The ONE WORD that could give it ALL AWAY !

[Tarsier79]

I do not believe that would have helped. Wagners turnspit would would work just as well mounted half way along one of the arms. With this mechanism, he could have the axle open and still operate the wheel using clockwork. When B says "Nothing hanging from the axle", he specifically means clockwork.

[johannesbender]

I do not believe that would have helped. Wagners turnspit would would work just as well mounted half way along one of the arms. With this mechanism, he could have the axle open and still operate the wheel using clockwork. When B says "Nothing hanging from the axle", he specifically means clockwork.

respectfully i don't necessarily agree , if we are talking about wagner's version of a hanging weight ,it would be forced in to a compartmentalized segment which would force it to turn along with the wheel inside that compartment , instead of hanging downwards on the axle itself ,it would no longer have a 360 degree crank it could turn , it would have limited movement.

but that's just what i imagine would be the case , without spending to much brain cells further on it.

[Tarsier79]

it would no longer have a 360 degree crank it could turn

Why not? Why couldn't you have a secondary axle half way along an arm? (counter-weighted or mirrored opposite). There is no reason there can't be enough space all around it to rotate 360.

Sort of like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82C4MPW5scQ

If you apply a certain amount of torque, it doesn't matter if you apply it to the axle or to a point on the circumference, it will affect rotation the same.

[johannesbender]

it would no longer have a 360 degree crank it could turn

Why not? Why couldn't you have a secondary axle half way along an arm? (counter-weighted or mirrored opposite). There is no reason there can't be enough space all around it to rotate 360.

Sort of like this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82C4MPW5scQ

If you apply a certain amount of torque, it doesn't matter if you apply it to the axle or to a point on the circumference, it will affect rotation the same.

Agree you can connect/drive , but you are not hanging on the axle , the so called accusation by Wagner when he compared his own machine to Bessler ,was the hanging on the axle , and the clockwork winding.

[eccentrically1]

I do not believe that would have helped. Wagners turnspit would would work just as well mounted half way along one of the arms. With this mechanism, he could have the axle open and still operate the wheel using clockwork. When B says "Nothing hanging from the axle", he specifically means clockwork.

"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.

I always thought he meant nothing generally. But that's the ambiguous nature of his statements that disguise his methods. An MT13 weight would qualify to me, but even if you put 8 MT13 mechanisms on the spokes you'd still have the same problem, described in his comments, you had with one on the axle. So is this debate yet another rabbit hole? No one would complain if someone achieved PM either way.

[johannesbender]

I do not believe that would have helped. Wagners turnspit would would work just as well mounted half way along one of the arms. With this mechanism, he could have the axle open and still operate the wheel using clockwork. When B says "Nothing hanging from the axle", he specifically means clockwork.

"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.

I always thought he meant nothing generally. But that's the ambiguous nature of his statements that disguise his methods. An MT13 weight would qualify to me, but even if you put 8 MT13 mechanisms on the spokes you'd still have the same problem, described in his comments, you had with one on the axle. So is this debate yet another rabbit hole? No one would complain if someone achieved PM either way.

I know i would not complain , no matter what method works as long as it works .

I have one of those type of designs too , although its not first on my list .

I do think the discussion is intresting , the fact that bessler was so bold as to mention if you are looking for a different method you are barking up the wrong tree , so hes the man to bark at.

[ArchCalc]

Thank you for all your trouble explaining the axle, Fletcher.
So, I think Wagner and the others succumbed to overbuilding a counter claim. Like most of us.

One thing that may additionally prove the wheel was a genuine PM.
Karl was quoted as having said the wheel was simple and easy to make. And was surprised nobody had thought of it before.
And that whoever bought it would feel they had been cheated.
Well, look at him. He took a long time to pay B for the look inside. I’d say he maybe felt the same way. “Really, why do I have to pay 4000 for such a thing when I could have thought of it myself.”

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.

[eccentrically1]

One thing that may additionally prove the wheel was a genuine PM.
Karl was quoted as having said the wheel was simple and easy to make. And was surprised nobody had thought of it before.
And that whoever bought it would feel they had been cheated.
Well, look at him. He took a long time to pay B for the look inside. I’d say he maybe felt the same way. “Really, why do I have to pay 4000 for such a thing when I could have thought of it myself.”

I think Karl’s hesitancy to pay (and other wrong decisions and actions, together with that,) did the opposite, it caused everyone to think it wasn’t genuine.
I think Bessler is the one who wrote whoever bought it would want their money back. Probably the worst thing anyone could have said.

[Georg Künstler]

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

beyond most people's radar is the fact that a pendulum does variating the force on the suspension point during the oscillation.

An upswing of the pendulum is a pull down of the suspension point.
As faster the upswing as bigger is the downforce on the suspension point.

When a pendulum is swinging from 3 o'clock to 6 o'clock the suspension point is free to move upwards,
because there is no force on the suspension point.

With the combination motion you will get a torque to turn the wheel.

[Tarsier79]

beyond most people's radar is the fact that a pendulum does variating the force on the suspension point during the oscillation.

Pretty sure most people in this field understand that. Most people don't understand how to efficiently use it though: (Milkovic 2SO)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m07VAdJZnp8

[WaltzCee]

didn't hang itself.

beyond most people's radar is the fact that a pendulum does variating the force on the suspension point during the oscillation.

Pretty sure most people in this field understand that. Most people don't understand how to efficiently use it though: (Milkovic 2SO)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m07VAdJZnp8

really?

The way I've thought of it for some time now Kaine is the structure of a wheel is to forces as conductors are to electricity.

Any pendular motion combined with any hoped for gain is going to be expressed thruout the structure averaging out at the Center of Rotation to zero over time, usually.

It doesn't matter if there's an axle at the CoR or not.

Good video. I've SIM'ed an inverted pendulum driving a rotation yet over time it drifted to keel.

Exchanging a loss of GPE for a rotation isn't novel.
Roller coaster around the world do it every day.

[cloud camper]

According to my cockamamie unproven theory we need an impact to harvest CF.

And of course the impacts are displayed front and center in MT138.

B also said the weights gain force from their own swinging - this is a perfect definition for CF!

I wonder if there was a mathematical definition for CF in 1712 or if B was aware of it if there was.

Could CF be just one word in Deutsch and be the one word he was referring to that would give it all away?

Of course CF always produces force at right angles to the direction of wheel rotation so that's problematic.

With an impact, we can transfer the accumulated CF into the external wheel and make it do work. Conveniently, CF returns to zero after impact so it's not a zero sum game - again according to my dubious theory!.

The impacts also act as a one way mechanical diode - accumulated energy can only be transported out not back in.

Without an impact all operations remain conservative and symmetrical as it takes just as much work to reset the weights to the start position as is gained by the drop.

[Tarsier79]

Waltzcee. I often don't express my thoughts as clearly as they are in my head....

There is an efficient way to build the Milkovic 2SO. It is to do with leverage ratios, load and pendulum length. Many of the You-tube 2SO replicators do not understand this, and if you have experience with this, you can see the inefficiency in their builds.

[Georg Künstler]

by cloud camper » Mon Dec 27, 2021 12:33 am


The impacts also act as a one way mechanical diode - accumulated energy can only be transported out not back in.

Without an impact all operations remain conservative and symmetrical as it takes just as much work to reset the weights to the start position as is gained by the drop.

An impact on the downgoing side is an asymmetric action.
The Impact point is therefore an crucial point.
An impact is wasting the energy, so you will not have an advantage.
But if you use an indirect impact, you will get a split in an up and a down component.
In a conventional build, the downforce is transferred to the ground, the earth.
In a wheel construction this downforce is transferred as torque to the wheel rotation.

[ArchCalc]

I think Karl’s hesitancy to pay (and other wrong decisions and actions, together with that,) did the opposite, it caused everyone to think it wasn’t genuine.
I think Bessler is the one who wrote whoever bought it would want their money back. Probably the worst thing anyone could have said.

Well, thinking on that side of it, could their statements have been designed to set everybody’s pants on fire trying to duplicate it and to sell more books where there were “clues”?
Maybe B put such such high price on it to discourage a sale?
If not and it did sell, would he have been savaged for all kinds of misleading clues in MT and elsewhere that were nowhere fitting into his simple design?