The ONE WORD that could give it ALL AWAY !

[Sam Peppiatt]

Cloud Camper, It can't be, "fixed"; full on one side and empty on the other. He must mean the weights are constantly shifting, right? You know what I mean? The weights shift in on the up side and out on the down side. IOW, fuller on one side and emptier on the other, (out at the rim), as the wheel rotates---------------------Sam

[cloud camper]

Hey Sammo - of course many interpretations are possible so no one is really right or wrong until someone comes up with a working wheel but my current interpretation is that the mono wheel was truly empty on one side (thanks Fletch!) - conveniently leaving room for a mirror mechanism in the empty space to drive the wheel in the opposite direction and also balancing the overall internal mechanisms so it wasn't lopsided weight wise.

An anchor weight (keel) is still necessary to stop the internal mechanisms from rotating and at least in my design provide a very convenient hard point for mounting the timing mechanisms.

We know there was a hard point inside near the bottom of the wheel since there was a rope there that fell out thru a hole in the external wheel that B could secure with a lock.

Starting simulation soon so hopefully will provide some more clues!!

[Tarsier79]

an anchor weight was necessary hanging from the axle to prevent the mono directional wheel from flopping 90 deg down since the wheel was claimed to be heavy and full on one side of the wheel and empty and light on the other.

Isn't that the point of an OOB wheel? All the weights flop down on the downward side, while (insert magical mechanism here) lifts the weights instantaneously from 6:00 to 12:00.

Sam. if your theory is that Nothing hangs from the axle, that is a perfectly reasonable theory.

[cloud camper]

Yes Tarsier - that would be true for a wheel that was driven exclusively by OOB weights but my hypothetical design is driven exclusively by CF not gravity so it's a totally different animal!

Gravity plays a part but it's only because we borrow from gravity when it's helpful to generate CF but then the loss of mgh must be paid back in full.

The idea is to use gravity as a catalyst but does not power the wheel directly.

A catalyst in chemistry is a substance that facilitates a chemical reaction but is not used up or consumed in the process so it can be used over and over.

It's helpful to realize that CF is a squared quantity so it gets big very fast. MGH is a scalar quantity that does not change with horizontal location or speed.

[Fletcher]

But, since the principle is viable, and the material
of which this device is constructed is not subject to defect, lack
of durability or brittleness,

Karl moves on to say the principle is capable of working successfully , and , that since the device is constructed of durable material , he cannot see a reason why it would fail to keep going as required by the definition of "pm" back then.

there remains no doubt that it could,
and would, if started, continue to rotate indefinitely

So , imo , i think the "device" was a metal construction , seems like it could rule out some designs/things .

For instance , consider the discussion about warped boards or such , which does not fit with what Karl describes imo.

The principle was viable !

I take the other view jb .. Wolff was the only person who reported what he saw inside in the way of structures and materials, albeit peeking thru a crack and no doubt difficult to see, so I make some allowance for inaccuracy to have crept in. He didn't mention warped or elongated boards as various threads have dissected in the past. He said short boards normal to the rim, paraphrased.

I have not seen any other translation of boards for anything else, so I conclude he did see some wooden structures internally. B. had carpenter skills and would have worked with dense and hard woods in his various trades. And metal has a particular sound usually distinguishable from wood IINM. Balance of probabilities there was robust wood internally rather than expensive 'metals' that required refining and working etc, altho he did have blacksmithing skills apparently. If so he may have used iron or brass pins etc for extra strength and durability where needed.

JMO's.

[johannesbender]

I pretty much agree , it is entirely possible and logical that most of what did not require metal , could indeed not have been metal , it would make sense that not everything needs to be highly durable .

But , it just seems that whatever internal boards/beams/small structure they could see , was not really as important to the function of the device or as revealing as one might think.

I speculate that the parts that did the most movement or were under most force/stresses/friction were going to be made more durable than , for instance small wood pieces observed , therefore i think they werent that important because maby bessler knew people could see in certain areas but he did not mind that those things were visible.

I dont think it means one should ignore such observations made by eye witnesses about what they could see , however i think Karl has mentioned what he considered to be the most important points on what he observed and what can be eliminated eg. "typical" Clockwork etc, everyhing he mentions is just not as revealing as we wish , but there is so much counter argument one could draw to any single given conclusion one chooses to accept.

Edit: we also know , no material wil last indefintely if its subjected to degradation/wear , so perhaps karl did go a little overboard in his wording or there was a translation or writing mistake , but we know bessler correctly states "as long as its material would last" .. , however my main point would be , since the duration test was going to be done , bessler must have made the most important parts of the device from something durable and rigid like metal and that if anything was seen through cracks/slits it could perhaps be not as important as the main device parts.

[Georg Künstler]

by johannesbender » Tue Dec 21, 2021 8:03 pm


and would, if started, continue to rotate indefinitely

So , imo , i think the "device" was a metal construction , seems like it could rule out some designs/things .
For instance , consider the discussion about warped boards or such , which does not fit with what Karl describes imo.

there is no need for a metal construction in my opinion.
you can clearly see from the pictures that the construction is a Hamster cage.
I had counted 80 dowels.
The dowels are made from 20 mm beechwood rods, which I had used in my construction.
Maybe Bessler's dowels are even a little big thicker.
The dowels can handle the impacts easily.
The main reason to construct it as a Hamster cage with the dowels is to get the grip of the internal structure/construction.
If you construct the wheel round, then this grip is missing, and the internal construction will slide.
A sliding construction will automatically slide to the lowest point and will immediately balance.

Therefore the Hamster cage with its dowels is an essential part of the Bessler wheel construction.
It has a special function.
Only with this construction detail you can later create the torque which is needed to turn the wheel.
This construction detail is for the bi-directional wheel, it is different to the one directional wheel.

[Georg Künstler]

by cloud camper » Thu Dec 23, 2021 4:54 am

Yes Tarsier - that would be true for a wheel that was driven exclusively by OOB weights but my hypothetical design is driven exclusively by CF not gravity so it's a totally different animal!

Gravity plays a part but it's only because we borrow from gravity when it's helpful to generate CF but then the loss of mgh must be paid back in full.

The idea is to use gravity as a catalyst but does not power the wheel directly.

That is the point, it does not power the wheel directly, there is an intermediate structure, and this intermedia structure powers the wheel.
The intermedia structure is allowed to make its own moves.

[johannesbender]

by johannesbender » Tue Dec 21, 2021 8:03 pm


and would, if started, continue to rotate indefinitely

So , imo , i think the "device" was a metal construction , seems like it could rule out some designs/things .
For instance , consider the discussion about warped boards or such , which does not fit with what Karl describes imo.

there is no need for a metal construction in my opinion.
you can clearly see from the pictures that the construction is a Hamster cage.
I had counted 80 dowels.
The dowels are made from 20 mm beechwood rods, which I had used in my construction.
Maybe Bessler's dowels are even a little big thicker.
The dowels can handle the impacts easily.
The main reason to construct it as a Hamster cage with the dowels is to get the grip of the internal structure/construction.
If you construct the wheel round, then this grip is missing, and the internal construction will slide.
A sliding construction will automatically slide to the lowest point and will immediately balance.

Therefore the Hamster cage with its dowels is an essential part of the Bessler wheel construction.
It has a special function.
Only with this construction detail you can later create the torque which is needed to turn the wheel.
This construction detail is for the bi-directional wheel, it is different to the one directional wheel.

I have my own theory or rather ideas as to what would work , and while that does not necessarily correspond with other's opinion or perhaps not with Bessler's , i think it is still of value to try and understand some of the historical testimonials and information given about Bessler wheel.

Concerning Bessler wheel ,perhaps you are right George , perhaps someone else is right , i don't really know ,but if i were him i would most definitely not use wood for parts in important places that needed to last and work for as long as the duration test was performed , especially not as impact points due to, wood being strong but it does not hold up long against blunt force , in as much as it is subject to deformation.

Sure wood will work , but how long? , i speculate the lesser important parts for duration were most likely wood , and that the wheel may not have been majorly important to the actual function of the principle eg. an axle and device may have been enough .

[Georg Künstler]

Maybe some parts as the axle are from iron

https://c8.alamy.com/compde/2c6r53a/his ... c6r53a.jpg

but it could also be from wood.
Wood is in specific ranges flexible and can absorb the impacts very well.
There will not be a damage on the wood structure.

From the construction the wheel itself is not really heavy, because it is reported that 2 man can carry the wheel from one support to an other support.
Bessler has removed the cylindrical weights before the relocation.
Also that has a reason.
With the weights in the wheel during the transport the internal construction will do an uncontrolled swapping, a uncontrolled swinging, as a bucket full of water during the transport.

[ArchCalc]

Well, whichever way the beliefs go, something to consider is that even an approximate straight line in manufacturing wasn’t accomplished until the 1780’s. I suppose the ancient Egyptians or Greeks may have had something, but this is the earliest date I could find. And then milling machines and lathes even later.
For metal to be in B’s wheel, it would have had to been shaped by hammer, anvil and file.
My belief is that the wheel was all wood except the axle spindles/ bearings, and the weights. And maybe pulley axles, and chains.

[johannesbender]

There is an important destinction though between wheel and inner parts , perhaps that is where the confusion arises , because karl is not refering to a wheel but to the inner parts /"device" that needed to function for a long time and deliver a verdict to karl who inspected the inside , from which he then wrote that it was constructed from a durable material that was not subject to deformation or such , which is not the same thing as the wheel construction because we know from multiple witness observations that it was a light weight wood construction .

Wood does not seem to fit in with karl's description of material properties of the inner device , or perhaps i am not well informed about wood properties ?

Either way , i dont think material is important to function , just that , when you dont have a runner ,material would not matter that much to you ;once you do have a "runner" surely you will put your focus to longevity and durability of the thing , eapecially when you need to put it through a running duration test ..

[Fletcher]

As for words, is there any evidence that nothing hung from the axle, other than B saying that nothing did??

I saw where dGravesand tried to pry his hand inside, in front of B.

There must have been something written about it other than B thereafter destroying the wheel under the guise of indignation, when really it was to eliminate evidence of something.

I have to think of all possibilities. B left everybody to speculate…

I believe what Karl said about it. That it was real, but not much of what B said.

Hi AC .. I see that T79 and CC have answered you.

Here's my take .. but first two or three times in AP (John Collins digital) that B. says something about hanging from the axle or the axle itself. The context is important as always.

Here's the short version ..

"by making the true claim - that no weights hang from the axle of my wheel" – AP pg 281 hardcopy pg 278 digital

"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 hardcopy pg 347 digital

"ask any of those who have groped inside my Wheel and grasped its axle" - "rather, it has many compartments, and is pierced all over with various holes" – AP pg 336 hardcopy pg 325 digital


AP was written by B. after he demonstrated the bi-directional Merseburg wheel, which was also the translocation test. As T79 said the bi-directionality format was specifically to address detractors who said it could be like a clockwork mechanism, with springs and hanging weights (from the axle) that needed to have their GPE restored manually (like a grandfather clock). IOW's a periodic wheel that would run down and needed intervention. Wagner had built something similar to a split axle turnspit device in his attempt to duplicate B's. wheel performances.

Here's the full context ..

XXXII.
To get back to details, I soon started building machines again, and
in particular, as most people already know, I constructed my great
work, the 6-ell diameter wheel. It revolved in either direction, but
caused me a few headaches before I got the mechanism properly
adjusted. Why did I make this wheel, you may well ask, and so I will
now give you my answer. During my stay in Obergreisslau my
detractors put out the cunning falsehood (in order to deceive the
world) that my device, like a clock, needed to be wound up. This
caused me to make some changes to the mechanism so that all
intelligent people would appreciate the falseness of such a
proposition. People then began to believe - and they freely
admitted it - that the wheel did not require winding up.
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.

It caused him a few headaches before he got it working successfully i.e. he had to make some changes to the one-way format and it was a bit of a challenge. ** it wasn't a wheel with a hanging weight rewind mechanism like known clocks.

Wagner further says:-

"I have already experimented with various types of weights to see
which are the best to use in conjunction with the springs, but have
run up against the two following snags. Firstly, that their
heaviness causes overloading of the wheel's axle, secondly, that
the motion cannot be substantially prolonged because the
weights have little room to descend, further, that no other motive
power is at all suitable for the prolongation and strengthening of
the momentum."

Not for nothing do I set out Wagner's exact words, for by doing so
I can easily get people to appreciate just what bilge the man
produces! A mere turnspit is what he's talking about, as you can
see! My Mobile is free of all such nonsense. Springs and weights
of the kind he describes are not to be found in my machine!

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. From your own words, describing
my wheel, it follows that people must get used to calling it the true
Mobile. Yes, it is PERPETUAL - and you can't take your own
words back. Anyone looking into my wheel would see that the
matter is already settled. Revealed to the world would be the
artistry which Wagner himself calls the Mobile, and which is not
his to reveal.
But I could quote still more of his tract, for he writes at length
about such things as "perpendicular lead weights, cogwheel
drive, and eccentric cranks". And, too, about the hollow spaces
which he intends to fill with lead, in order to give his wheel a
smart momentum, so that it turns with gusto. Jump up and down
with gusto yourself, then, Wagner - then start tearing your hair
out, because you'll soon find, you splendid mechanic, that this is
a nut you can't crack! If one weight is giving an upward impetus,
another one, at the same time, is giving an equal downward one.
And as for the interior cog mechanism - that will hinder movement
rather than promote it. Oh yes, there'll be a fine clattering, but no
sustained momentum. Banging, rattling, vibrating - that's what
the wheel will be good for - and vexing you as well!
You see, your thoughts are only now tending in directions that
have been second nature to me for ages, and the amount of ink
you've spilt doesn't begin to equate to the great draughts of
knowledge I have drunk.


Now look, Wagner, just listen carefully if you want some information
from me. People say that, in your writings, you claim to have
devised a Wheel which has a divided axle, held together in the
middle only by a peg. Am I reporting you correctly? But people will
continue to laugh until you actually produce such a machine! You
further claim that my wheel is the same, but you're lying through
your teeth! Ask any of those who have groped inside my Wheel and
grasped its axle - and you will be assured, in no uncertain terms,
that my axle is not like that. Rather, it has many compartments, and
is pierced all over with various holes. Anyone with a bit of
understanding will see that my machine works in quite a different
manner. Yes, he’ll see that it really is a PERPETUUM MOBILE
that doesn’t need winding up, that can drive things, and that
despite WAGNER’S raging lies, no other (driving) wheel is linked
to it.

Bottom lining it .. if you believe that B. stays close to the truth without revealing it fully then we can conclude or speculate on a few things. First he wrote these accounts in AP and it is my guess they relate to the Merseburg bi-directional wheel, in which he made some changes (from the one-directional wheel ?!) and gave him quite a headache to manage. To me clearly the big headache was from some major changes for a man of his skill and experience, but he altered the mechanics and overcame the problems to give bi-directionality and nothing was hanging from the axle !

However, this does not rule out something hanging from the axle in the earlier one-way wheel iterations imo, which he later managed to make redundant in the two-way wheels, perhaps. In fact I strongly advocated for this at the beginning of this thread because of the likely religious importance of 13 wrt MT13 (w. center keel weight / anchor weight / artificial horizon weight) in his MT. And as Cloud Camper points out an artificial horizon (heavy keel) is required to have and maintain within a wheel a 'one side empty and the other full', if taken literally as sides left and right of axle. Similar to Wagner's comment about having some fixed point to drive off. Otherwise everything just slumps to below the axle.

Of course everyone must make up their own mind about the translations, and details, and context, and importance. But I think it is telling that B. shouts out to Wagner and basically says he is but an infant with his turnspit and hanging weights narrative, compared to where B's. seasoned and lofty inventive thoughts had gone too, imo. That's some putdown and slap on the face ! It must be accurate and justified !

ETA : hence why he says it's a nut he can't crack (experienced mechanic that he is) i.e. hasn't thought far enough, imo.

The answer was simple, but beyond most people's radar, including Wagner and the like.

[Georg Künstler]

as anyone can do its own interpretation, my interpretation is that we really have nothing hanging from the axle.
The internal construction is standing, and therefore tumbling in the wheel.
This internal construction is performing a tilt swing.
As I have mentioned before the structure itself can change the shape, it is a storkbill, a simple parallelogram.
A storkbill is the only structure which will hit the rim in the upper area of the wheel.
When a storkbill is carrying some movable weights like pendulums, then the storkbill will fall and stop against the rim,
but the movable weights will go in front, that is the function the horse in front of the cart.

[johannesbender]

I have always been of the opinion , that as soon as his enemies or some people ,made accusations against Bessler , Bessler responded by removing the doubt/ accusation head on by altering his builds .

For example , if the hole in the post where the pulley went through was real , it would have served to show the posts was not hollow from the bottom upwards.

If it was possible to suspect something was hidden coming in through the top of the post to the journals , Bessler made sure that he could leave them open , and translocate the wheel to another set.

People suspected it was wound up , so he made it bidirectional .

i think his next move was to remove doubt about the following:

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.

imo an easy way he could have done that was to remove certain areas of the wheel ,but keep other areas covered ,
so i think the a.p wheel was going to be the next thing he planned on demonstrating ,
people would not be able to say there are hanging weight's anymore when they can see through the opened sections.

as always , just an opinion.