is about the Merseburg wheel.


This is from AP, page 334....John Collins pub. This is where Bessler is responding to Wagners critique about him being permitted to remove the weights.

Dwayne, this is where the mention of sending the coachmen to pick up Wagner is found. So, Wagner was not at the Merseburg demonstration.

The empty wheel was so heavy that it could hardly be lifted to its new bearing. With the weights it would have needed the Devil to lift it - I suppose Wagner could done it alone? If he'd been there, the wheel could have run longer and I'd have been spared a lot of trouble. I'm at fault with Wagner because I didn't arrange for the coachmen to fetch him. If he had come I'd have given him a job keeping away the crowds trying to force their way in.

And this again from Weise....

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 great effort.

Now, it doesn't give a time stamp and you know I've been trying to find this for a long time. But, it does seem as if it is conveying that it didn't take long to get up to speed.

He leaves us hanging as whether the axle was split or ran through the wheel. He leaves this in quandary by stating that he did not tell Wagner, simply implying that he did not state such a matter.

Not completely hanging.....

AP, page 335....John Collins pub.

Now look, Wagner, just listen carefully if you want some information from me. People say that, in your writings, you claim to have devised a wheel which has a divided axle, held together in the middle only by a peg. Am I reporting you correctly? But people will continue laugh until you actually produce such a machine! You further claim that my wheel is the same, but you're lying through your teeth! Ask any of those who have groped inside my wheel and grasped its axle - and you will be assured, in no uncertain terms, that my axle is not like that. Rather, it has many compartments, and is pierced all over with various holes. Anyone with a bit of understanding will see that my machine works in quite a different manner.

Not sure if this is quite convincing or not. I find it somewhat truthful as far as the split wheel goes. But, that's about it.

To accelerate in its expedient time, there would be little mass toward the perimeter, yet gain mass quickly once set into motion, the centrifugal force centripetally held in check would have to come from the axle. Thus also acting as a governor keeping the RPM in ratio to wheel diameter.

Yep, and some springs and coming from the area of the axle with just the right tension allowing for the weights slide through some slots outwards toward the perimeter would work very nicely for this arrangement. Do you agree, Ralph?

[bluesgtr44]

... So, that's the back and forth of these two. Once this was put together it shone a big light as to when Bessler was talking about how his wheel operated or if he was talking about Wagners turnspit design.

Some of what we thought were clues [wiki page clues] weren't even about his wheel.....they were describing Wagners.

Here's where this came about on the forum here.....

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... l&start=15

Here is where I put together the critiques of Wagner as it applied to GB.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/download.php?id=4977

I never finished putting in Besslers rebuttal as it applied from AP.

On top of that Steve the wiki page 'clues' are not all about Bessler's wheels as you say - besides likely descriptions of other workings not related to Besslers wheels there are some observations taken as clues about Besslers wheels which are actually the author of testimonials comments about general principles, unrelated to Besslers actual work, IINM.

IMO, the wiki clues section could be a great resource but really needs a proper tidy up for accuracy & authenticity, as has been said before - else take it with a grain of salt.

You know, Fletch...I have all the books. So, I don't go to Wiki at all for any information. And I'm not a big Wiki fan when it comes to detailed information of any sort.

You're one of the best on this forum as far as the ability to put things into a proper perspective. If I look for any one person who has posted anything recently, you'd be the one. Great respect for many of the other talented people here, but they don't have that ability to make it easy to understand as you do.

Where I am now in this......we want the whole meal. But, what we have is maybe some potatoes....a little bit of gravy and maybe some green beans along with it. There's some garnish on the edges and it looks good! But where's the 12-16 oz. rib eye?

We can all pretty much get the initial starting position where we would have to tie it off to stop it from wanting to take off. We can all pretty much grasp the concept of a flywheel to control the speed of this take off. We pretty much understand how to control or govern the speed from reaching any value that would interrupt the position of the weights to allow reaction forces to upset the rotation. What we don't have is that knowledge or understanding that will continuously maintain the position of those weights to maintain the OOB. We don't have the rib eye in the middle of the plate. That spot is empty. Once we find that...lol.....then we have a meal.


Steve

[rlortie]

Steve wrote:

Yep, and some springs and coming from the area of the axle with just the right tension allowing for the weights slide through some slots outwards toward the perimeter would work very nicely for this arrangement. Do you agree, Ralph?

Yes I agree; That is if you are in favor of the terms "cross bars" and working in pairs.

Although I now pursue and build fluid OB designs, I admit that for years with no explanatory reasoning, I always end up staring at MT 137. There is something about this drawing that attracts me like a magnet to a fridge!

IMO, some how MT 137 and the AP drawing are related or have something in common, what it is, I cannot imagine, I just have the emotional feeling there is a connection.

Ralph

[Furcurequs]

I can definitely recommend getting the books. I have all of them from PM:AAMS to MT. I think I have put so many parts of John's works out there that I might be one of his best advertisers. ;-)

I have the pdf versions of John Collins' book and at least two or maybe three(?) of his Bessler translations. I too would recommend them. I really do need to put my copies on a thumb drive or something, though, so I don't keep having this problem of not having them accessible.

If you can down load the document on the back and forth from GB to wagner's critiques and experimental wheel it will let you in on some of these misunderstandings. I do regret not finishing this one up and I may be inclined to do so in the future. This has brought me back to reviewing AP again on some of those responses......it's right next to me now. I'm at a part where I'm going to fill in some info for Ralph here shortly.

I did, and I've been reading through it. Thanks. I too would now like to go back and review some of the Bessler materials myself again. After there have been arguments in the forum over specific verses, things start to get a little muddled - at least for me.

You're definitely above me in the physics department, so I look forward to your input on how this could have maintained the "exact" same rate as when running empty. He was very pointed in this and everyone else must have agreed or they would not have also signed off on this. He was the official chief in charge of this demonstration.

Well, hopefully I at least have a grasp on some of the basics and maybe I can suggest a few ideas as to possible explanations for the descriptions of the behavior of the wheel, some of which I may personally feel are more likely than others, of course. I think I'm partly in agreement with what Bill had to say in this post:

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 6359#26359

...but at the same time I think there may be the possibility of some middle ground, too, that wouldn't make all the witnesses just gullible rubes distracted by theatrics, but rather there might have been a slight slowing that wasn't very noticeable.

I'm still ruminating over some things and trying to collect my thoughts before I make a more in-depth post.

On a personal note, I'm sorry to hear about your wife. I'm sure that's difficult. Hang in there.

Dwayne

[Fletcher]

We can all pretty much get the initial starting position where we would have to tie it off to stop it from wanting to take off. We can all pretty much grasp the concept of a flywheel to control the speed of this take off. We pretty much understand how to control or govern the speed from reaching any value that would interrupt the position of the weights to allow reaction forces to upset the rotation. What we don't have is that knowledge or understanding that will continuously maintain the position of those weights to maintain the OOB.

We don't have the rib eye in the middle of the plate. That spot is empty. Once we find that...lol.....then we have a meal.


Steve

Good to see you posting again Steve.

Yep, whatever the mech or structure was that allowed the damn machine to never again find equilibrium.

We just can't be thinking laterally enough - if a masses position in a rotating system creates torque & it can move about a CoR then that mass will lose Pe - it will then settle at that position of least Pe in the gravity field - what Bessler called the PQ point.

Somehow he mechanically evaded this outcome - most of us can see that a force assist timed just right would do this, but then you have to find where that force came from & how it was applied - usually we just say the mass was given PE again or repositioned to create torque again.

But the facts don't lie - a mass with torque, free to move, will find its keel point or position of least Pe.

I wish I could put some meat around those bones but looks like I'm on a vegetarian forum ;7)

[daxwc]

Ralph:

To accelerate in its expedient time, there would be little mass toward the perimeter,

Or it was torsion spring driven; since this is a fraud thread. On another note, why have a perimeter then and where did the leverage for the wheel torque come from?



Fletcher:

We just can't be thinking laterally enough - if a masses position in a rotating system creates torque & it can move about a CoR then that mass will lose Pe - it will then settle at that position of least Pe in the gravity field - what Bessler called the PQ point.

Quit teasing me you know lateral movement doesn’t add energy in established physics 8P

[bluesgtr44]

Steve wrote:

Yep, and some springs and coming from the area of the axle with just the right tension allowing for the weights slide through some slots outwards toward the perimeter would work very nicely for this arrangement. Do you agree, Ralph?

Yes I agree; That is if you are in favor of the terms "cross bars" and working in pairs.

Although I now pursue and build fluid OB designs, I admit that for years with no explanatory reasoning, I always end up staring at MT 137. There is something about this drawing that attracts me like a magnet to a fridge!


Ralph

I'm not sure if we're on the same page, Ralph...

Yes I agree; That is if you are in favor of the terms "cross bars" and working in pairs.

I was just talking about the rapid acceleration and a flywheel effect. For a more rapid take off the weight would need to be closer to the axle. But, to have any affect on the power it would need to be closer to the rim. The crossbar would have slots on the beams that weights would be able to slide inward and outward. The springs would be attached closer to the axle so the weights would have that as a starting position. As the wheel accelerates, CF would come in and the weights would slowly travel outward. Which is where we would want them to be when we reach top speed. This has nothing to do with what keeps the thing going.....just the acceleration aspect.

MT137 and the AP drawing....

IMO, some how MT 137 and the AP drawing are related or have something in common, what it is, I cannot imagine, I just have the emotional feeling there is a connection.

You know, I have kind of seen these two as the inverse of one another. MT137 seems to be outward to me while the AP drawing appears to be inward. I've tried to manipulate the AP in the same manner that MT137 represents a "circle of fifths". Wasn't ever happy with any of the outcomes on that one. Yet, it still has the appearance that one is extending out and the other is moving in.


Steve

[bluesgtr44]

I can definitely recommend getting the books. I have all of them from PM:AAMS to MT. I think I have put so many parts of John's works out there that I might be one of his best advertisers. ;-)

I have the pdf versions of John Collins' book and at least two or maybe three(?) of his Bessler translations. I too would recommend them. I really do need to put my copies on a thumb drive or something, though, so I don't keep having this problem of not having them accessible.

If you can down load the document on the back and forth from GB to wagner's critiques and experimental wheel it will let you in on some of these misunderstandings. I do regret not finishing this one up and I may be inclined to do so in the future. This has brought me back to reviewing AP again on some of those responses......it's right next to me now. I'm at a part where I'm going to fill in some info for Ralph here shortly.

I did, and I've been reading through it. Thanks. I too would now like to go back and review some of the Bessler materials myself again. After there have been arguments in the forum over specific verses, things start to get a little muddled - at least for me.

You're definitely above me in the physics department, so I look forward to your input on how this could have maintained the "exact" same rate as when running empty. He was very pointed in this and everyone else must have agreed or they would not have also signed off on this. He was the official chief in charge of this demonstration.

Well, hopefully I at least have a grasp on some of the basics and maybe I can suggest a few ideas as to possible explanations for the descriptions of the behavior of the wheel, some of which I may personally feel are more likely than others, of course. I think I'm partly in agreement with what Bill had to say in this post:

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 6359#26359

...but at the same time I think there may be the possibility of some middle ground, too, that wouldn't make all the witnesses just gullible rubes distracted by theatrics, but rather there might have been a slight slowing that wasn't very noticeable.

I'm still ruminating over some things and trying to collect my thoughts before I make a more in-depth post.

On a personal note, I'm sorry to hear about your wife. I'm sure that's difficult. Hang in there.

Dwayne

Hey Dwayne....

On a personal note, I'm sorry to hear about your wife. I'm sure that's difficult. Hang in there.

Thanks Dwayne, she's a tough one and we're not giving up without a good, solid fight. We are both strong in our faith and believe that whatever the outcome, it's from something far higher than us. She would simply be going on to a better place.

I did, and I've been reading through it. Thanks. I too would now like to go back and review some of the Bessler materials myself again. After there have been arguments in the forum over specific verses, things start to get a little muddled - at least for me.

It's been very interesting this time because of quite a long lay off. I was quite amused at the back and forth between them this time. I think when I first went over this I was more pursuant of the structure and didn't really appreciate some of Besslers off center humor. I'm going to see if my interest can stay more open this time around and not go in with pre conceived from my earlier endeavors. I won't be looking for the OOB per se....been there, done that. But, what could be possible to maintain a structure and symmetry within the same parameters that Bessler was able to obtain. Very daunting task, indeed!

Well, hopefully I at least have a grasp on some of the basics and maybe I can suggest a few ideas as to possible explanations for the descriptions of the behavior of the wheel, some of which I may personally feel are more likely than others, of course. I think I'm partly in agreement with what Bill had to say in this post:

That response from Bill was mainly about my thinking that it took only about 1 minute to get up to 40 rpm's. I have been trying to get any admission as to how long it took the wheel to get up to maximum speed with no success at all. All I have seen is the number of rotations.

Wagner did address that mention of maintaining the same speed when loaded in his critique.

XIV.
Anyone who was simpleminded enough to believe that the wheel has a constant 70-pound superior force with which it raised a box of 70 pounds above the second-story window to a maximum height of 10 to 12 ells at the experiment --as one observes partly in the copper engraving and partly in reports elsewhere-- will be able to understand how such a wheel is possible. I too accomplish this end with a wheel of the same dimensions, made heavy by weights distributed over the periphery, and when it is in full swing it raises a 70-pound box 10 to 12 ells high without slowing the operation noticeably. When the wheel has raised the box 12 ells high, it has revolved only 15 times; because the diameter of the axle is 6 inches or 1/4 ell, it hoists more than 3/4 ell of rope with each revolution. Within this amount of time (which, if the wheel revolves almost once every second, measures some 17 or 18 seconds and thus slightly more than 1/4 minute) the movement of a wheel this size at this speed cannot change noticeably. {this may be in ref. to this...}{"The most noteworthy detail regarding this particular experiment was that the wheel, while under this considerable load, continued to rotate at exactly the same rate as when it was running "empty".}Consequently, one cannot prove the existence of a 70-pound perpetual superior force with this experiment. Now if the situation of the location permits no greater height, then Herr Orffyreus, who allows himself to be called a great, famous, experienced mathematician, is certainly not lacking in invention but knows of other things to apply, e.g. he might just take a piece of pipe some one and a half ells long and arrange the piston in such a way that 70 pounds of force are required to move it, and then hang it from the winch so that after a fourth or a half hour one will see a completely different effect.

ETA: Where Wagner talks about the 17 seconds and such for the wheel make a full rotation, he's not starting from a dead stop so as to attach the rope to the axle. So, I don't know how to take his approach to this. It isn't making sense to me. If I'm not mistaken, his wheel didn't rotate near as fast as Besslers. I think that is in there somewhere.

Thanks for replying Dwayne and for stirring up a bit of interest again.


Steve

[bluesgtr44]

We can all pretty much get the initial starting position where we would have to tie it off to stop it from wanting to take off. We can all pretty much grasp the concept of a flywheel to control the speed of this take off. We pretty much understand how to control or govern the speed from reaching any value that would interrupt the position of the weights to allow reaction forces to upset the rotation. What we don't have is that knowledge or understanding that will continuously maintain the position of those weights to maintain the OOB.

We don't have the rib eye in the middle of the plate. That spot is empty. Once we find that...lol.....then we have a meal.


Steve

Good to see you posting again Steve.

Yep, whatever the mech or structure was that allowed the damn machine to never again find equilibrium.

We just can't be thinking laterally enough - if a masses position in a rotating system creates torque & it can move about a CoR then that mass will lose Pe - it will then settle at that position of least Pe in the gravity field - what Bessler called the PQ point.

Somehow he mechanically evaded this outcome - most of us can see that a force assist timed just right would do this, but then you have to find where that force came from & how it was applied - usually we just say the mass was given PE again or repositioned to create torque again.

But the facts don't lie - a mass with torque, free to move, will find its keel point or position of least Pe.

I wish I could put some meat around those bones but looks like I'm on a vegetarian forum ;7)

Glad to see you're still around, Fletch. A simple voice of sanity. ;-)

Somehow he mechanically evaded this outcome - most of us can see that a force assist timed just right would do this, but then you have to find where that force came from & how it was applied - usually we just say the mass was given PE again or repositioned to create torque again.

I, like you, am not convinced that this is purely mechanical. Whatever it was that may have provided the impetus to keep complete the loop was possibly enough to build upon mechanically to improve the output. The timing aspect within a purely mechanical application...the sorts of which we are familiar with....would be very difficult to calculate because of so many variables. Once Bessler found the secret he had the Gera wheel up and running quite well in less than a year. Now, if there was this newly found impetus that worked within a constant realm similar the constant application of gravity, that would be a whole different realm of calculation. But, I haven't found a bit of reality in the gravity only approach. There was, IMHO another source in play here.

And yeah.....not gettin' much meat here either.


Steve

[bluesgtr44]

Ralph:

To accelerate in its expedient time, there would be little mass toward the perimeter,

Or it was torsion spring driven; since this is a fraud thread. On another note, why have a perimeter then and where did the leverage for the wheel torque come from?



Fletcher:

We just can't be thinking laterally enough - if a masses position in a rotating system creates torque & it can move about a CoR then that mass will lose Pe - it will then settle at that position of least Pe in the gravity field - what Bessler called the PQ point.

Quit teasing me you know lateral movement doesn’t add energy in established physics 8P

Hey Dax.....

Quit teasing me you know lateral movement doesn’t add energy in established physics 8P

LMAO! In.......out.......in......out......