The concrete arguments that Bessler was a fraud

[TGM]

...the good Orffyreus, unasked, after removing the Wheel from its original framework placed it in another one some distance from the original, and there, with the new bearings OPEN AT THE TOP, he caused the device to revolve, just as before, in either direction...

So does anyone know whether the axle of the wheel revolved, or if it was stationary and the wheel rotated about it?

[Fletcher]

It's a little hard to nail down. The wheel revolved. The wooden 6 inch diameter and 6 foot long portion of the axle revolved, because to it was attached the pegs for the lifting of the stampers and turning of the water screw in the Kassel version. In the Merseburg a rope was wound around it for the rock box lifting test etc.

BUT afaik no conclusive proof (witness statement exclusively about it) that the iron center axle (1/4 inch thick for Merseburg and around 3/4 inch diameter for the Kassel) also turned.

You might assume that it did turn at the same rate as the exterior wooden cover i.e. one piece for all intents and purposes. Because he used journals, when if non-turning he could have just used a wooden c cup in place of journals with a pin thru the stand and the iron axle to secure it, imo. And the wooden portion rotating around a stationary iron axle would be noted, imo.

I think Occam's Razor applies unless there is a witness statement that might contradict that assumption.

[TGM]

I brought up the subject because knowing how the axle worked would provide serious clues as to the inside of the wheel, IMHO.

[Fletcher]

So if they all turned together at the same rpm what clue does it give you ?

If they turned at different rpm that would tell me there was internal gearing and bearings.

If the iron center portion did not rotate with the rest it would tell me there was bearings or internal bushings and ?


You'd expect the examiners to have noted wear marks on the iron axle where it turned in the journals. Afaik it's not mentioned. Maybe because its so mundane and only would have been commented on if there were no visible rotation marks ?

[ovyyus]

The translocation demonstrations were performed by Bessler in response to accusations that his wheel was driven via hollow axle posts. If the axle didn't turn with the wheel then the translocations would have been pointless.

[Robinhood46]

I think the assumption that the axle did turn is a valid assumption. If it didn't turn the non turning would have been noticed and remarked upon.
The question, did it rotate at a different speed? is not so easy to come to an assumption one way or the other. If the rotational differences were significant, one rotation for two, this would also have been easily noticed. As would rotating in different directions.
If the difference was 16 or 18 rotations of the wheel for 17 rotations of the axle, (example) would this also have been noticed?
I like to think it would have still been noticed, and remarked upon, but there is enough doubt to eliminate the assumption that they were definitely fixed.
My opinion is that it is highly probable that they were fixed.

[TGM]

So if they all turned together at the same rpm what clue does it give you?

If they turned at different rpm that would tell me there was internal gearing and bearings.

If the iron center portion did not rotate with the rest it would tell me there were bearings or internal bushings and?

Exactly. If they all turn together, there could be no stationary superstructure inside the wheel to mount things on.

Regardless of the mechanism inside, knowing how it was mounted would provide clues to the operation.

[Fletcher]

I think the assumption that the axle did turn is a valid assumption. If it didn't turn the non turning would have been noticed and remarked upon.
The question, did it rotate at a different speed? is not so easy to come to an assumption one way or the other. If the rotational differences were significant, one rotation for two, this would also have been easily noticed. As would rotating in different directions.
If the difference was 16 or 18 rotations of the wheel for 17 rotations of the axle, (example) would this also have been noticed?
I like to think it would have still been noticed, and remarked upon, but there is enough doubt to eliminate the assumption that they were definitely fixed.
My opinion is that it is highly probable that they were fixed.

Agreed RH. And as ovyyus said it would make a mockery of the translocation test where multiple witnesses closely inspected the journals etc.

The obvious thing is possibly that the iron axle was probably two short axle stubs embedded into the wooden portion each end rather than a straight thru single axle. This would save on cost, and work, and still be as strong for testing purposes with little flexing.

But it would require a center hole into which the axle stub is either fitted around or driven into (i.e. tightly wedged). Possibly glued in place. Either way it would be a tight fit and easy to see the tolerances. If it turned at a different rate then there would have to be clearance which would be visible on inspection when the wheel was translocated and they were up close. These witnesses were no fools.

[Fletcher]

So if they all turned together at the same rpm what clue does it give you?

If they turned at different rpm that would tell me there was internal gearing and bearings.

If the iron center portion did not rotate with the rest it would tell me there were bearings or internal bushings and?

Exactly. If they all turn together, there could be no stationary superstructure inside the wheel to mount things on.

Regardless of the mechanism inside, knowing how it was mounted would provide clues to the operation.

That's where a hanging artificial horizon comes in as a possibility i.e. a MT13ish hanging counter weight with add-ons potential like the ramp wheel of MT13 for instance.

However B. says some very clear things if you believe him for ALL WHEELS, found in the wiki clues page.

Nothing hangs from the axle. All must go around with the wheel (paraphrased).

And from his books that people were allowed to reach inside his wheel. I'm pretty sure I'd check beneath the axle.

Where this becomes problematic is that B. also says that he had wheels using different principles (mechanical). So in one iteration he may well have used artificial horizons to support an internal structure, which did not turn with the wheel and did hang from the axle. And obviously not all turned with the wheel (as per what was said about the Merseburg wheel IIRC).

What was common to all his runners was the one PM principle as differentiated from his many mechanical principles where it was implemented, imo.

ETA : What I am sure of is that the wooden axle and iron axle were one. After that it is a crapshoot about what might if anything hang from the axle and whether all turned with the wheel etc. He implied that was the case for the Merseburg but then he apparently also used different principles for different wheels at different times. Tho I'm sure he had one or two favourite principles of implementation that were more efficient and expedient in terms of work required to build and repair etc. Or more aesthetically pleasing to the engineer and artist in him.

[Georg Künstler]

The supports can have been looked like this.

The wheel can be transported from support to support.

It does not matter whether you use ball bearings or just a plain bearing.

Friction does not count when the wheel is in motion.

If friction is the problem to stop the running then the construction itself is wrong.
Remember Bessler's words, one unze more or less does not count.
It can rise a man from the ground.

Fletcher wrote:

That's where a hanging artificial horizon comes in as a possibility i.e. a MT13ish hanging counter weight with add-ons potential like the ramp wheel of MT13 for instance.

However B. says some very clear things if you believe him for ALL WHEELS, found in the wiki clues page.

Nothing hangs from the axle. All must go around with the wheel (paraphrased).

ALL WHEELS ?
The wheels are not wheels because Bessler said:
"weils felgen und auch keine hat", so the internal mechanism is not round.

Nothing hangs from the axle.

True, because the internal construction can freely fall forward.
It is not bound. It is standing in the wheel.

All must go around with the wheel

here you see the word WITH, so the internal construction goes with the wheel.

[raj]

I have always found something very interesting in Georg's hamster wheel concept.
His idea of the inner polygonal wheel falling and impacting the rim of the hamster wheel can be easily understood.

I find a problem of latency in the continued falling and impacting again, because the inside wheel must be raised to the minimum level on the ascending side to fall again and again.

This raising of the hamster to its initial falling level may lead to wheel coming to a keel position.

I am sure Georg has already found a solution to this problem.

Full Forward Georg!

[thx4]

I am sure Georg has already found a solution to this problem.
Full Forward Georg!

I'm telling you that on that day "the chickens will have teeth"...

The real question is why doesn't Bessler tell us anything...

It is contradictory, for what and for whom he would have left clues ?, knowing that he would not have supported in his lifetime that another discovers his or the principle, and if one supposes that he wanted to enter the history he would have left a simple sketch, all that lets suppose that it is necessary to manage alone... Sorry it is common sense.

The worst thing is to realize that any arrangement of weights on a wheel will never work...
This means that the wheel we see (the sketches) is a simple inertia disk.
The mechanism (motor) for reasons of elementary physics cannot be a wheel, but I admit that it is very distracting to try.
So the best is yet to come: weights in motion, of course, but not on a wheel. In contact periodically with the inertia disk surely.
Good research.

A++

[Georg Künstler]

by thx4 » Fri Oct 08, 2021 9:58 am
The worst thing is to realize that any arrangement of weights on a wheel will never work...
This means that the wheel we see (the sketches) is a simple inertia disk.
The mechanism (motor) for reasons of elementary physics cannot be a wheel, but I admit that it is very distracting to try.
So the best is yet to come: weights in motion, of course, but not on a wheel. In contact periodically with the inertia disk surely.
Good research.

The worst thing is to realize that any arrangement of weights on a wheel will never work
One thing to realize is, that a special arrangement of weights in a wheel will work

The mechanism (motor) for reasons of elementary physics cannot be a wheel, but I admit that it is very distracting to try.

The wheel what can bee seen is only a carrier which is representing a moving ground, which can turn to the left and to the right.
The internal mechanism is a wheel and not a wheel because it has rims and also no rims. look at the Bessler*s clues.

So the best is yet to come: weights in motion, of course, but not on a wheel. In contact periodically with the inertia disk surely.

Weights in motion, of course, but inside of the wheel, periodically in contact with the rim.
From the eyewitness we know that they heared impacts on the downgoing side.
Alone this information will tell you something about the characteristic, form of the swinging, inside of the wheel.
The swinging has a characteristic like a saw shape. Look a Besslers words, up in a flash.
A normal pendulum swinging has a sine shape.
So the hit/impact on the rim is a necessary function to deform the sine shape to a saw shape.
The construction is therefore a tilt swing construction.

Of course only my opinion, everyone can try his own way.
The written above is for the bi-directional wheel.

[Tarsier79]

Thanks George. I don't really agree with a lot of what you wrote, but contemplating it has given me a simple test I have to do.... Pendulums.

[thx4]

by thx4 » Fri Oct 08, 2021 9:58 am
The worst thing is to realize that any arrangement of weights on a wheel will never work...
This means that the wheel we see (the sketches) is a simple inertia disk.
The mechanism (motor) for reasons of elementary physics cannot be a wheel, but I admit that it is very distracting to try.
So the best is yet to come: weights in motion, of course, but not on a wheel. In contact periodically with the inertia disk surely.
Good research.

The worst thing is to realize that any arrangement of weights on a wheel will never work
One thing to realize is, that a special arrangement of weights in a wheel will work

The mechanism (motor) for reasons of elementary physics cannot be a wheel, but I admit that it is very distracting to try.

The wheel what can bee seen is only a carrier which is representing a moving ground, which can turn to the left and to the right.
The internal mechanism is a wheel and not a wheel because it has rims and also no rims. look at the Bessler*s clues.

So the best is yet to come: weights in motion, of course, but not on a wheel. In contact periodically with the inertia disk surely.

Weights in motion, of course, but inside of the wheel, periodically in contact with the rim.
From the eyewitness we know that they heared impacts on the downgoing side.
Alone this information will tell you something about the characteristic, form of the swinging, inside of the wheel.
The swinging has a characteristic like a saw shape. Look a Besslers words, up in a flash.
A normal pendulum swinging has a sine shape.
So the hit/impact on the rim is a necessary function to deform the sine shape to a saw shape.
The construction is therefore a tilt swing construction.

Of course only my opinion, everyone can try his own way.
The written above is for the bi-directional wheel.

I do not wish to exchange with you, I thought you understood...
Your words are so hollow that they resonate... :)
You confuse believing and knowing like all dunces !!!
Keep trying to make people believe you know...

A++