The ONE WORD that could give it ALL AWAY !

[Fletcher]

It is worthy to note that Wagner was no fool.

He wrote his paper, to which B. replied 'in-kind' in a section of AP. But it was not a court room crown prosecutor vs defendant environment, where statements could be fact-checked and expanded upon and drilled into under cross-examination 'in-situ', in a timely manner. B. wasn't on trial at that stage except in the court of public opinion which Wagner had entered.

So it is worth looking at both Wagner's XXIX annotation remarks, and B's. response in AP to XXIX.

Wagner makes 3 points in that passage. I've broken it down into separate paragraphs for ease of reading and my opinions of same.

"XXIX. On page I, line 12 seq., the defender assures his readers that the principle of the motion depends on no external assistance, driving, etc., but is solely and simply concealed within. I never doubted that the principle is concealed within the wheel, but it is false to say that the motion depends solely on the internally concealed weights, for the impossibility has already been shown sufficiently above. The weights distributed over the circumference of the wheel give it such a powerfully moving force that a load hung from it does not weaken the rotations noticeably."

Wagner says that the wheels momentum from the weights/mass of the wheel is sufficient to allow a lift test without noticeably slowing down wheel rpm. He says B. says it was due solely to internally concealed weights, which Wagner refutes from his Mathematician background and experience, offering a plausible alternative. Neither can win the argument without additional information to exclude the high mass wheel momentum theory Wagner proposes. Stalemate !

"XXIX. The internal clatter and rattle do not imply a constant alternation of rising and falling; rather the clatter might depend partly on the turning of the weights in the compartments and partly on a completely separate clapping apparatus. Almost no clatter and rattle was to be heard with the Draschwitz wheel;

Wagner says the clatter and rattle heard is not necessarily from repeating rising and falling of weights as implied in B's. "due solely to internally concealed weights". He proposes that an alternative explanation could be loosely constrained weights making a contact sound against internal structures as the wheel rotates; and even partly aided by a bespoke and separate clapping apparatus. IOW's floating the idea of an element of intentional deception, and not necessarily only from rising and falling weights making contact sounds in their travels. He makes the point that the earlier one-way Draschwitz wheel has almost no rattle and clatter compared to the later two-directional Merseburg wheel. Impasse !


"XXIX. the wheel was made up of 8 spokes and was completely empty near the circumference, as one could see through the various cracks in the casing made of thin splinters (fletcher : planks), but there was not the slightest trace of a rising and falling weight to be heard or seen."

This is in reference to the one-way Draschwitz wheel. Presumably B. covered this wheel in lines of planks. As anyone who works with wood will know wood can shrink over time and twist and warp etc, creating unintentional gaps or cracks. To counter this possibility I would imagine that B. turned the external boards 90 degrees on the reverse side so as to limit opportunities to align cracks and see right thru the wheel with sufficient back lighting.

I also imagine that Wagner was quite close to the wheel, within a few meters. He may or may not have had the opportunity to walk around it or across its face as it revolved. He might have been able to partially follow a gap as it rotated with the wheel because he is adamant that the outer sector was completely empty of rising and falling weights. Or he made the assumption that it was empty of rising and falling weights from what he could SEE AND HEAR as it rotated. Yet, apparently, and reliably, the outer portions 'empty space or void ' was an observable real physical characteristic of the Draschwitz wheel.


So we look to B's. reply to XXIX in AP. As I said earlier this was a not a court room under lawyer challenge and cross-examination conditions. Can we take anything from B's. reply ? My observation is that it is like a politician's reply, deflecting and distracting, and attempting to control the narrative.

Here's what he says .. John Collins digital AP pg 338

XXIX (b) The clattering in my machine is (says Wagner) just
for appearance's sake.

Herr Wagner says that my machine does not, under any
circumstances, derive its motive force from the noisy weights. In
other words, he declares that the mechanism that causes all the
clattering (which was commented on earlier and which was noted
by so many people) is not, in fact, the thing which causes the
rotation of my Wheel.
The clattering noise you refer to is, I assure you, a phenomenon
caused directly by the real motive power of the machine, and
nothing else. You also wish me to inform you why the Draschwitz
machine did not create a similar noise; well, I'll tell you. The two
machines can easily be contrasted, as they worked on quite
different principles. The former (Draschwitz) one turned in only
one direction, but the latter (Merseburg ) one turned, as everyone
could see, both ways. The former was provided with felt
coverings, but the latter was as bare as a bald head. I have many
other machines of various types - some, for instance, with
weights, others without. Your questions are extremely irritating.
Why don't you get your wheel moving? Till then, shut up.

B. completely sidesteps the issue of the open-space outer portions where no rising and falling weights were to be seen or heard. He does the old magicians 'look over there' and the politicians 'I'll talk about anything else but that'. He says the obvious, that they worked on different principles, Draschwitz was one-way and felt covered, the Merseburg two-way and bald as an egg.

THEN .. he doubles-down just for good measure, and to again control the narrative with a further deflection.

"I have many other machines of various types - some, for instance, with weights, others without."

But he has just confirmed in reply to Wagner that weights were the motive force of his PM wheel on show. Then he says in that line that he has wheels with no weights. Clearly structures have mass, wheels have mass, and imo it seems to imply that his self-moving force is not solely and only dependent on what we often consider and visualize as discrete stereotypical 'weights' per se ! Tho a mass component to operation there must be, IMO !

B. was good alright ! Wagner unintentionally becoming his patsy.

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

P.S. to Tarsier .. the point is not to forget about the open space which must have had a real purpose. And your theory about pipes and hydrostatic force in this area of the wheel has its merits. Except it seems a lot of work to hide them if it were so, for what real purpose in a covered difficult to see into or thru wheel.

[A_Person]

This is what Bessler said and is what I am building.

Around the firmly placed horizontal axis is a rotating disc (low or narrow cylinder) which resembles a grindstone. This disc can be called the principle piece of my machine. Accordingly, this wheel consists of an external wheel (or drum) for raising weights which is covered with stretched linen. The base of the cylinder is 12 Rhenish feet in diameter. The height (or thickness) is between 15 and 18 inches.

What I am converting from a 4 weight wheel design to an 8 weight wheel design. Also, perpetual motion is impossible while conservation of energy (1st law of thermodynamics) is possible. In basic terms anyone can understand, if successful the heat content of the Earth's gravitational energy would be conserved as mechanical energy observed as angular momentum when it's actually linear momentum because the weight wheel assemblies would have no spin.
https://youtu.be/RZcu-8J0Lqk

p.s., if my testing next month (December) shows that a design with 8 weight wheels can work, I might do an entirely new build which could take into April. It does need to look nice. My actual goal is to do a show in Utrecht, Netherlands because the University of Utrecht has an original 300 year old book written by Bessler. If you click on the yellow button that says digital version, you'll see his book in a digital format. https://www.uu.nl/en/utrecht-university ... nn-bessler

[A_Person]

Please consider that John Collins and Scott Ellis lifted the ban. I only found out when I thought I'd try logging in. I have sent John Collins information
about things you can ask him about if you'd like to.
This build obviously didn't work. This is why I went to a 4 weight wheel design and am now building an 8 weight wheel design. The 6 ounces of weight was approximately 20 inches from the axle. That's 7.5 in. lbs. of torque. With what I am building, it's 20 inches x 3 lbs or 5 ft. lbs. of torque. It's possible that after I go to 8 weight wheels that I'll find out that the design in the previous video is the correct design. If so then if I make a smaller retraction disc on this build, it would have the same (identical) effect. Retraction would be at less than a 1:1 ratio with the retraction disc. This would get into perpetual motion theory and this wouldn't be the time to go there.
And now you guys have 2 videos to watch which fits in with Bessler's description. And I think this is where we could discuss maths but actual testing needs to be done to understand what is the most efficient/best design/configuration. Kind of why it's called R & D (research and development).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=935Ktoxw1fM

p.s., the angle of the arms might actually allow for more torque. The goal at the moment is to develop a working wheel because as Bessler said about using a crossbar ( a + sign?), it rotated so slowly. That is what a 4 weight wheel design does.

[Tarsier79]

Herr Wagner says that my machine does not, under any
circumstances, derive its motive force from the noisy weights............The clattering noise you refer to is, I assure you, a phenomenon
caused directly by the real motive power of the machine, and
nothing else.

He never actually says the clattering is caused by weights. It is the "motive power" of the machine.

P.S. to Tarsier .. the point is not to forget about the open space which must have had a real purpose. And your theory about pipes and hydrostatic force in this area of the wheel has its merits. Except it seems a lot of work to hide them if it were so, for what real purpose in a covered difficult to see into or thru wheel.

Agreed. Remember the old (flagged as incorrect) translation, warped boards around the edge: For arguments sake, if the boards were warped and there were gaps between them you could see through, and there were no evident moving mechanisms or weights visible near the periphery, it also gives credence to the theory it was utilising an artificial air pressure differential or aerodynamics. (IE the Aldo Costa Wheel.)

[Fletcher]

Herr Wagner says that my machine does not, under any circumstances, derive its motive force from the noisy weights............The clattering noise you refer to is, I assure you, a phenomenon caused directly by the real motive power of the machine, and nothing else.

He never actually says the clattering is caused by weights. It is the "motive power" of the machine.

Whilst B. is not economical with words .. he is very careful with words. Yes, he confirms the motive force derives from 'noisy weights'. Then later says the real motive power is the causation of the clattering noise. The two seem related, motive force .. and .. real motive power N.B. he didn't just say "motive power" (adequate) but instead embellished it to "REAL" motive power.

The reader will potentially either move on past dismissing it as unimportant and unfathomable psycho-speak .. or .. linger on the nuance of this brand of Bessler-babble, from an educated man who told his brand of truth. In a similar way to never calling it a "Gravity Wheel" tho we often infer it ! ( rightly or wrongly )

P.S. to Tarsier .. the point is not to forget about the open space which must have had a real purpose. And your theory about pipes and hydrostatic force in this area of the wheel has its merits. Except it seems a lot of work to hide them if it were so, for what real purpose in a covered difficult to see into or thru wheel.

Agreed. Remember the old (flagged as incorrect) translation, warped boards around the edge: For arguments sake, if the boards were warped and there were gaps between them you could see through, and there were no evident moving mechanisms or weights visible near the periphery, it also gives credence to the theory it was utilising an artificial air pressure differential or aerodynamics. (IE the Aldo Costa Wheel.)

I'll be coming to Wolff's witness statements next in line ;7)

[Georg Künstler]

The problem is, that always the two principles are mixed.

The one directional wheel does not have impacts/hits, because the weights are only rolling, turning on its own position.
One side full, the other empty. As it should be.
No stork bill is required.
Only one weight is necessary.

The bi-directional wheel is using impacts/hits, and the first impact creates the additional momentum to drive the wheel.
Here the weights must act in pairs, a synchronized swinging.
The synchronized swinging requires a structure where the weights are bound in the connectedness principle.
This is requiring the stork bill.
Multiple weights, two and two, are necessary, a herd.

Common for both is the fact that no weights are hanging from the central axle.

Thats my own summary of the two principles.

[Fletcher]

I would respectfully disagree Georg .. I think B. had just one 'working' PM principle, that he used in both the one-way and two-way wheel formats.

And both types of wheels used SB's as a major component of his mechanical PM arrangement, common in both.

The Draschwitz he attempted to quieten with the use of felt coverings where objects met, perhaps thinking the noise gave too much away, or that it was more agreeable if it were less noisy (the earliest Gera made what was described as scratching sounds). And in the Merseburg he no longer bothered, perhaps realizing that a rattling and clattering noise Wagner mentions would generate lots of speculation about the internal mechanics. Most of it wrong, and so the noise served his purpose rather than compromise it.

Here are the various descriptions of noises heard from witnesses.

Draschwitz wheel (includes attached stampers) .. the machine began to rotate with great force and noise - Letter from Teuber to Leibniz, 19th January, 1714

Merseburg wheel .. As soon as just one of the internal weights began to fall, the machine started to revolve with such strength - Johann Weisse, District Magistrate, report on Merseburg wheel examination, 31st October, 1715

Merseburg wheel .. During rotation, one can clearly hear the weights hitting against the wooden boards. - Christian Wolff, letter to Leibniz, examination of Merseburg wheel, 19th December, 1715

Merseburg wheel .. One could hear the weights landing on the overbalanced side, as though they were swinging, from which one can assume that the overbalancing was caused by their impact. ... . In this way, the wheel is put into rotation by the impact of the weights, which can be heard.- letter from Christian Wolff to Johann Daniel Schumacher, 3rd July, 1722

Merseburg wheel .. and accelerated as soon as one of the weights, hidden inside, began to fall. ... The movement was accompanied by quite a loud noise caused by the internal mechanism which lasted until the machine was brought to a forced stop. - Certificate for wheel tested at Merseburg, signed 31st October, 1715

Kassel wheel .. At every turn of the wheel can be heard the sound of about eight weights, which fall gently on the side towards which the wheel turns. - letter from Joseph Fischer to J.T. Desaguliers, 1721

If you have read these commonly known first-hand witness descriptions you will see that these commentators promote their assumption that weights fall (falling can be heard apparently, tho I can usually only reliably hear when something arrives somewhere and is decelerated).

The only 'given' imo is that sounds are heard on the descending side of the wheels. They may or may not be the assumed by many to be weights.

Wagner is the only one who makes the distinction, and reports what he sees and hears, and avoids rushing to conclusions and adding unconfirmed context. IMO !

[Fletcher]

Karl saw the inside of a wheel but said nothing other than it was easy to understand and simple to build. So simple a carpenter's apprentice could build it.

AFAIK here is the only other witness first-hand account, and detail, of something seen inside a wheel, other than Wagner's above. It is the Wolff account of the two-way Merseburg wheel, written in Latin in a letter to Leibniz 1715.

From BW.com > Eyewitness Accounts

Johann Christian Wolff (1679 - 1754)
Professor and Philosopher
Viewed the bi-directional wheel in 1715

"When Orffyreus exhibited the extraordinary machine which he had built, to refute the malicious rumors being spread that it is fraudulent, I was deliberately present... We have demonstrated that in reality Orffyreus' wheel is far removed from any deception. The investigation was conducted in the presence of representatives of the Court of the Duke and other guests. When the machine was ready to rotate, all adjacent rooms were opened and the bearings were completely uncovered. To prevent anyone accidentally seeing the internal structure of the machine, he covered it. Whilst he did this, he did not disguise the fact that the mechanism is moved by weights. Several such weights, wrapped in his handkerchief, he let us weigh in our hands to estimate their weight. They were judged to be about four pounds each, and their shape was definitely cylindrical.

I conclude, not only from this but also from other circumstantial evidence, that the weights are attached to some moveable or elastic arms on the periphery of the wheel. During rotation, one can clearly hear the weights hitting against the wooden boards. I was able to observe these boards through a slit. They are slightly warped. When he put the wheel onto another support and reinstalled the weights in their previous positions, he pushed down on an iron spring that gave a loud noise as it expanded upwards."

Here is another familiar and fuller translation of the Wolff letter ..

Christian Wolff, letter to Leibniz, examination of Merseburg wheel, 19th December, 1715

"When Orffyreus exhibited the extraordinary machine which he had built, to refute the malicious rumours being spread that it is fraudulent, I was deliberately present. The mechanic, Gartner, in particular, who is so famous for his many celebrated mechanical inventions, has distributed in public a copper-engraving on which is a slanderous picture showing how Orffyreus' machine was moved by means of a cord from an adjoining room. We have demonstrated that in reality Orffyreus' wheel is far removed from any such deception. The investigation was conducted in the presence of representatives from the Court of the Duke and other guests. When the machine was ready to rotate, all adjacent rooms were opened and the bearings were completely uncovered. To prevent anyone accidentally seeing the internal structure of the machine, he covered it. Whilst he did this, he did not disguise the fact that the mechanism is moved by weights. Several such weights, wrapped in his handkerchief, he let us weigh in our hands to estimate their weight. They were judged to be about four pounds each, and their shape was definitely cylindrical.

I conclude, not only from this but also from other circumstantial evidence, that the weights are attached to some moveable or elastic arms on the periphery of the wheel. During rotation, one can clearly hear the weights hitting against the wooden boards. I was able to observe these through a slit. They are slightly elongated (BW.com They are slightly warped (me : curved)). When he put the wheel onto another support and reinstalled the weights in their previous positions, he pushed down on an iron spring that gave a loud noise as it expanded upwards. I therefore presume that there is no doubt that the wheel is moved by an internal source of power, but we cannot necessarily assume that it is perpetual. Furthermore, the machine may be of little value to the public unless it can be improved. At the moment it can lift a weight of sixty pounds, but to achieve this the pulley had to be reduced more than four times, making the lifting quite slow. The diameter of the wheel is about twelve feet, and as well, the bearing was quite thin, about one quarter of an inch and only a sixth of its length was subject to friction."



This letter and its translation has been discussed many times over the years. Rather than rehash it all and the nuances I'll include some of the discussion points of relevance imo.


Most agree with the gist of the translations in general, except for two main points.


Firstly, the short boards seen by Wolff, being either elongated or warped. Here is member Stewart Hughes (experienced translator) reply to questions raised about these boards from a Topic called "Wolff to Leibniz Letter 19th Dec 1715", written in 2009.

Stewart Hughes "My transcription from the original letter (the words between the ~ characters were crossed out):

"... In peripheria enim hinc inde affixae erant trabeculae normales, ad quas in circumactione rotae allidi pondera ~manifestum erat~ satis clare percipiebatur. Trabeculas illas per rimam intuens adverti, quamvis e longinquo. ..."

My translation: "... In fact in the periphery [of the wheel] here and there small 'normal' beams were attached, which on rotation of the wheel ~it was evident~ were quite clearly perceived to be hit by weights. I have noticed those small beams [while] looking through a crack, although from a distance. ..."

I think the original confusing translation of 'warped boards' must be related to the words 'trabeculae normales'. I still can't see how someone would arrive at a translation of 'warped' though. 'Trabeculae' is diminutive plural of 'trabs' which means a beam or plank etc., so we get small beams/planks. 'normales' is an adjective (normalis/normale) which means "right angled, made according to a carpenter's square". The word 'normal' in English wasn't used to mean "conforming to common standards, usual" until the early 1800s. So when talking about 'normal' beams/lines in a wheel/circle I would think this would mean beams/lines at right-angles to the tangent.

Another thing to point out is that 'hinc inde' generally means 'here and there', but could mean in this case 'on both sides'. (hinc inde = 'here and there', 'from different directions', 'on both sides', 'on the one hand and on the other')

To understand what Wolff is possibly describing I would say have a look at MT18 for something that seems to fit the description quite closely. It has weights attached to elastic arms and 'normal' beams/planks on the periphery of the wheel that the weights hit.

Stewart"


Secondly the discussion of the "iron" spring sound heard. In the same thread this is what Stewart had to say in 2008 (from 2 posts).

"There's this part: "...quod instar elateris in altum resiliebat, ut ex sono edito erat manifestum."

...which talks of something resembling a spring recoiling deep within, as was evident/unmistakable from the sound emitted. It doesn't say 'iron' though. The word for spring is 'elater' but is in genitive form here (elateris). 'instar' is a noun meaning 'image/likeness/resemblance/the form of', so presumable the two words together give "the resemblance of a spring" or "a form of spring".

Stewart"

"Alan wrote: Wouldn't a storks bill have a resemblance of a spring under these conditions?"

"Wolff was commenting on what he could hear - something that sounded like a spring recoiling within the wheel. I would think that he meant the sound was a metallic twang or something, but who knows! Also the mechanism could have been anything - even just a simple spring-loaded latching mechanism for easy removal and replacement of the weights, so it might not be that useful a clue.

Stewart"


----------------------------


My point being that Wolff could see thru cracks what he thought were moveable or expandable arms. This, to me, sounds remarkably like SB's, Student-Forceps, Lazy-Tongs.


And he could see short boards, and deduced from the sound that something (he speculated they were weights) impacted them.


He also heard a sound that reminded him of something "spring-like", tho he did not say "iron", and its purpose within the wheel is not speculated on. Allan makes the point that perhaps a SB in some circumstances could have a resemblance to a spring.


The point is that perhaps a SB could make a similar sound as it is manually adjusted, IINM.

[Tarsier79]

For him to have heard the sound of a spring, it would have to be a reasonable sized spring. I don't believe a SB would make that type of sound, unless it had steel spring catches. Another of endless possible causes of this noise could be taught wires like on a suspension bridge, as either a guide wire or simply strengthening the structure. If he hit one of these with a metal weight it would make a sound like hitting a metal guitar string.

Also, Wolff could see the boards, but couldn't see the weights hitting them.

Here is the google translation:

For the normal trabeculae(small beams) were attached on either side at the periphery, to which the weights of the wheels being dashed in the course of the round, were clearly perceived to be quite clearly visible. While looking through the slot I noticed those little pieces of wood, though at a distance

[Fletcher]

Tarsier .. I think the common denominator is that while B. was manipulating something inside the wheel Wolff heard a peculiar harsh sound.

And the sound reminded him of the sounds of material stress.

--------------------

e.g. the classic metallic sound as a taut spring is quickly released (not doing work), or a slack spring is tensioned and latched. Or the vibration (twang) of a taut string or wire being plucked etc etc.

A physical spring (coil or leaf etc) to store or release elastic energy is but one option for the origin of the sound.

Agreed, Wolff could not see weights hitting boards. He speculates to Leibniz, probably naturally about weights hitting boards. Altho the entire context is unconfirmed you'd have to say an intelligent guess (if not familiar) all the same.

[Fletcher]

I probably should have added this sage advice from B in MT.

Which appears to throw cold water on the idea of a pure impact-force (hammer) wheel, as the source of self-moving and momentum gain.


Digital : No. 52 The present invention or speculation is to be found at the place of an eminent man. I was not a little surprised at the imagination involved in it. A is a balance wheel, and B is its axle. Clappers, or mallets, on B strike the wheel C, which should thereby move. At D are wheels which, by means of a cord, should move the upper axle B and set a perpendicular going at E. I will only say the following: no wheel is moved through strong blows, for paddles would sooner dash it into 1000 pieces, and it would be utterly destroyed with bullets, as is sufficiently known.

Hard Copy : No. 52 I found the present invention or speculation in the works of an eminent man, but I was not a little surprised at the imagination involved in it. A is a flywheel and B is its axle, on which are flaps or mallets that strike the wheel C, in order to move it; at D, are pulleys for moving the upper axle B, by means of a cord, and at E, there is even a continuously swinging pendulum. Here I will say only this much: no wheel is moved by heavy blows, which are more likely to dash the paddles of the wheel into a 1000 pieces, as though with bullets. No further explanation is necessary.

[eccentrically1]

I wonder though, if he had explained it further , what do you think he might have said?
If you and I were working in pairs hammering on warped boards , we wouldn’t be able to hammer a wheel in circles, would we?
So it seems gently landing on the down going side makes more sense.

[Tarsier79]

Wagner says the Draschwitz wheel made no sound. I imagine this is other than the stampers, which may have overpowered any noise coming from the wheel. If this were the case, and Bessler had purposely timed the stampers so the noise hid the internal wheel noise, there being only 3 stampers would mean there were only 3 mechanisms in this early one way wheel. This may also relate to the the apologia wheel?

Bessler says the noise was dampened by felt, but surely this wouldn't have stopped the noise altogether.



The Wiki says Gravesande and Fischer viewed the wheel in 1721, but the Cassel wheel test was from Nov 1717 to Feb 1718.

Does this mean it stayed there for 4 years?

[Fletcher]

I wonder though, if he had explained it further , what do you think he might have said?

He said no further explanation is necessary, as is sufficiently known. Meaning it is axiomatic. Since you ask me - if I speculate that he had explained it further he might have fleshed out his short statement a little. Something like .. the harnessing of impact and impulse can be an alluring prospect as a line of investigation, but will never result in a self-moving wheel. He might have gone a step further, and said, Galileo was absolutely correct, Newton was not wrt a rotating environment. Pushing the boat out he might even have said read thru the MT pages carefully ........ make objectivity and logic your friend !

If you and I were working in pairs hammering on warped boards , we wouldn’t be able to hammer a wheel in circles , would we?

We could if we stood beside the wheel and persuaded it to move along with a big stick. But then we'd be anchored to the earth and not be part of the wheel system turning with it. And we'd be providing muscle energy into the system to give the wheel RKE. Just like overbalanced wheels work if there is someone close by to lift up weights to restore GPE. If we're rotating with the wheel it is show-stopping problematic IINM.

So it seems gently landing on the down going side makes more sense.

It does .. since this is what was observed about the last Kassel wheel. And remembering that the first Gera made only scratching sounds. And Draschwitz had felt coverings as told by Bessler. .. generically a noise was heard which was symptomatic of parts coming together on the descending side of the wheel.

[John Collins]

Quoting from Stewart, “ which talks of something resembling a spring recoiling deep within, as was evident/unmistakable from the sound emitted. It doesn't say 'iron' though. The word for spring is 'elater' but is in genitive form here (elateris). 'instar' is a noun meaning 'image/likeness/resemblance/the form of', so presumable the two words together give "the resemblance of a spring" or "a form of spring".

I note the words “spring recoiling”, and I wonder if instead of an expanding spring Wolff was referring to a much more familiar sound of a clock being wound. This could simply refer to a ratchet type of sound, perhaps as Bessler re attaching the weights he had removed?
This fits in better than the sound of a spring expanding.

JC