Zeroing in on Bessler's wheel

[johannesbender]

... and when they come to be placed together, and so arranged one against another that they can never obtain equilibrium...

What is the chance this means one weight rests against another? Placed together... touching, or placed together on a wheel. Arranged one against another, or arranged so that ones torque/force/impetus works against the other. You can see why someone might take this to mean impact. Literally those words seem like they roll past each other, or rest against each other, causing a further imbalance somehow. (repelling magnetism?)

Thats exactly what i mean with how i interpret it , this difference created between them such that, them not being in equilibrium ,what ever the prime difference is like gpe pe force weight distance etc, is what moves the weights in position , and the result is the loss of "equilibrium" for the wheel .

Like the method i have been working on .

But , it does imply , work is being done when they move , and the state has to be restored again , and in my oppinion this is where the hammer hits the wall , nothing is completely free , and i can only see one possibility thus far ..

[Robinhood46]

The placing together of the weights, is one of the clues i often ponder over.
The translation of every one of Bessler's clues, makes it very difficult to get a good idea of which clues have real value and which don't.
If i have four heavy weights under my bed, four light weights in the shed and some pulleys and cords in the boot of my mark 2 Ford Escort. "When they come to be placed together", they are more likely to achieve something than if they stay where they are.
It sounds ridiculous to suggest that the significance "could" mean something like this, but from experience, i know that translations can easily throw us of course, by a mile.

[Tarsier79]

Sam, I assure you no-one is belittling you. Just because someone dismisses gravity as the prime mover, does not mean they are attacking you. I have spent plenty of time looking at gravity only devices, and I do not feel the answer lies there either. I would be happy for you to find a gravity only device.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Tarsier79
OK-------------------------------------Sam

[Fletcher]

@Fletcher ,I remember reading something to the effect of Bessler saying "that nobody's laws are in danger" ,
which i presumed meant something like "no one has to worry about their well known laws being broken when i reveal it" ,
if that was the case and i am not out of line here with what i remember and interpret from memory ,
there does not seem to be a situation where people need to "try" and break the laws ,
instead , i have always felt the correct approach was to be realistic and not to dismiss physics/mechanics as we know it ,
but to use what we know about it in a realistic and favourable way ,to overcome the so called "limitations" or confines ,
even carl was quoted as saying the principle was "viable".

So i am very easy to agree with applicable physics as we know it is the basis of a theory like the one you mention.

I agree jb .. we have to put a line in the sand, and then look for that 'practical' solution on our side of the line. Otherwise we spend a life time of throwing out Hail Mary's and holding our mouths just right lol. The practical mechanical solution that was so easy to understand and simple to build, once seen. Karl did say it was "viable" and with its ease to understand, it indicates to me that no mechanical surprises were present in the embodiment. None at all ! I think that is a realistic assumption !

ATEOTD it operated in the real world, within Nature's Laws. The solution was mechanical, and practical, solving the problem of producing an asymmetric force > which became and asymmetric torque > which became a gain in wheel momentum.

I started by asking myself the conditions required for the one-ways to start under force from ANY position. Wagner went straight to a wound spring method with something to push off to duplicate that astounding fact. I don't think he was too far from the mark. Except the spring, was not a spring per se, and was not externally tensioned or stressed.

[johannesbender]

@Fletcher ,I remember reading something to the effect of Bessler saying "that nobody's laws are in danger" ,
which i presumed meant something like "no one has to worry about their well known laws being broken when i reveal it" ,
if that was the case and i am not out of line here with what i remember and interpret from memory ,
there does not seem to be a situation where people need to "try" and break the laws ,
instead , i have always felt the correct approach was to be realistic and not to dismiss physics/mechanics as we know it ,
but to use what we know about it in a realistic and favourable way ,to overcome the so called "limitations" or confines ,
even carl was quoted as saying the principle was "viable".

So i am very easy to agree with applicable physics as we know it is the basis of a theory like the one you mention.

I agree jb .. we have to put a line in the sand, and then look for that 'practical' solution on our side of the line. Otherwise we spend a life time of throwing out Hail Mary's and holding our mouths just right lol. The practical mechanical solution that was so easy to understand and simple to build, once seen. Karl did say it was "viable" and with its ease to understand, it indicates to me that no mechanical surprises were present in the embodiment. None at all ! I think that is a realistic assumption !

ATEOTD it operated in the real world, within Nature's Laws. The solution was mechanical, and practical, solving the problem of producing an asymmetric force > which became and asymmetric torque > which became a gain in wheel momentum.

I started by asking myself the conditions required for the one-ways to start under force from ANY position. Wagner went straight to a wound spring method with something to push off to duplicate that astounding fact. I don't think he was too far from the mark. Except the spring, was not a spring per se, and was not externally tensioned or stressed.

You are talking my language here , to point out again Bessler remarked that there were no winding needed , and that is what i was busy with , tensioning that did not require "winding" or restoration from an external source , like constant tensioning of an instrument string or bow ,and it provided a constant because we are battling against a constant (gravity), and served as a replacement force for weight force .

I did however manage my reset in theory and in a virtual environment , however i need to once again build to prove it , same principle different construction and parts as a whole , well building this one is a little difficult for me.

Yes Wagner had a duration issue , he had no real reset/restoration and no real power/momentum going there.

[Fletcher]

The placing together of the weights, is one of the clues i often ponder over.

The translation of every one of Bessler's clues, makes it very difficult to get a good idea of which clues have real value and which don't.
If i have four heavy weights under my bed, four light weights in the shed and some pulleys and cords in the boot of my mark 2 Ford Escort. "When they come to be placed together", they are more likely to achieve something than if they stay where they are.

It sounds ridiculous to suggest that the significance "could" mean something like this, but from experience, i know that translations can easily throw us of course, by a mile.

Just came back from a kayak at very high tide on a glorious summer day down-under - kinda puts things in perspective.

Fwiw I have spent quite a lot of my spare time reading JC's books (digital versions) and using on-line translators to check against various other translated sources to boot. Mike Senior's (JC's source) are pretty accurate, as are Stewart Hughes. Sometimes I find something in the German or Latin that I might have interpreted another way. The context can sometimes fill in the detail and meaning.

Case in point - the original BW.com source (IINM from JC's PM-AAMS?) says .. snipped ..

"they come to be placed together, and so arranged one against another that they can never obtain equilibrium, or the punctum quietus which they unceasingly seek in their wonderfully speedy flight, one or other of them must apply its weight at right angles to the axis, which in its turn must also move."

JC's (Mike Senior) from DT says for the same passage .. snipped ..

"To this end they are enclosed in a structure or framework, and coordinated in such a way that not only are they prevented from
attaining their desired equilibrium or ‘point of rest’, but they must for ever seek it, thereby developing an impressive velocity which
is proportional to their mass and to the dimensions of their housing. This velocity is sufficient for the moving and raising of
loads applied to the axis of rotation."

The later DT one reads much more meaningfully for me. And I am not left with any impression of weights placed together, or arranged one against another in any form whatsoever. And so I don't dwell or fixate on one single interpretive nuance that could unwittingly steer me up a box canyon. I think it pays to cross-check what you can.

[Robinhood46]

Thanks Fletcher, that's cleared that up nicely.

So the weights do come to be placed together, only they might not actually be one next to the other.
But they are one against the other, only that could be just that one's force is acting against the other's.

I too think the second translation is probably more realistic, but it only tells us that all the bits are somewhere inside the wheel, in a crafty way that makes it go around all by itself.
We are going to be kicking ourselves, when we finally get a runner and look back at all the crazy paths we've been taking to try and get it.

[eccentrically1]

I think the fact that they accelerated to their final speed so quickly with such a small push is just as important as starting from any position.
A two finger (?) push would indicate they weren't very massive, same logic for stopping them. "His assistant who didn't weigh a hundredweight stopped them by grasping the axle twice" (paraphrased).
I also think the fact that they did have a terminal velocity is a clue, but I haven't seen any suggestions here?
Eta: the clue is it shows they weren’t PM? A true PM wheel wouldn’t have a terminal velocity. Wouldn’t they accelerate forever?

[Fletcher]

Fletcher, i agree entirely that nothing was left to chance.

They were cylindrical because they couldn't be any other shape, or, because any other shape would have been less effective.

In my opinion, every factual detail we have, which are pretty limited admittedly, must be respected if we hope to replicate his achievement. I'm sure you have had the same experience, that often we need to modify things because without the modification, nothing bloody works.

The arms were curved, because they needed to be.

The weights were cylindrical, because they needed to be.

The weights were removable, because they needed to be. (not because it made it easier to move the wheel)

There was one inspection hole, because that is all that was needed.

When we try to replicate his wheel, if these factors don't fit our wheel, it will not work. Obviously just my opinion, and i would be pleased if someone made a runner that respects none of them, i just don't think it will happen. At least not until we actually understand the principal of perpetual motion and start the process of improving it.

Everything he said, is often adding more confusion than help, but i think he was only being economical with the truth as opposed to lying through his teeth.

I also think he was basically honest, sometimes economical, sometimes a little verbal magicians distraction, sometimes accurately truthful and relying on us not understanding. Like you, never blatantly lying thru his teeth. Karl would know and a buyer of his wheel would know a lie !!!

"The weights were cylindrical, because they needed to be." - tick ! I once investigated Sam's idea of a center hole for a weight sliding up and down a pole/spoke but it was apparent that any regular shape would do i.e. it didn't have to be cylindrical. So I thought it had less priority because the shape was not exclusive.

"The weights were removable, because they needed to be. (not because it made it easier to move the wheel)" - tick ! And that conjures thoughts of weight "swapping" or "handover" as you investigate. Or .. for maintenance reasons. They can be quickly unfastened and removed, and then reinstated. After-all they all had to be attached somehow, and he wouldn't have had a mig welder. Also it makes sense if there is a center hole and they rotate on a pivot which fits the points above. Also, but perhaps less well known is that a weight able to rotate (translate) around its pivot has less RKE than one forced to rotate as the wheel rotates, which has Rotational KE + Translational KE. This means a system can have a marginally higher rpm than a forced to rotate with wheel system.

"There was one inspection hole, because that is all that was needed." - tick ! Always perplexing this one. Where on the radius was it ? One presumes somewhere mid-way between axle and rim to reach equal distances. Wagner commented on it also. IIRC when the wheel stopped he said B. reached inside the flap covered inspection hole and poked around a bit. B. said he just gave it a push again. B. said it was entirely an inspection hole and nothing more. But it begs the question (as Wagner pointed out) - how do you reach to the other side of the wheel (for maintenance), or anywhere not close by to the inspection hole (arms length). It is another argument for a very simple mechanism indeed, perhaps that can be reached by a stick if need to !

"The arms were curved, because they needed to be." - this one RH I would dispute. Where did you get that information as a fact ? AFAIK there is nothing to say that any arms were curved. The short boards Wolff saw were out near the rim and were not curved or elongated but were at right angles to the rim afaik. Wolff did say - "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."

Not trying to bash your beliefs - just think there is value in discussing things and corroborating and cross-checking where we can; iow's sometimes weeds grow in our gardens, unless they are wild flowers ;7)

[Robinhood46]

Everything is worth discussing Fletcher.
We get impressions of things, add a few more doubtful reasons to validate them, and after enough time we confuse them with facts.
I was convinced that the weights were on curved arms. Where this conviction comes from, i haven't got a clue. Maybe some other members, would be good enough to share their take.
Maybe it came from the same place i got that stupid idea of an image that looked very much like one of Bessler's wheel, but was purely speculation.

The inspection hole is one of the clues which encouraged me to look into passing the weights from arm to arm, or having weighted arms progress around the wheel. This allowed all moving parts to be at one moment or another accessible from the single hole. That being said, if all weights, fixed or not to a specific section of the wheel, came very close to the central axle, then they would also, all be accessible from a single inspection hole. It would just need to be close to the central axle. It is a shame we don't have any eye witness comments giving an indication as to where it was positioned. Did he take all the weights out in one go? Did he take a couple out, rotate the wheel, if so how much, before taking a few more?

I still think we should give up and concentrate on making a time machine. We will be able to get some answers to all the questions we keep asking ourselves, and we'll be able to check that there isn't a maid hiding in a cupboard turning a secret crankshaft.

[Tarsier79]

Thanks Fletcher. I did wonder why this was not regarded as an important clue.

[Fletcher]

I think the fact that they accelerated to their final speed so quickly with such a small push is just as important as starting from any position.

Yup, agreed .. just as important. The two things together suggest a good amount of forward drive force.

However, B. says that it is like an OOB wheel, which we know has torque symmetry, and is not self-moving, and WILL FIND PQ ! So the excess impetus runs it on by the PQ with greater velocity than it would have without the assistance, imo. And that is why it can never again find PQ because it is getting more and more wheel momentum as it rolls thru each sector gathering more and more speed.

But .. the wheel itself must have some appreciable mass to it - which acts as a bit of a flywheel - else we'd have reports of it "hunting" as it sped up. By all accounts it was a near uniform acceleration, or at least no reports of variable acceleration to operating rpm. And within 1 to 2 turns was at full speed.

A two finger (?) push would indicate they weren't very massive, same logic for stopping them.

"His assistant who didn't weigh a hundredweight stopped them by grasping the axle twice" (paraphrased).

I tend to agree. They were massive enough to smooth out acceleration somewhat. But not super-massive as to be very difficult to hand-stop, or cause a very slow start time which would have been noted by the witnesses and wasn't. This suggests to me that whilst wheel momentum aided the load tests (stampers, lifting, water screw), only in a minor way. And excess impetus drive was what kept the wheel speed near constant, even under load conditions as the witnesses observed. The only time the speed variation was notable was the Kassel water-screw test down from 26 to 20 rpm.

I also think the fact that they did have a terminal velocity is a clue, but I haven't seen any suggestions here?

Eta: the clue is it shows they weren’t PM? A true PM wheel wouldn’t have a terminal velocity. Wouldn’t they accelerate forever?

If we assume the wheel internal arrangements had a similarity to an ordinary OOB wheel where objects changed radius etc, then it takes TIME for transitions to occur. What's called lag, or latency. And it gets larger and larger with the further an object moves in distance, frictions, and the relative speed of the wheel compared to gravity's acceleration. If we take an extreme case of a wheel doing 100 rpm then not only will CF's be effecting the lag but also little time available for a gravity induced transition to occur. And that why they have terminal velocity, and don't accelerate forever, imo (notwithstanding structural failure).

Since B's. one-way wheels did have a good clip then I speculate the transition distances were relatively small, so that the drive could be engaged quicker, and act for longer, time wise.

[eccentrically1]

If we take an extreme case of a wheel doing 100 rpm then not only will CF's be effecting the lag but also little time available for a gravity induced transition to occur.

I think someone did the calculations on this problem in the past. The weights only transitioned under gravity’s influence in the first few turns before they would be merely along for the ride, then at terminal velocity we have to assume gravity had no role. Cf’s would be a problem at terminal velocity. Weights at those speeds would want to be next to the rim. and, Here’s the other problem: at terminal velocity, the weights were still making impacts. IOW, they were still thought to be “ hammering “ the wheel , albeit one at at a time, then “ riding” until their turn came around again. Confusing.

[Tarsier79]

Gravity will always play a role no matter how fast the wheel is going, provided weights are constantly in an OB position. CFs are cancelled significantly by a bar running through the axis and an opposed weight on the other side, like the outer weights on MT15, but with a shorter throw. Alternatively you could have a central weight with a bar extending out each side, the bar would impact the outside of the wheel, helping to fool onlookers.