Landgraf Karl von Hessen-Kassel

[ovaron]

@ovyyus

If we take the statement of Karl seriously that the mechanism was "simple", we can exclude the first three and the last possibility.

The bi-directional wheel always stopped when it was only pushed slightly. It only started to accelerate by itself when it had a certain initial speed. From this it can be concluded that CF was in some way involved. So we have gravitation, CF and probably a third force we don't know.
I am convinced that the design of the (hollow) axle plays a key role.

[Fletcher]

That's my feeling about Cf also overon. For the same reason i.e. needed a push to start and would stop if the impetus was insufficient. That smells like Cf threshold required to me.

And any rotating wheel where parts CoM are able to change radius via a controlling structure are going to experience Cf's regardless of what other forces there might be. The question is what was the prime mover force that gave the wheel extra impetus and momentum ? Was Cf a secondary effect or the primary ?

[ovyyus]

Ovaron, 'simple' compared to what? A steam engine? A clock? A pipe organ? A hot air engine can be very simple. Interconnected bellows can be very simple. 'Simple' is a relative term.

[John Collins]

Cf might be suspected on the two way wheels, but perhaps not on the one way version. Surely the simplest route to a solution is to concentrate on the first wheels which demonstrated OB, and therefore some reaction to gravity by the weights. Of course there could be cf involved once the one way wheel is running, but to me that seems like a by-product rather than the initiating agency.

JC

[ovaron]

@ John
At first glance this seems logical. But if you assume that the running wheel holds a spring in a tense state, and the spring is only needed for starting, then the CF can also be assumed for the unidirectional wheel.

For me, the (hollow?) axle plays an important role. I suspect that within the axle the mystery hides, whether it is a spring or something else.

If you really have found a way only with gravity to lift one pound with less than one pound (to the same level), then hats off. You have the solution, whether you can present a working wheel or not.

[sleepy]

My opinion from the witness comments is that the bi wheel needed a push not to supply cf,but to use the axle-in-an-axle to kick the mechanism in that direction.In other words,to set the weight configuration "leaning" in that direction.When the wheel was stopped,the configuration would again be vertical,awaiting the next push.So for me,it feels like a "long" enough push as opposed to a "hard" enough push.

[ovaron]

@ ovyyus
You are absolutely right, "simple" is a very relative term. Only Karl's statement that a carpenter's apprentice could build the wheel excludes for me the things that can not be produced with wood alone. This excludes all possibilities, which require an almost air-tight construction.

Again and again I stay with Karl's statement and am unsure whether he has really seen the complete mechanism.
The agreement of Bessler with Karl was that he would build the wheel, and then Karl would be able to examine the mechanism. Has Bessler placed important parts within the axle, which were not hidden inside the axle on his earlier wheels? There are still questions that concern me, but there can be no answer.

If Karl has not seen the complete mechanism (eg within the axis) so the other possibilities that you have enumerated are very likely. Gravity alone can not be the energy source.

[John Collins]

@ ovaron, you wrote “If you really have found a way only with gravity to lift one pound with less than one pound (to the same level), then hats off. You have the solution, whether you can present a working wheel or not“.

I haven’t found that and neither will anyone else, but I have found a solution or so I believe. Are you quoting from Bessler’s text?

JC

[ovaron]

What do you mean with "are you quoting from Bessler’s text?"

Do you mean the "one pound lifts four"?

[ovaron]

@ sleepy

My understanding of the witness statement is, that you could not bring the wheel with a weak impulse to turn and accelerate further by itself. With many weak impulses in a row one could rotate the wheel by 360 degrees without starting to run by itself. Only when the impulse was strong enough, a weight fell and the wheel accelerated.

[John Collins]

Yes I wasn’t sure if you meant that phrase when you asked if I could raise one pound with less than one pound to the same height. Anyway the answer is no, and I don’t think it is possible to do that.

JC

[ovaron]

@John

There is an other quote from Bessler, where he did say, that it is possible to lift more than one pound with one pound:

Auch Wagner hört (wo er noch lebt),
Wie ein Pfund mehr als eines heb’t. NB.
Er schreib’t: Man hätt’ bis diesen Stunden
Kein solch Mechanisch Rüst-Zeug funden,
Das zu der Kunst sufficient. x.
Er hat recht, Ich auch, wer’s erkenn’t?

Even Wagner, wherever he is now, will have heard
that one pound can cause the raising of more than one pound.
He writes that, to date, no one has
ever found a mechanical arrangement sufficient for the required
task. He's right! So am I, and does anyone see why?

Although we move on wheels every day, we do not seem to understand what is possible within a rotating system. At least I understand Besslers statement this way.

Is the explanation of your (possible) solution easy to understand? I mean, would someone skilled in mechanis grasp the principle at once? Is CF really only a side effect?

[Silvertiger]

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.

[eccentrically1]

Now might be a good time to debate the power to weight ratio again. Estimates of the largest wheel’s weight range from 170 to 400+ pounds, (if my memory serves) and the power from 25 to 137 Watts. I think the wheel’s power was in the low range, and also its weight. If the weights being lifted were 4 pounds, and there were 8 for each direction based on the witness accounts, then for the wheel to accelerate so quickly up to its terminal velocity seems to suggest it was not very massive. I have a hard time envisioning a 400+ pound wheel being spun up with 32 pounds of weight.
A lightweight wheel (with most of its mass at the rim) doesn’t need much energy to keep it turning. If the weights were pumping bellows in and out, up *and* down, then it would only need a small amount of thermal gradient to nudge it along for the long duration test.
I am sure it wasn’t running on gravity, CF, inertia, or momentum. Stored fuel / chemical reaction is possible but that wouldn’t have been PM even in their time, just fraud.

[John Collins]

This quote,

"Even Wagner, wherever he is now, will have heard
that one pound can cause the raising of more than one pound.
He writes that, to date, no one has
ever found a mechanical arrangement sufficient for the required
task. He's right! So am I, and does anyone see why?"

...and its particular wording implies an ambiguous meaning as they can't both be right, on the face of it.

JC