NEWS FLASH!! Fcdriver has a working wheel!!!!

[ovaron]

leaving my work in pieces" (Mike Seniors translation) - [Not the same meaning as 'smashing it' !]

Bessler said: "Ich schmiss’ mit Fleiß mein Werk in Stücken,"
"I diligently threw my work in pieces"

In my understanding he destroyed his work in such a matter that nobody could reveal the principle he just found.

BTW To translate it as to smash or to leave in pieces makes no great difference.

I am convinced that we can not come behind his secret by consideration. He found something by coincidence. (That doesn't diminish his invention, many inventions were made by coincidence.)

[Art]

What apparently exhilerated Bessler was the 'direction' he took after his dream . He started working to a plan " concentrated on his innermost self " and was soon "greatly comforted by a new enlightenment " . In other words a new idea came from his effort which he proceeded to test and which resulted in the arrangement that revolved a little . His first positive test - but not the final product which was still apparently weeks away !.

I am convinced that it will be no accident (coincidence ? ) that reproduces his secret but a well orchestrated series of experiments which it appears to me that Bessler hints at.

IMO the rediscovery will be coincidental only with a step by step reasoned and measurable experimental approach . Besslers "enlightenment" I believe .

The use of the term "smash" IMO is incorrect because it has the connotation of a violent , out of control act (as in zertrummern ?) .

"Ich schmiss mit Fleib mein werk in stucken " means to me :- "my work was slung diligently in pieces" or "my work was dismantled vigorously in pieces " ie the pieces were left in a recoverable state for further experimentation which he intended and later continued with .

Whether the "violent" aspect is interpreted in or not , does leave Besslers mental frame of mind in question and also raises the question whether or not he intended to work further on the assembly that "revolved a little" .

We need to be pedantic about the fact that one cannot be pedantic about translating - it unfortunately (or should I say fortunately) is not a mathematical science and requires a fair degree of knowledge of both the languages , the subject , the history , the people for whom the translation is intended and etc !

I like to read other people's translations and see how they differ and then average the best of them ! : )

[helloha]

"For I put together the very first device which could spontaneously revolve a little. I saw that I had finally made the right choice, and why the earlier ones had been wrong. My heart leapt for joy at the sight of this genuine Mobile."

Let's see what questions can be extracted from "revolve a little"

First assuming that the wheel didn't turn, but it only revolve a little.
And give the "little revolve" a value of 5 degrees.

Questions
1. How did Bessler know the wheel revolve a little (or 5 degrees) ?

2. If the wheel revolve 5 degrees, will it revolve back to the previous degree, or stay at the new position ?

3. What's the next step after Bessler got the wheel to revolve 5 degrees ?

This clue seems to contain quite a few hidden information :)

[ovaron]

Hi Art,
you are right that smash is obviously not the correct verb to describe his action about his first thing that revolves a little. My school english isn't that precise. He didn't destroyed his wheel out of control and anger but with joy and the intent not to leave pieces that could be reassembled.

At an other place (when he moves from Draschwitz) he talks also about "zerschmeissen" what has without a doubt the meaning to destroy something without the possibility to reassemble it.

Und als von Draschwitz ziehen müssen,
Hab’ ich das Kunstwerk auch zerschmissen.

So "zerschmeissen" has not the meaning to leave the pieces in a recoverable state but to to destroy it in such a matter that nobody (including himself) can reassemble it. IMHO

[Fcdriver]

Slowing lift causes a number of surprises! The difference from stationary pressure to moving changes greatly! It is the acceleration that is key!

[agor95]

@Fcdriver

I agree a static measurement and a dynamic one generates different results.

I want to find time to graph this observation.

The idea is a horizontal sliding bar with mass on each end.
That having two springs keeping the bar balanced.

When vertical the masses weigh down the bar and the spring balance the load.

When rotating the bar from horizontal to vertical the load is increased
by the inertial C.F.

The greatest effect is at the bottom.

This is the rest point. That said the masses are moving.

However gravity is not increasing or decreasing mass speed.
Also the pull on the bar is balanced; spring v.s. gravity + inertia.

Getting the correct rotation rate should cause the bar to spring back.

That means the torque on the uplift is reduced as the mass is closer
to the pivot on the way up than on the way down.

A difference in torque.

Regards

[Grimer]

Slowing lift causes a number of surprises! The difference from stationary pressure to moving changes greatly! It is the acceleration that is key!

Not quite.
It's the change in acceleration which is the key.

Someone pointed out that a lever acted as an acceleration multiplier. Unfortunately I can't find the quote to give that person the credit but that is the key.

Ends of levers move on a circular path and therefore they are accelerating towards the centre.

An asymmetric lever will have different accelerations at each end and it is the DIFFERENCE IN ACCELERATION which needs to be harvested.

The difference in acceleration maps to the difference in temperature in the Carnot cycle.

Credit where credit's due. It was thinking about an anonymous device which gave me the final clue to get all my ducks in a row.

It seemed to me that inventor only needed two arms not four
- which led to seeing the device as a rotating lever
- which led to the thought of a rotating lever of different arm lengths
- which led to the quote which I can't locate
- which led to the recognition of the importance of the DIFFERENCE in acceleration between the two ends and its relevance to the Carnot cycle
- which led to me seeing that this was of course the reason why the Keenie worked
- which I will go into in detail in my next post. :-)

[Art]

Thanks Ovaron ,

Yes Bessler was pretty good at building and de-building as the mood struck him without letting others see too much . He must have had a constant tension headache from worrying about It !

That word he used in the part you quoted ('zerschmeissen') I think is what I have felt like doing to some of my builds at times but for different reasons than Bessler ! :)

[Art]

"For I put together the very first device which could spontaneously revolve a little. I saw that I had finally made the right choice, and why the earlier ones had been wrong. My heart leapt for joy at the sight of this genuine Mobile."

Let's see what questions can be extracted from "revolve a little"

Hi Helloha ,

I think "revolve a little " is probably Besslers way of saying "a little overunity " .

I imagine that Bessler would have had some sort of test system mounted on an axle in a lubricated bearing that he would have been using for some time .

After many hours of doing test spins (or many months or even years as some of us here have ) you become very familiar with how long the wheel spins as a flywheel with a small push or spin .

The familiarity gets to the stage (in my case anyway) that just watching how fast it spins during the first few turns and the rate at which it starts to slow is so familiar that you can often judge very closely the total number of revolutions long before it runs out of motion .

I would be very surprised if Bessler didn't have this familiarity with his setups too .

Therefore I think the statement that it "revolved a little " means that it revolved a little better than any of his other efforts , ie it didn't lose speed as fast due to friction as the others .

So "revolved a little " could probably mean that the wheel turned IMO about 100 or so rotations before stopping !

[Silvertiger]

Ends of levers move on a circular path and therefore they are accelerating towards the center.

No they aren't. All accelerations and velocities in a rotating body are always traveling away from the center. Tangential moves away in straight paths. Angular moves directly away.

[Grimer]

No they aren't. All accelerations and velocities in a rotating body are always traveling away from the center. Tangential moves away in straight paths. Angular moves directly away.

https://socratic.org/questions/why-is-c ... the-center

[Silvertiger]

I understand vector diagrams...I just happen to disagree with this one. Its because objects want to move in a straight line. Can't get around it unless the acceleration to the center is enacted by a net force. I know the math proves it. But although the fact is that the acceleration is caused by the object being tethered to the center it doesn't mean it is SEEKING the center. I'm not sure of that's an understandable explanation or not lol.

[Grimer]

I understand vector diagrams...I just happen to disagree with this one. Its because objects want to move in a straight line. Can't get around it unless the acceleration to the center is enacted by a net force. I know the math proves it. But although the fact is that the acceleration is caused by the object being tethered to the center it doesn't mean it is SEEKING the center. I'm not sure of that's an understandable explanation or not lol.

Well it is "enacted by a net force" isn't it. It is enacted by a tensile force in the material of the wheel. This is easier to visualise if you split the wheel into sectors. The outer portion of a wedge is prevented by flying off at a tangent by the inner portion which is pulling it towards the centre.

This is pretty elementary stuff, Silvertiger. I'm really surprised you're having problems with this.

Does any other member have this problem?

[agor95]

@Gimer@Silvertiger

I can agree with both perceptions in principle.

Bessler hints how we should perceive what is going on.
The two masses should be analysed as swinging
pendulum. Then as a solid sliding bar.

The bar is under most strain at the bottom of the arc.

It has momentum and would travel in a straight line if it could.

The mass at the bottom is traveling faster than it's opposite mass
on the other end of the bar.

The mass lift up wanting too decelerate and it does so as the lever length
reduces.

The top mass is pulled down by gravity and the torque increases.
That is by 1. the lever increases in length 2. The gravity force pull become more perpendicular to the lever.

Note The Heavy weight is lifted up lightly with a quick movement to the center. 4 quarters by 1 quarter of the down weight.

[Silvertiger]

I understand vector diagrams...I just happen to disagree with this one. Its because objects want to move in a straight line. Can't get around it unless the acceleration to the center is enacted by a net force. I know the math proves it. But although the fact is that the acceleration is caused by the object being tethered to the center it doesn't mean it is SEEKING the center. I'm not sure of that's an understandable explanation or not lol.

Well it is "enacted by a net force" isn't it. It is enacted by a tensile force in the material of the wheel. This is easier to visualise if you split the wheel into sectors. The outer portion of a wedge is prevented by flying off at a tangent by the inner portion which is pulling it towards the centre.

This is pretty elementary stuff, Silvertiger. I'm really surprised you're having problems with this.

Does any other member have this problem?

It is. I was using my itty bitty phone and I guess I cut off the sentence. It should say: "Can't get around it unless the acceleration to the center is enacted by a net force, which in this case is a restriction to a rotation that constantly changes the vector." Anyway, all I was trying to say is that just because it is being constantly pulled inward does NOT mean it is center-seeking. It will always seek the straightline path, which is outward, and therefore it is not center-seeking. That's all I was trying to say. When I said "Angular moves directly away," even though that is a centrifugal point of view, the effect is very real, and can be played around with lol.