Bessler's wheel was a MOTION wheel???

[raj]

I am a layman with no mechanical knowledge, but I am trying hard to understand, if Bessler's wheel was a MOTION wheel and NOT a gravity wheel.

My layman understanding of a motion wheel is an object that move/turn/rotate on an axle, or without axle, like a drum on a surface.

Bessler's wheel was not a motion wheel like a drum on a flat surface, because it was descricbe as a wheel exhibited in a fix place.

Therefore Bessler's wheel must have been a MOTION wheel rotating on an axle.

Now, a wheel rotating on an axle must have its rim going up on one side and going down on the other side, and there must some force to make it rotate in the first place.
Now, I am left with understanding what force bessler's wheel used.

ADVOCATES who shout over rooftop, to the extent of almost staking their life, are categoric that Bessler's wheel WAS NOT a gravity wheel, but was powered by other force/s.

My layman reasoning says it does not matter which force was being used. The fact that the wheel was turning on an axle, and generally agreed that some weight/s ( either solid or liquid) system was used, these weights MUST have been rising on one side and falling on the other side.

If we agree that gravity could not have been used to LIFT the weight(to gain PE) on the ascending side, there is NO WAY to prove that GRAVITY was NOT USED to help drop the weight ( to gain KE), to complete one cycle of rotation, on the descending.

BECAUSE the learned say gravity a constant downwards force, motion wheel cannot work without gravity.

Raj

[AB Hammer]

IMHO Bessler wheel is not just a motion machine. I consider it a gravity reaction wheel. For it takes gravity to start the action for a mechanical reaction to give motion.

[TGM]

I don't think Bessler's wheel would work in zero G.

[jim_mich]

Now you see why Bessler's secret has remained a secret for 300 years. PM seekers are hung up on gravity. They all expect gravity to rotate a PM wheel. And the solution is not gravity. The solution is the inward and outward motions of the weights such that these motions pump the wheel rotation.

My layman reasoning says it does not matter which force was being used. The fact that the wheel was turning on an axle, and generally agreed that some weight/s ( either solid or liquid) system was used, these weights MUST have been rising on one side and falling on the other side.

If you have a simple wheel with no weights inside it, then the weight-mass of the wheel itself rises on one side and falls on the other as the wheel is rotated. But such rising and falling of weight-mass is balanced one side to the other. Gravity does not make such a wheel rotate.

Now you (or I) can add weights inside the wheel.

We can arrange the weights such that the weights can move about in an organized fashion.

We can link weight to weight such that as two weights move outward, one on one side of the wheel and one on the other side of the wheel in such a fashion that the wheel still remains balanced, even as the two weight move outward.

We can link weight to weight such that as two weights move inward, one on one side of the wheel and one on the other side of the wheel in such a fashion that the wheel still remains balanced, even as the two weight move inward.

And we can link the motions of the first two weights to the motions of the second two weights such that two weights move inward as the other two weights move outward, then they swap, on and on.

Such a wheel remains always balanced. Such a wheel is NOT rotated by gravity BECAUSE it is always balanced.

Such a wheel gains it motive force from the inward and outward motions of the weights.

Bessler's earlier wheels had one weight linked to one weight, such that as one weight moved inward the other moved outward, then they swapped. Thus like any unbalanced wheel, if you stop the wheel in a certain position, then it will start rotating again when released. And during this initial rotation, the weights gain enough force (from the PM principle) to rotate the wheel over the next hump.

But NOW, (with the balanced wheels) quoting from Bessler, "Namely, a craft-work must itself drive from many separate pieces lead; which are now always two and two; change a thing outward the position, such drives the other to the shaft; this is soon here and that there: and also swaps forth and forth."

Notice the "now always two and two" pieces of lead. Such produces a balanced wheel. Bessler eliminated the effects of gravity. He had to, else his wheel could not function both clockwise and counter-clockwise.

[daxwc]

"So then, a work of this kind of
craftsmanship has, as its basis of motion, many separate pieces
of lead. These come in pairs, such that, as one of them takes up
an outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axle.
Later, they swap places, and so they go on and on changing
places all the time. (This principle is in fact the one that Wagner
said he owed to me - but I was quite wrongly implicated, as I'd
never informed anyone about the matter.) At present, as far as
I'm concerned, anyone who wants can go on about the wonderful
doings of these weights, alternately gravitating to the centre and
climbing back up again, for I can't put the matter more clearly. AP pg 296"


How do you explain the the rest of the paragraph Jim?


All I see Bessler saying is go ahead and speculate; talk all you want.

[jim_mich]

Bessler says speculate and talk all you want about rising and falling of weight.

But when describing his wheel, he says the weights move, one inward as the other moves outward, then they swap.

Note the difference between what Wagner was assuming was inside Bessler's wheel and what Bessler actually described as being inside his wheel. They are different. But it seems Wagner couldn't see or understand the difference.

[ME]

But what should the ratio of that weight-motion-cycle be compared to the wheel cycle? I guess at least two times faster.

[11Turion]

Here is what I have been attempting to build with a four foot wheel. I show how half of a single mechanism would fit on the wheel. There would be eight such mechanisms, each of which is really a pair, with the mirror image at the bottom of the wheel

At TDC a weight falls to the right, overbalancing the wheel on that side and lifting a weight up from center and OUT toward the rim. When the wheel has turned 180 degrees, that weight that is out toward the rim is returned to its original position and the mirror mechanism which is now at the top of the wheel repeats the same action. The vertical black spoke is fixed in place, while the red one is able to move back and forth on the center pivot. The weights of A and B are what I am experimenting with right now.

Hope this makes sense. With four Spokes on the right side of the wheel that have the weight extended, and 4 on the left that do not, I hope that is enough to cause the rotation I am looking for.

I should mention that a peg would prohibit the red swing arm from moving farther to the left than the fixed spoke of the wheel, but if ALLOWED to move in either direction through some kind of spring arrangement, the wheel could rotate in either direction. But that would be a more advanced version.

Any feedback would be appreciated.

[daxwc]

Jim:

Bessler says speculate and talk all you want about rising and falling of weight.

It is not what I read. He says these pairs, such that, as one of them takes up an outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axle. Later, they swap places, and so they go on and on changing places all the time is not his principle. Not sure how you can read anything else into it.

[rlortie]

11Turion,

Your depiction and description reminds me of the MT drawings 24 thru 27. It may be worth your while to ponder over them.

[daxwc]

I see where you are coming from it seems a little ambiguious on purpose or it could be translated better. Not sure I agree with your position. I imagine Stewart has already provided the forum with his translation.


Here is the whole chapter from John Colin's translation:

XLIII.
Are there any more doubting lions roaring around? Then let them
come and sit down by me, and my wheel shall openly revolve for
them. I've nothing to hide, for all the inmost parts, and the
perpetual-motion structures, retain the power of free movement,
as I've been saying since 1712. I'd like, at this point, to give a
brief description of it. So then, a work of this kind of
craftsmanship has, as its basis of motion, many separate pieces
of lead. These come in pairs, such that, as one of them takes up
an outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axle.
Later, they swap places, and so they go on and on changing
places all the time. (This principle is in fact the one that Wagner
said he owed to me - but I was quite wrongly implicated, as I'd
never informed anyone about the matter.) At present, as far as
I'm concerned, anyone who wants can go on about the wonderful
doings of these weights, alternately gravitating to the centre and
climbing back up again, for I can't put the matter more clearly.

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. 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!

I also think it's a good thing to be completely clear about one
further point. Many would-be Mobile-makers think that if they can
arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the
centre than the others, then the thing will surely revolve. A few
years ago I learned all about this the hard way. And then the
truth of the old proverb came home to me that one has to learn
through bitter experience. There's a lot more to matters of
mechanics than I've revealed to date, but since there's no urgent
need involved, I'll refrain from giving more information at the
moment.
XLI

[11Turion]

rlortie,
drawing #24 is the closest to what I am actually doing.

The differences I have found in the experimentation I did are:
1. The arm that is pivoting needs to be connected to the hub at the exact same point as the fixed spoke. It DOES make a difference.

2. In drawing #24, each mechanism can only use 1/8 of the circumference of the circle because more than that interferes with the next mechanism. In a wheel that has a foot or more from front to back, each mechanisms can occupy a specific part of that "depth" of the wheel, and so are not restricted in the amount of the circumference they occupy, since each mechanism is deeper in the wheel than the one before.

3. The farther the weight on the pivoting arm falls, the greater its impact on the rotation of the wheel. Where drawing #24 limits that fall to 1/8 of the circumference of the wheel, it can in fact be 4/8 of the circumference of the wheel if you want it to be, when the mechanisms are offset in depth as described above. That weight falling the additional difference will yank the wheel, and it is best if it hits against a spring fixed just below the 90 degree mark on the wheel, driving it downward. At that point the weight is "free falling" and is it strikes the spring, it propels the wheel in a specific direction, and the same time moving a weight out from center to overbalance the wheel on that side. That weight SEEMS to need to be as small as possible, so that it doesn't limit the free falling weight, and is easy to return to its position when the mechanism reaches BDC. But this is what experimentation is for.

Thes falling weights help to "drive" the wheel, but it is the movement of the smaller weight out from center that unbalances the wheel keeping the momentum going.

[Tarsier79]

Dax, Is it possible he is just denouncing Wagners "contribution" to the design?

[Fcdriver]

A series of seesaws that are pertutual with the help of a rotating wheel, making the wheel appear to be perpetual, but neither are with out help from each. The weight shifting or moving has to be able to accelerate the weight of the wheel, without causing it to slow too much. Causing a terminal velocity effect. The wheel is only used as a leverage point, or transfer.

[sleepy]

11Turion,
Tried this several years ago and it took me a while to figure out why it failed,but here is what I came up with.


The red weight ends up having to be considerably heavier than the green
one,so the advantage gained is small.It would be enough if not for the fact that because of the length of the fall,the red weight spends much more time on the upside of the rotation than the downside.Whether this is correct or not,my use of this idea keeled.Hope this helps.