Current work

[Fletcher]

Less than 1/16th of an inch and resets !

It comes down to how much torque it can generate to overcome frictions and sustain rotation, as well as reset itself, imo.

[Jon J Hutton]

I put the basics of the wheel together today, and it does what every physics teacher told me it would do, cancels torque which is the principle behind my build (who knows if this was Besslers idea). Hopefully I can finish the rest this week. Yes, to reset it, you move a 2 pound weight less than 1/16 of an inch. It produces 2 foot pounds of out of balance weight for a half turn. One weight goes up, another goes down the same distance. This week should tell if I can get into my shop again. Even if it does not work it will make a great display for students at my school.

[Fletcher]

Enjoy .. Yep that's how many weight scales work.

The only thing I can think of is that B. said nothing hangs from the axle.

[Jon J Hutton]

True......nothing hangs from the axle on mine....who knows what ole B had up his sleeve.

[Fletcher]

The problem with his wheels was that the axle turned in journals, on both sides.

Here's what he said ..

"by making the true claim - that no weights hang from the axle of my wheel." - AP pg 281

"it runs according to 'preponderance', and turns everything else along with it; as long as its materials shall endure, it will revolve of its own accord." AP - pg 363

"In a true Perpetuum Mobile everything must, necessarily, go round together. There can be nothing involved in it which remains stationary on the axle." AP - pg 361

And for everyone who has studied pantographs (including geared arrangements) and Desaguliers dissertation to the London Royal Society on them, they need certain conditions (and many types of weight measuring scales). For Desagulier type devices there are two vertical pivot points which is why they produce no torque with equal weights regardless of the CoM position.

For the geared varieties the center gear must be fixed to something in turn connected to the ground to achieve the same thing.

That means for an axle to turn in journals and use this principle there must be a heavy artificial horizon hanging off the axle internally. And that doesn't meet what B. says above if he is always honest. Or he found another way that I can't think of that does meet his conditions. And perhaps you have too.

[Jon J Hutton]

Good points as always. Don't lump me in with Bessler....yet, I'm far from a victory dance. I am trying it with a belt around a fixed axle first then I'll get creative with a free spinning axle like a genuine Besslers wheel. To tell you the truth i am just trying to solution this not duplicate his work..... we will see.

[Fletcher]

I am doing the same Jon.

Bessler discovered his Law of PM. Once he had distilled the essence of his Law he then, imo, built his first POP.

A very unwieldly design in retrospect for him, I think. Not at all powerful, or efficient. And complex and cumbersome to design and build in order to run, taking much time and calculation to bring to fruition. IMO this was ONE Mechanical Principle (of design) and the first one he could imagine working where others had not.

As he grew more familiar with this first mechanical design, and more comfortable with his Law of PM, he saw vast room for improvement imo. Including using OTHER Mechanical Principles. That's my take-away from his comments in AP about that process.

When you think about his last wheel for his Landlord before he died, it supposedly was a 10 inch table top model (purportedly reported in a local News Paper as told by another BW.com member). Not too hard to do for a skillful clockmaker perhaps, but I would be struggling without the experience and tools to complete the job at that scale unless it was quite simple.

So I think that there may be more than one Mechanical Principle (design) that can be employed successfully once you have a firm grasp of his Law of PM. If so, then what clues relate to what machine at what time ? So I press on but don't take the fecundity of clues to heart or literally.

Here's what B. said about the evolution process of his machines. N.B. I wrote some comments in John's Blog about it, reproduced below.

For, after I have gone public, you'll be able to hear the wretches say:-

"Just look at the thing properly, and you'll see that there isn't much artistry to it."

Silence, idiots, stop mumbling, and listen to the truth of the matter!

It took a tremendous amount of calculation before I was able to devise this machine! It took a great deal of time before it was all properly figured out!

It's reached the stage now where even a poor workman could put the thing together without a lot of head-scratching; and get it completed almost before you could notice.

The 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".

I thought that it would be best if things were so, my honourable artisans, for in that way, God willing, you'll go to your labours more happily.

............

The above Bessler quote from AP is worth reading again imo.

It's in 4 parts, each with a separate message.

1. once the PM Law is known its principles can be employed to design a machine. The first design took much time and calculation to properly figure out.

2. the POP evolved over time to a simple and optimal form, that could be easily understood and constructed quickly.

3. the latter design is forgiving and tolerant of lesser workmanship.

4. he thought it best to present his latter design so that any builder would have a smooth and painless as possible path to a successful build.

Good luck with your build Jon.

[Jon J Hutton]

Decided to remove the question......

[Fletcher]

Here's a nice and simple one with offset post heights posted up in JC's blog 23rd Jan (had to go find it).

It's in gif animation so you can see it turning when driven.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/5c/79/6b ... b54dcd.gif

And here it is again from a different angle, also from the same poster.

https://i.pinimg.com/564x/d4/92/4d/d492 ... 5e70b2.jpg

[Jon J Hutton]

Cute, but it will not move a smidgen no matter how offset the weights are.......but i think this is very very interesting.

[Fletcher]

Agreed .. it is interesting, and why I found and posted it up, because it imo fits B's. mechanical mandate of everything must go around with the wheel and nothing hangs from the axle, for Robervals. It is the apparent exception for Robervals.

N.B. I'd seen it before many years ago.

Unlike the traditional pantographs (like Desaguliers - see attachment) with a separate CoR/pivot for each horizontal, and the geared varieties that require either the central gear to be fixed to the background or be fixed to a massive counter weight hanging below the axle (the artificial horizon), which don't fit the mandate per se.

Here's the page in the Museum of Unworkable Devices on Robervals.

http://www.lockhaven.edu/~dsimanek/museum/roberval.htm

And Google Images for 'Roberval Balance'. Even some from BW.com over the years.

https://www.google.com/search?q=roberva ... 66&bih=632

[Jon J Hutton]

I always thought when Bessler said nothing was hanging off the axel he was disputing those that accused him of making a heavy clockwork mechanism.

[Fletcher]

He was .. it depends how literal and inclusive you want to be. Did he always tell the naked truth for every context ?

AP p 278 .. But one swallow does not a summer make, and there still remained one or two fools and idiots who would start off the old wild-goose chase again with their lies about my wheel needing to be wound up. My answer to them is this; you go and make a wheel that turns both ways before you spout off again. And then I will still be able to cap it all by making the true claim - even my enemies won't be able to deny it - that no weights hang from the axle of my wheel.

AP p348 .. Even according to the ideas my enemies express in their writings, my Wheel is the true device, and is indeed, per se, a genuine Perpetuum Mobile. None better will ever be found upon this earth, for without the principle that I alone possess, there can be no real perpetual motion. Whoever seeks another method is deceiving himself, for my device does not need winding; it runs according to "preponderance", and turns everything else along with it; so long as its material shall endure, it will revolve of its own accord.

AP p347 .. Wagner goes on to say still more:- "The details of the application of the motive power are difficult to fathom in this machine. Everything seems to be in motion, and there is no "fixed point" such as one would necessarily expect to exist where the power is applied. This ingenious arrangement has obviously misled many people into thinking that Orffyreus' wheel really is the true Perpetuum Mobile." Thinking, you say! You're still comparing my wheel with yours? In a true Perpetuum Mobile everything must, necessarily, go round together. There can be nothing involved in it which remains stationary on the axle.

IIRC Wagner's wheel had an Artificial Horizon hanging from the axle. I could be wrong about that, but that is what I seem to remember.

[johannesbender]

MT , contains various illustrative designs which were experimented with grounded counterparts and hanging weight .

the closest thing bessler used to pantograth was MT 142 ,which used water as an angle and direction restricted ,leveling and raising force ,
to move levers at oppisite directions , a great distance at the end ,
with less distance at the floats ,and adjust their orientation relative to the wheels rotation ,via water as a non fixed horizon.
which could then be used to pull and push or raise and lower like the little hammer toys action.

intresting factoid , you will find in his inventory after death , a leveling device of special invention ,and various unmarked brass spheres .

i dont think he had any real artificial horizon like a permanent hanging weight.

but if i were to ignore "empty and full", bessler seems like he also were trying to be technical about his answer as not to be caught up in saying something in a wrong way , thats why i think he re-worded it in two different ways.

any weight vertically aligned with a vector from gravity to that weight ,underneath an axle , during rotation in the common designs of wheels are technically hanging from the axle as the pass by, since the axle is what everything is acting on.

so to be tecnically correct and clear about his wording, he cannot say nothing can hang on the axle , but he can say nothing can , remain , hanging.

everything must eventually ,turn around with it.

well then you get to half empty and full , and the meaning changes in to something more literal.

[johannesbender]

torque can induce motion in to equal masses placed at equal distances , which is what MT 143 demonstrates.

MT 143 Bessler proves by demonstration , that weights in equalibrium by distance and mass , can be moved , and move eachother contrary to being equal in mass ,and effect the system torque location ,simply , by the application of torque difference.