The ONE WORD that could give it ALL AWAY !

[agor95]

This could simply refer to a ratchet type of sound, perhaps as Bessler re attaching the weights he had removed?

JC

How many weights were remove and re-attached?

There should have been several witnesses counting them out and into the wheel?

Regards

[eccentrically1]

If we're rotating with the wheel it is show-stopping problematic IINM.

Right, so even if we nail down the energy source he tapped to lift the weights, the wheels weren't rotating because they were getting hammered by the weights. As Tarsier noted a few posts ago, Bessler said the clattering noise was a result of the motive force, not the motive force itself; paraphrasing.

That's why I keep hammering the table about the wheel and any boards the weights were striking are superfluous. He could have simply had levered weights on an axle, but they aren't rotating the wheel, the energy source lifting the weights is the rotater. And on a related note, since he did use a wheel and boards, there was no difference in speeds between the wheel and the weights that some think must be so. Everything was rotating at the same speed. That's just common sense.

[Sam Peppiatt]

The sound of a spring might be explained by Johann Buckhard, (a reporter). Reff. John Collins book page 89. Apparently he observed weights with springs attached to the center of them. I suggest, they were the same cylindrical weights that Bessler was showing around; (probably a short length of water pipe). Also the same 8 weights that Fischer could here, hitting the wheel going down and, the same ones Wollfe could here, hitting the boards.

I submit that they were fitted to a round spoke, and could slide in and out as the wheel turned. The spring was fastened at right angles / 90 to the weights. This would cushion there fall as they slid into the center or out to the rim of the wheel. What they were used for I don't know but, I agree they didn't have a dam thing to do with the turning of the wheel. In fact they would tend to make it bottom heavy. Maybe that's what they were for, to stop the wheel. So; when Bessler pushed down on one of them, it made a big noise as it flew upward and, hit the upper stop------------------Sam

[johannesbender]

There is not much to go on with interpreting the sounds , but it does indicate a few things ,for example something seem to have happened about every 45 degrees that produced the sound.

If the wheel slowed down/sped up during tests ,and the amount of sounds heard per rotation did not change , it would seem that the action that produced the sound never happened out of phase with the rotation speed ,but on exact time/angle.

The fact that he felt covered , can indicate that the same methods were used in the wheel , because the sound/impact/sudden stop , still had to be muffled , even though the complete design might have been different for bi-directional one-directional.

Felt covering though , that is a precise indicator to what could perhaps caused the sound , he seem to have not mentioned leather or such to reduce sound/absorb impact or such , but some of felt's uses among many are soundproofing and padding , i can only imagine how much sound amplification a large drum would cause ...

I cannot see someone using felt on parts directly except at stops/limits where parts meet suddenly after movement , but also when applied on the inside wheel structure it would dampen the sound, i guess he did not like the noise , i don't really think he was hiding a particular sound.

[Fletcher]

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.

A plausible deduction Tarsier. AFAIK the 3 stampers were beside the wheel on the same axle. Whether they were pounding rock or just lifting and falling against the anvil they would make a hullabaloo, drowning out most other noises. And the internal noise of the wheel itself would hardly be worth bothering to quieten or disguise .. unless .. you were slightly paranoid about your newly minted PM wheel principle. Maybe the stampers could be disconnected in which case a quieter wheel without them in operation was more agreeable as a demonstration, or the internal noises did alarm B. in some way, so initially needing hushing, in his mind.

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?

I don't think so. Here is the translations of the letters from s'Gravesande to Newton; and Fischer to Desaguliers, written in 1721.

** http://www.orffyre.com/quotes.html .. Thank you to Bill McMurty.

Rather than reproduce the complete translation for each letter I have included the extra detail of Bill's versions for each writer which occurs at the ends of the letters.

"... This motion was preserved some time ago for two months, in an apartment of the castle; the door and windows of which were locked and sealed, so that there was no possibility of fraud.
At the expiration of that time, His Serene Highness ordered the apartment to be opened, and the machine stopped, lest, as it was only a model, the parts might suffer by so much testing. The Landgrave being, himself, present during my examination of this machine, I took the liberty to ask him, as he had seen the inside of it, whether, after being in motion for a certain time, some alteration was made in the component parts; or whether one of these parts might be suspected of concealing some fraud; on which His Serene Highness assured me to the contrary, and that the machine was very simple...'
- letter from Willem Jacob 'sGravesande to Sir Isaac Newton, 1721"

"... I then turned it in the opposite direction, and the wheel produced the same effect. I examined the bearings of this wheel to see if there was any hidden artifice; but was unable to see anything more than the two small bearings on which the wheel is suspended at its centre.
His Highness, who possesses all the qualities that a great prince should have, has always had consideration for the inventor, and will not use the machine in any way for fear of the secret being discovered before the inventor had received a reward from foreigners. His Highness, who has a perfect understanding of mathematics, assured me that the machine is so simple that a carpenter's boy could understand and make it after having seen the inside of this wheel, and that he would not risk his name in giving these attestations, if he did not have knowledge of the machine...'
- letter from Joseph Fischer to J.T. Desaguliers, 1721"

[Tarsier79]

Sorry, another slightly off topic:

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.

Besslers diagram did not show a pulley reduction. I imagine he used 2 sets of block and tackle to reduce it 4x. So running the rope over the axle as shown, it could only easily lift 15 pounds, or 7kg. I wonder if this further reduces the extrapolated power calculations.

[Fletcher]

The sound of a spring might be explained by Johann Buckhard, (a reporter). Reff. John Collins book page 89. Apparently he observed weights with springs attached to the center of them. I suggest, they were the same cylindrical weights that Bessler was showing around; (probably a short length of water pipe). Also the same 8 weights that Fischer could here, hitting the wheel going down and, the same ones Wollfe could here, hitting the boards.

IINM Johann Burckhard Mencke (Editor) was one of 12 people who signed the 3rd Testimonial about the Merseburg translocation wheel, found in DT. IIRC that testimonial starts off by saying it is a testimonial of consensus. And it makes no mention of the cylindrical weights handed around by B., or springs etc. I would say it was a bit contentious to include too many private and unsubstantiated speculations, on which not everybody could agree, to be included.

Privately Mencke speculated 'from other circumstantial evidence' (in PMAAMS?) that possibly the weights had holes in their centers that may have allowed for spring interconnections. It's a guess. As we know Wolff also voiced similar sentiments about 'other circumstantial evidence' etc etc, and a different theory.

What is most interesting to me I think is that Karl does not sign the consensus testimonial, even tho there. I would say that he recused himself precisely because he did know how they worked and wanted to remain untainted, imo.

[Fletcher]

Found it .. John Collins PM-AAMS? pg 89

But there was a full account of the Orffyrean wheel published in the Acta Eruditorum. The editor of this respected publication was Johann Burckhard Mencke, who we met earlier; he was one of those present on the 31st October 1715, at the testing of the wheel at Merseburg.

The article, An Account of the Perpetuum Mobile of Johann Ernst Elias Orffyreus, consisted of a brief resume of the story so far, including the actions of the 'Gärtner gang' and their claims that a man was secreted in a hidden chamber, and that he was the real motive force for the Orffyrean machine. The article recounts the inventor's various actions, his constant improvements to the wheel, and the fact that he 'silenced his critics, not by words but by deeds'. The previous tests are covered, and mention is made of the illustrious examiners present. It is stated that 'Orffyreus did not attempt to conceal the fact that his machine is set in motion by weights'. The author goes on to 'conclude from circumstantial evidence that the weights were pierced in the middle and attached by connecting springs'.

As mentioned there is the 3rd Consensus Testimonial found on Pg 239 DT digital (signed by the 12). Julius Bernhard Von Rohr; Wolff Dietrick Bose; August Leidenfrost; Carl August Hûbner; M Christoph Semler; Christoph Buchtà; M Alb Zũmmermann; Friedrick Hoffman; Christian Wolff; D Johann Buckhard Mencke; Christian Benit; Johann Jost Walbaum.

Additionally there is the 1st Testimonial Pg 235 signed by Julius Bernhard von Rohr; and Caspar Johann Bretnũty. And the 2nd Testimonial Pg 237 signed by Johann Andreas Weise.

IINM none mention the taking out and handling of weights or any spring-like sounds as B. rummaged around inside replacing them etc. These comments come from Wolff's private letter and Mencke's conjecture.

For full translations and context read John Collin's digital DT and PM-AAMS?

[agor95]

This could simply refer to a ratchet type of sound, perhaps as Bessler re attaching the weights he had removed?

JC

How many weights were remove and re-attached?

There should have been several witnesses counting them out and into the wheel?

Regards

Based on the post so far there was no weights removed from and replaced into the wheel. Therefore questions of the weights being 4lbs is also in question. For the weight was not taken out for examination.

Regards

[Fletcher]

From John Collins - "Pertpetual Motion - An Ancient Mystery Solved?"

- 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. 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.'

- letter from Christian Wolff to Johann Daniel Schumacher, 3rd July, 1722.

'...1. To begin with, it would appear to be beyond doubt that Orffyreus' wheel is not moved by any imaginable external force but rather, its movement is due to the internal weights which are applied in a special manner. My reasons for arriving at this conclusion are:

a) I saw, myself, that the wheel began to rotate with speed and uniformity, without any appreciable external thrust or push until it was slowed from outside. Any attempt at fraud from outside was impossible because the wheel bearings were uncovered on both sides and one could see the axle journals turning in their bearings. Upon request, the wheel was moved from its stand and put on another one.
b) Before translocating the wheel, the Inventor who was performing the test for the officially appointed Commissioners, took out the weights and permitted one of them to be touched, wrapped in a handkerchief. He did not allow the weight to be touched on the end, but lengthwise, it felt cylindrical and not very thick. 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. Furthermore there is the testimony of the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel, who is experienced in evaluating mechanical inventions and had seen the internal mechanism of the wheel and ran it for many weeks in a locked room, keeping the keys himself, having personally locked and sealed the doors and windows with his own seal. He testified both verbally and in an officially printed certificate that the movement of the wheel was caused by nothing more than the weights and that it would run continuously unless the internal structure of the wheel was altered.

2. Since it is impossible, according to mathematical proof, for a machine to run continuously by its own force, some matter from outside must contribute to its motion. That matter can not be perceived by any of the senses but could be made use of by people who know nature better. I suggest, therefore, that the weights on the wheel's periphery are attached by rods in such a way that when at rest on the lighter side of the wheel, they can be lifted, but when they start to fall, after the wheel has turned, they deliver a force on impact, acquired during the fall, onto a piece of wood which is fixed to the periphery. In this way, the wheel is put into rotation by the impact of the weights, which can be heard. But the force which drives the weights, does not come from the machine itself, rather it comes from some fluid, invisible matter by which the movement of the falling weights becomes faster and faster. Orffyreus' whole invention consists of an artful arrangement of weights, in such a way that they are lifted when at rest and acquire force during their fall, and in my opinion it is this that he keeps secret. This is also consistent with what Orffyreus says, that anyone could easily understand his invention, as soon as he is allowed to look into the wheel.

3. It is possible therefore, that when the internal structure of the wheel has been revealed, some mathematicians may decide that it is not a perpetual motion machine as there is an additional force involved, namely the unknown substance which applies continuous pressure to heavy bodies when they fall, and which adds to the force of their impact...'

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

** The official Testimonials in DT (1st, 2nd, 3rd) do not mention the taking out, and replacing of cylindrical weights before and after translocation, weighing about 4 lbs etc.

[Georg Künstler]

by eccentrically1 » Sun Dec 05, 2021 2:00 pm

fletcher wrote:
If we're rotating with the wheel it is show-stopping problematic IINM.
Right, so even if we nail down the energy source he tapped to lift the weights, the wheels weren't rotating because they were getting hammered by the weights. As Tarsier noted a few posts ago, Bessler said the clattering noise was a result of the motive force, not the motive force itself; paraphrasing.

That's why I keep hammering the table about the wheel and any boards the weights were striking are superfluous. He could have simply had levered weights on an axle, but they aren't rotating the wheel, the energy source lifting the weights is the rotater. And on a related note, since he did use a wheel and boards, there was no difference in speeds between the wheel and the weights that some think must be so. Everything was rotating at the same speed. That's just common sense.

I will disagree with the sentence "Everything was rotating at the same speed", because we deal in the wheel with the drive the driver problem.
The internal construction must be always faster than the rotating wheel which you will see outside.

In the wheel itself there are taking place different accelerations of the mass.
A hitting/impact noise on the downgoing side is an asymmetric action.
The rotating of the wheel is driven from a combined action which take place inside of the wheel.
The wheel rotation has a speed limit, which is depending on the building size, the diameter of the wheel.
This speed is the natural frequence of the wheel, when it is not under load.
So the action inside must split the movements of the weight into an up and a down force, and this action has to take place on the downgoing side.
An hit/impact always goes hand in hand with high acceleration values. They correspond. Here you have Besslers "up in a flash".
If a mass is accelerated upward with an high acceleration. it will also produce the opposite acceleration, which results in the rotation of the wheel.
The first fall has the hardest fall, because the internal construction not the single weight. fall against the rim.
In the start condition the movement of the rim is zero, so the impact is hard, we have a high speed difference.
When the wheel will begin to turn,rotate, the impact speed is reduced.
It is reduced more and more until the wheel is turning with its natural frequency.
It is a controlled positive feedback loop, where the feedback is reduced until we have the constant turning of the wheel.

[John Collins]

Thank you for the quotations above, fletch. Even though I translated and published the documents, it was a long time ago and it’s easy to forget the details over time and I must admit I never noticed that they had omitted the details of the weight removals in the official testimonies. Good find!

JC

[Robinhood46]

Hi George,
I would have thought that if the sound, which was assumed to be made by the weights hitting the rim, did reduce in intensity as the wheel gathered speed, it would have been remarked upon by the witnesses.
If the impact was the cause of the acceleration, then, when the wheel picks up speed the impact would, effectively be reduced. At full running speed the wheel would have, theoretically, caught up with the weights and the impact would be considerably less. Because this wasn't observed, or at least written by any of the witnesses, I'm more inclined to think the weights hitting the rim continued making the same noise irrespective of the rotational speed.
For this to be the case, it would imply that the weights were either hitting the rim whilst travelling in a direction away from the centre (spoke of a wheel) or, they were hitting the face of the wheel very close to the rim. In either of these cases, the impact would change it's position in relation to the wheel, at the varying speeds, but it would have very little effect on the change of the impact itself, hence nobody would remark a distinct change in the impacts relative to rotational speed.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Fletcher,
Let me get this straight; you are saying that John Collins book is all wrong, Burckhard is all wrong, Wolffe is all wrong, and fischer is all wrong, there were never any weights in Bessler's wheel, with springs on them. Is that right; is that what you are telling me---------------------Sam

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Robinhood46,
it is only described, as I know, that there are impacts on the downgoing side.
There is no description about the intensity of the impact.
It is described as 8 impacts/hits per turn.
If this eyewitness discription is true, then the impacts occur regularly even in the acceleration phase.
This implies a constant gear ratio. The gear ratio is fix.
The wheel is describerd as self accelerating, you know.
It needs, as far as I know, 2 and a half turns to achieve the full speed, the natural frequency of the turning.
So you deal with a speed difference from the internal construction to the outer wheel.
If we have a falling weight, then we need space for this movement, before the impact will occur.
In this case we have an irregular movement, gravity will accelerate the mass downwards, and then this fall is stopped suddenly, resulting in an upswing of the weights.
This implies that not the weight is hitting the rim.
The internal structure is hitting the rim, so that the weights itself can make an additional move, the upswing.
The upswing is driving the wheel and not the impact/hit.