Remove bearing, still do work?

[cloud camper]

Perfect shot Fletcher!

You have hit on a tremendous clue here.

The wheel was so out of balance during operation there was a danger of it flipping over in the same plane as the wheel hence the REQUIREMENT to pin/bolt it to the ceiling.

This is a major PITA to bolt to the ceiling unless there was an unavoidable requirement to do so.

And yet at startup was either balanced (bidirectional wheel) or preloaded (directional). I believe both wheel designs were preloaded for startup, the only difference being the directional had less startup friction to overcome, hence self starting.

What other mechanism then besides a large pendulum or a bottom loaded wheel could be both in balance at startup and yet heavily unbalanced during operation requiring it to be pinned to the ceiling to keep it from flipping?

A child's back yard swing has the same danger of potentially falling over in the plane of the swing during operation without a widely braced A frame.

[ME]

More things to 'worry' about:

1. It's possible that the whole system keels without this support.

2. It could be that the wheel needs to go slower than the mechanism in order for the mechanism to have an impact on the wheel.

I favour number 1. as the real reason for them being rigidly supported.

The one-way wheels started from any position after-all. In some later demo the supports were seen to pull apart and collapse again at the joins (showing paint IIRC) each revolution, IINM.

Things to think about.

More to think about:

I actually intended (2) as a reason why (1) might happen. Nice to see it separated.

Now you mentioned it.
It's a bit strange that the support hops per each rotation. And not this "more or less" 8 times per rotation.
This either means that the wheel was not well-centered. Or some clue of a major reset action per full cycle, instead of (about) eight indidividual resets per individual cycle:
Does that even make sense? Does that imply that one mechanism is reset for only 1/8th of a cycle and another for 7/8th ? Meaning: unequal mechanisms?

Or... does this reset actually happen each 7/8th or 9/8th of a cycle for all mechanisms at once?
hmm...

[Georg Künstler]

Me wrote:

It could be that the wheel needs to go slower than the mechanism in order for the mechanism to have an impact on the wheel.

You are right, the internal mechanism must move faster than the rim.
But the impact is not driving the wheel.
The impact is there to arrange the internal weight.

BtW: I have made a joke when I said, only look from the other side of the bi directional wheel, the you can see it turning to the left or to the right.

But honest, I had shown already the blocking mechanism,
I just have to put the wire on the other side.

[Fletcher]

For Gill .. in relation to whether the machine had to be stopped to fix it etc. And for us in relation to fragility of materials excuses.

Wagner’s Second Critique of 1715 - paragraph

Lastly, I must mention that they who inspected the Draschwitz wheel observed, almost in the middle of the radius on the one side which faced the wall and was rather dark owing to a lack of incident light, a hand-sized gap formed by the removal of a mere thick splinter an indication that Herr Orffyreus by necessity had to do something in the machine to reset the internal motive principle or superior force to its previous state. Mr. Orffyreus was prepared with the excuse that this opening was left so that whenever something came undone inside the wheel he could fix it right away without having to remove the entire casing (how he always takes care to excuse himself with the fragility of the materials!); this, however, just cannot be. If something breaks on the other side, which is several ells away and has no such service hole, how would Herr Orffyreus be able to fix it through this tiny opening? The wheel currently set up in Merseburg, which is covered with linen cloth, has various openings ~~ that have been left around the axle and are bandaged over with pinned-on strips.

Copyright © 2011 John Collins.

[Senax]

Perfect shot Fletcher!

You have hit on a tremendous clue here.

The wheel was so out of balance during operation there was a danger of it flipping over in the same plane as the wheel hence the REQUIREMENT to pin/bolt it to the ceiling.

This is a major PITA to bolt to the ceiling unless there was an unavoidable requirement to do so.

And yet at startup was either balanced (bidirectional wheel) or preloaded (directionsl). I believe both wheel designs were preloaded for startup, the only difference being the directional had less startup friction to overcome, hence self starting.

What other mechanism then besides a large pendulum or a bottom loaded wheel could be both in balance at startup and yet heavily unbalanced during operation requiring it to be pinned to the ceiling to keep it from flipping?

A child's back yard swing has the same problem of potentially flipping over in the plane of the swing during operation without a widely braced A frame.

My mobile VimmyWheel also has the same problem. To mitigate it I've
shortened the A frame tower and also set the wheel pairs further apart.

Once I forgot to bang in the steel pegs when erecting a garden swing for the
summer. The first child to use it came flying off as he pulled the whole frame over.

The essential feature for any swing is that it has to be firmly anchored.
A pair of trees make good uprights.

[Fletcher]

Perfect shot Fletcher!

You have hit on a tremendous clue here.

The wheel was so out of balance during operation there was a danger of it flipping over in the same plane as the wheel hence the REQUIREMENT to pin/bolt it to the ceiling.

Thx CC, but to be fair it's what caused the constant imbalance, that where it gets interesting. You have put up some ideas in this regard. Cf's is another, etc etc.

Now you mentioned it.

It's a bit strange that the support hops per each rotation. And not this "more or less" 8 times per rotation.

This either means that the wheel was not well-centered. Or some clue of a major reset action per full cycle, instead of (about) eight indidividual resets per individual cycle:

Does that even make sense? Does that imply that one mechanism is reset for only 1/8th of a cycle and another for 7/8th ? Meaning: unequal mechanisms?

Or... does this reset actually happen each 7/8th or 9/8th of a cycle for all mechanisms at once?

hmm...

Can't find the quote about the supports expanding etc atm ME. Had a look and thought it was in Wagner's First Critique of 1716 but couldn't see it. I know it has been a topic here before but probably not selective enough to do a quick search.

Anyways ..

"design has, in fact, progressed to the point where there is nothing supercritical about the exact disposition of the weights - an ounce more or less, here or there, makes not a scrap of difference to the Wheel, which will hold its course serenely without 'turning a hair'" – AP pg 316

This is somewhat of a contradiction to what we are discussing. The wheel holds its its course serenely even tho there is an imperfect build or disposition of weights. It matters not a jot about perfection of the build. The wheel will easily overcome minor blemishes and imperfections. I hesitate to say even a sloppy build would still work, that might be going to far.

Yet we read it hopped up and down on the supports. This confirms that things weren't exactly in 'force' balance at all 8 positions per revolution.

Wagner’s First Critique 1716 .. XII.

Additionally, I must refer to a case which happened shortly before the Christmas holidays of 1715. At that time a certain person was viewing the machine which had been proceeding constantly and rapidly for a while when it slowed down gradually until it finally came to a standstill. At this point the person asked: "What does this mean?" In his anxiety, Orffyreus could think of no reply other than: "The wheel rubbed against something." This was a barefaced lie, for not the slightest rubbing had been hitherto noted; rather, as soon as he gave the wheel a push, it was running again. No fragile part of the wheel had broken (Reason: he did not reach into the wheel to repair a defect.) Much less could it have rubbed against something, as he alleged (the wheel would have had to have been situated differently in the trunnion seats), rather its movement had simply failed him. From this it is clearly shown that the great, alleged 70-pound force depends not on the internal motive principle or the superior force of the weights but on the movement of the wheel because although the wheel was complete, it was never powerful enough to bring its own bulk back to its previous speed.

An unfortunate episode for Bessler. Wagner gets to dine out on it but gets the last bit wrong. There was still internal friction limiting the wheels speed after restart, so it didn't get up to previous speed i.e. the problem hadn't been fixed, just temporarily eased. JMO's.

[Gill Simo]

Lord above....just another of those all too typical threads that lead me to despair.
Any chance you might all go away & think about what you don't know rather than jump any stage in sight as a golden opportunity to bump your gums in awe of what you think you do know?
Bar that is, any person who can shed simple light on the simple question asked.
Thank you.
Gill

[agor95]

I just read the posts as a quick scan.

:-)

You asked a simple question and got the answer and a lot of noise.

Funny and tragic in away.

As the axle could be lifted up and out to move the wheel from one stand to another.
That implies a hollow for the axle to rest into and possibly greased to reduced friction.

Why are you asking this simple question?
Were would the answer take you to?

Regards

[ME]

Can't find the quote about the supports expanding etc atm ME. Had a look and thought it was in Wagner's First Critique of 1716 but couldn't see it. I know it has been a topic here before but probably not selective enough to do a quick search.

The great wonder of the perpetual motion machine, so long sought in vain by the curious world, and now invented by Mister Orffyreus, made known through the 'Leipziger Gazetten' in the 4th article of the 36 week of 1715, of which [it was] observed on the 22nd July 1715, that a spot was patched/marked in the post at A and that same post lifted up in half a turn of the wheel, and with the other half a turn fell down again, which was seen because the post was coated/painted, and at B the uncoated/unpainted place always came out. Borlach.

-translation: Stewart

[Fletcher]

Here is Gill's opening post of this topic.

Just a quick plea for help....do I imagine it or did Bessler mention somewhere that he could remove bearing/s for maintenance & the wheel could still do work....or something to that effect?
Ta.

He gets straight answers. There were no bearings and the machine was stopped for maintenance.

End of Page 1 of this thread ..

Err...I did say words to that effect...it may not have been bearing specifically but feel free to warble away about it.
Meanwhile I'm not convinced...like many I imagine, I've spent a lot of time over the years reading Bessler comments only to be more confused than enlightened in any way....& I've a strong recollection of pondering a good while over this one.
At a guess I'd say I read it in JC's book...& that was a loooong time ago.
It's sat in front of me now but I'm too half blind to be able to look through it.
I think I'm gonna have to keep on being niggled by this until the man himself tells me no.
But thanks anyway.
Gill

He wants JC to respond to him. Send him a PM. Seems he has abandoned his this thread from the above post.

Page 3 of this thread ..

Lord above....just another of those all too typical threads that lead me to despair.
Any chance you might all go away & think about what you don't know rather than jump any stage in sight as a golden opportunity to bump your gums in awe of what you think you do know?
Bar that is, any person who can shed simple light on the simple question asked.
Thank you.
Gill

No, he's still here, thread not abandoned. Still seeking a simple answer from JC to a simple question it seems.

[Fletcher]

Can't find the quote about the supports expanding etc atm ME. Had a look and thought it was in Wagner's First Critique of 1716 but couldn't see it. I know it has been a topic here before but probably not selective enough to do a quick search.

The great wonder of the perpetual motion machine, so long sought in vain by the curious world, and now invented by Mister Orffyreus, made known through the 'Leipziger Gazetten' in the 4th article of the 36 week of 1715, of which [it was] observed on the 22nd July 1715, that a spot was patched/marked in the post at A and that same post lifted up in half a turn of the wheel, and with the other half a turn fell down again, which was seen because the post was coated/painted, and at B the uncoated/unpainted place always came out. Borlach.

-translation: Stewart

Thanks ME .. I'll add it to my electronic inventory of eye witness accounts for future reference.

[cloud camper]

Again completely consistent with a large pendulum or bottom weighted wheel becoming weightless (or nearly) when it has swung to the 90 deg position, then causing the axle to try and lift out of it's open journal exposing the white paint.

Without the structure being bolted to the ceiling, the mechanism could have flipped over, just like Frank's forgetting to drive in the stakes on his backyard swing.

Fletcher, I believe the thread you are thinking of is this one from Daxwc: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... db41cd44d7

[Fletcher]

Yes, thanks for the reminder of dax's thread about Borlach's observations. That was where I had a memory of the support going up and down once per revolution. Borlach seems to confirm that in his statement.

And yes that rise and fall is consistent with a large pendulum or bottom weighted wheel becoming nearly weightless etc as you point out.

But I go back to ME's point about more than one mech or even two mechs, perhaps 8 mechs. Why is it that the support separates only once per revolution ?

Perhaps there is another reason for the one rise and one fall per revolution ? I have proposed that if the wheel were inexactly built (within tolerances) then there might be an imbalance of forces generated while in motion, and this might account for the per rev parting of the white seas ?

Tho the point is that it turned merrily away within wide build tolerances, according to B. Therefore his imbalance and asymmetric torque was not subject to super critical workmanship and execution.

[John Collins]

My apologies for not responding to your question Gill, I assumed you’d found the answer. If you would like a digital copy of my book let me know. It makes everything much easier to search and find anything.

As for your question, when the wheel was moved to another set of bearings during the examinations, it was carried across by Bessler and his brother. The bearings were open to examination before during and after each demonstration. No wheel turning took place without bearings in situ. I don’t see how any work could be done without the bearings in place.

The bearings were described more than once as being about three quarters of an inch in diameter.

JC

[agor95]

Thank you JC

The maximum weight of the wheel is the capacity of two people too lift and relocate.

Regards