The ONE WORD that could give it ALL AWAY !

[ArchCalc]

He did say, “It just has to run.” In my mind, that statement implies simplicity.

I'm not sure if its much help but I take everything B. says with a grain of salt. Sometimes a large grain. He had an agenda.

IOW's truthful to a point.

Or as Georg said everything is relative. Relative to what ? - you don't have the full context on which to judge.

Some things he said will be literal, and others could be more figurative in meaning, imo.

I wouldn't go the the bank with any of them. Plenty of wiggle room as you said.

He was building a word puzzle, and he didn't intend for anyone, much less Wagner or Borlach et al, to complete it. As this thread shows I placed far greater importance on other avenues than his written word games from AP and DT, fwiw.

[Fletcher]

Yes, various quotes say it runs from a "preponderance", also called by him as "excess weight", and "excess impetus" as translated.

Karl said from an "innate momentum".

But I take your point - that if it has to run it implies an underlying mechanical simplicity, which is backed up by Karl, and B.

B. also says paraphrased that an ounce here or there makes not a jot of difference and it will merrily turn away.

To me that indicates a couple of things .. wrt the one-way variant.

1. Nothing is super critical in the mechanics i.e. there are large tolerances for inaccuracy of workmanship i.e. it is VERY forgiving.

And most importantly in my mind ..

2. There is a excess of directional force generated by the mechanical arrangements - an imbalance of force - asymmetric force.

And this force bias is why it self starts from any position, and must accelerate away, and why it is very forgiving of INaccuracy of build.

N.B. normal (and accurate) displacement builds will "keel" as rotational momentum and energy runs out from frictions and it slows to a stop .. or .. from inaccuracy of build (for ones with multiple mechs) which makes it act like a pendulum and rest at its position of lowest Potential Energy (GPE), which is the same position each time, unlike the other above.

IMO !

[cloud camper]

unnamed.jpg (49.67 KiB) Viewed 1225 times

I believe we have very strong evidence for an internally weighted keel providing static balance for the bidirectional wheel.

In the Meresburg wheel illustration below we see at the bottom of the wheel a rope hanging out the bottom and a lock.

The rope must be attached to something stationary and large on the internal wheel structure.

The lock is attached to the external wheel.

This way all B has to do is rotate the wheel and lock to the same lower position each time and he knows the rope is right there ready to fall out thru a hole and then secure with the lock.

This can only work reliably if there is something large and heavy at that spot on the internal wheel structure that is stationary to secure the external wheel to.

Now we also have a very likely explanation for the AP wheel diagram with the three spokes.

This is then a symbolic representation of the three main parts of the internal structure, the mechanism on the right that spins the wheel CW, the mechanism on the left which spins it CCW and the lower weighted keel that maintains an internal horizontal horizon.

[johannesbender]

Yes, various quotes say it runs from a "preponderance", also called by him as "excess weight", and "excess impetus" as translated.

Karl said from an "innate momentum".

But I take your point - that if it has to run it implies an underlying mechanical simplicity, which is backed up by Karl, and B.

B. also says paraphrased that an ounce here or there makes not a jot of difference and it will merrily turn away.

To me that indicates a couple of things .. wrt the one-way variant.

1. Nothing is super critical in the mechanics i.e. there are large tolerances for inaccuracy of workmanship i.e. it is VERY forgiving.

And most importantly in my mind ..

2. There is a excess of directional force generated by the mechanical arrangements - an imbalance of force - asymmetric force.

And this force bias is why it self starts from any position, and must accelerate away, and why it is very forgiving of INaccuracy of build.

N.B. normal (and accurate) displacement builds will "keel" as rotational momentum and energy runs out from frictions and it slows to a stop .. or .. from inaccuracy of build (for ones with multiple mechs) which makes it act like a pendulum and rest at its position of lowest Potential Energy (GPE), which is the same position each time, unlike the other above.

IMO !

There has to be something said for how convinced karl was of the design , we can take any design in MT or any other design for that matter , and usually we would not say without doubt "it would continue" , because there are more to it than what the eyes see , there are calculations to be made , and doubts to be removed about duration , and because there could be some factors that are questionable etc..

When i look at what has been written by Karl After he viewed the inner design , he sounds like he was fully convinced , he did not say "maybe" "perhaps" or he has doubts about some things, his statements were clear and to the point .

He was so convinced ,as to put the seal of their dynasty down , so what ever he saw had to have been something completely convincing , because i would think had it not been so , karl would have mentioned he was not certain if it would eventually "run down" or out of force/energy.

Unless B not just revealed the inside , but also proved the principle to karl , either way , it must have been one of those things that left no doubt by viewing or given the proof on paper too.

Countless people have been to the point of being easily convinced of certain designs as self rotating "pm" ,however karl is apparently not just falsely convinced , because according to MT we have an example of karl spotting a fake design from a professor (if that's true).

[Robinhood46]

I think we have to consider the possibility that Karl, may have been unable to convince himself that the mechanism was a runner, but he was able to convince himself that their was definitely no cheating going on.
Just as with the nay sayers, they are convinced that there was cheating going on, because this validates their belief that it is impossible, without knowing or understanding the method of cheating. Karl, if able to convince himself, by looking at the mechanism, that there isn't the possibility of any cheating going on, he can deduct that it is definitely PM without understanding the exact principal.
This could also explain why he never gave away the secret, because he didn't fully understand it. He understood sufficient to know that there wasn't any cheating going on and that it was simple enough for a carpenter's lad to build. Which is all he actually said.

[johannesbender]

I think we have to consider the possibility that Karl, may have been unable to convince himself that the mechanism was a runner, but he was able to convince himself that their was definitely no cheating going on.
Just as with the nay sayers, they are convinced that there was cheating going on, because this validates their belief that it is impossible, without knowing or understanding the method of cheating. Karl, if able to convince himself, by looking at the mechanism, that there isn't the possibility of any cheating going on, he can deduct that it is definitely PM without understanding the exact principal.
This could also explain why he never gave away the secret, because he didn't fully understand it. He understood sufficient to know that there wasn't any cheating going on and that it was simple enough for a carpenter's lad to build. Which is all he actually said.

What it seems like , is karl's first priority on inspection was to remove doubts about what drives the motion , eg. it not being clockwork and it being driven internally only, and checking on fraudulent claims and such.

Then they go on and did the duration test , which also included tests where the device was put to work , and it seems like his conclusions were a collection of these things and not just viewing how "simple" it was.

[Robinhood46]

I'm more inclined to think that Karl had already established that the wheel can turn on it's own, and that it can do work. The duration test wasn't needed for Karl to learn anything more. He needed simply to eliminate any doubts about some kind of monkey business going on within the wheel. After paying Bessler to see inside, he was convinced enough that everything was above board, and the official duration test was purely to help Bessler validate his claims.
This failed, rather miserably, because even with an official demonstration and his official validation of Bessler's claims, it didn't receive the desired, and expected, effect. The nay sayers were still able to cling to their belief, that there was some monkey business going on, because that is the effect beliefs have on us. Any eventual explanation that allows us to cling to a belief, is accepted with open arms, no matter how irrational, illogical or improbable.
Thoughts and opinions can be nibbled at. They can be swayed and they can be changed. Beliefs can only be changed, by smashing them to smithereens with concrete facts.

[agor95]

I'm more inclined to think that Karl had already established that the wheel can turn on it's own, and that it can do work. The duration test wasn't needed for Karl to learn anything more. He needed simply to eliminate any doubts about some kind of monkey business going on within the wheel. After paying Bessler to see inside, he was convinced enough that everything was above board, and the official duration test was purely to help Bessler validate his claims.
This failed, rather miserably, because even with an official demonstration and his official validation of Bessler's claims, it didn't receive the desired, and expected, effect. The nay sayers were still able to cling to their belief, that there was some monkey business going on, because that is the effect beliefs have on us. Any eventual explanation that allows us to cling to a belief, is accepted with open arms, no matter how irrational, illogical or improbable.
Thoughts and opinions can be nibbled at. They can be swayed and they can be changed. Beliefs can only be changed, by smashing them to smithereens with concrete facts.

The monkey agrees.

[ArchCalc]

I remember getting the impression that after B had his dream, the new idea he tried was accomplished very quickly. So it must have been quite simple.

[cloud camper]

Everything should be made as simple as possible - but no simpler.

Einstein

[johannesbender]

By The Grace Of God, We, Karl, Landgrave Of
Hessen, Prince Of Hersfeld, Count Of Katzenelnbogen,
Dietz, Ziegenhaven, Nidda And Schaumburg, hereby make
the following testimony and proclamation: -

‘Whereby our Kommerzienrath and loyal subject Doctor Johann
Ernst Elias Orffyreus has most submissively informed us how
he, at our castle Weissenstein, has constructed once more a
new machine from the one he first invented and constructed
some years ago, i.e. in 1712, firstly at Gera in the Voigtland, and
then in 1713, 14 and 15 at Draschwitz and Merseburg in
Saxony, where it was publicly demonstrated. This machine, a
‘Perpetuum Mobile’, he continues, has now been rebuilt in
a room of the aforementioned castle, after the concession
we had granted to him. But he adds how hitherto grave doubts
concerning his device have been expressed, including the
charge leveled against it that it is not the true P.M., namely a
machine which, when once set in motion, continues thus of its
own inner being, without (being driven by) clockwork, weights
that require raising, or by springs, so long as its materials retain
their integrity, unless it is deliberately interrupted in its persistent
motion. He adds many details about the defamatory remarks
regarding him and his machine which have been widely
disseminated in public journals, and that he has been
challenged in wagers that his machine could not continue in
motion for a period of four weeks.

As a result of this, our aforementioned
Kommerzienrath most humbly approached us to request that we
might most graciously not only inspect his aforesaid invention,
but might also, while the machine was running, arrange that it
should be most carefully protected; in particular that all routes
by which persons might have access to it or tamper with it in any
way, should, in order to pre-empt any further objections or
doubts, be thoroughly sealed up, and, moreover, be put under
guard, with the aim that the device should, after the lapse of a
sufficient period of time, be re-inspected, and, on ensuring
validation of its genuineness, be given, most graciously,
the stamp of an official princely testimonial and Letters
Patent, thereby also making unnecessary the payment of any
duties.

And therefore it has pleased us to accede most graciously to
this request, and, from a love of truth and in order to appreciate
the real nature of this so important device we have spared no
effort or expense to this end.

It is now attested and witnessed in the true words of His
Highness what was indeed discovered to be the truth about the
much-discussed Orffyrean P M.

I am not of the opinion that Karl needed to be convinced , on the contrary i am saying , by reading the above ,
Bessler seem to have approached Karl , and proposed an agreement where Karl would inspect and put it to test ,
such as to put down the allegations made against Bessler and took up the wager of duration.

I am not very convinced that Karl paid Bessler to see the inside - in this specific account of events, unless i am clearly unaware or forgotten something ?

[John Collins]

There is documentary evidence that Karl paid Bessler 4000 thalers to see inside the wheel, but Bessler had to wait and there is a letter from Bessler reminding Karl that he had not yet paid him. But this was normal practice - in England, in fact John Rowley, Master of Mechanics to George I, had to wait two years or more to get paid for each of his Orreries. Rowley saw Bessler’s wheel and was convinced of its authenticity.

JC

[johannesbender]

There is documentary evidence that Karl paid Bessler 4000 thalers to see inside the wheel, but Bessler had to wait and there is a letter from Bessler reminding Karl that he had not yet paid him. But this was normal practice - in England, in fact John Rowley, Master of Mechanics to George I, had to wait two years or more to get paid for each of his Orreries. Rowley saw Bessler’s wheel and was convinced of its authenticity.

JC

yes John , however i'm not sure it was payment during this account of events, was it perhaps before this attestation period happened or was it during these inspection events Karl and others gave testimonials ?

[ArchCalc]

B mentioned one time about “squaring the circle”. So I’ve been trying to connect that idea to the drive components of the Archimedes screw in his drawings. I see that instead of just circular pulleys, the screw has a slotted square and the wheel has those fork looking things (represents a circle?). So anyway, a clue of some sort?

[eccentrically1]

I don't know if it's a clue or where B mentioned it, but the components are prob what he considered the best way to connect the axle to the screw. There would be less slipping with a square pulley and a forked pulley, I think was discussed. The rope getting wet might have something to do with it.