Part Three is the Charm

[johannesbender]

I thought I would just mention , since I was putting out the question earlier "what could he have meant with different application ?" , and since MT 41 was the subject of earlier discussion .

If you look at MT 42 he wrote "This is another application of the stork's bills" so which is possibly the same as writing "This is a different application of the stork's bills" , and we can see that he could possibly mean its a different application because this time the last pivot is attached and the pivots of the ends are pulled.

Even though mechanically I guess its the same , I just wonder if this is the first or only time he mentions application in another way , or does he mean its just another application as in its a stork bill design again ?

Either way I think , if its an indicator of what he means with different application for the TP , then he might mean mechanical , of course i'm just speculating , it could mean something else other than mechanical application.

[Fletcher]

But we have mechanical experience .. so what can we really draw from his observations.
------
There was a spring like structure associated with the weights. Which was heard to make a recognizable spring expanding sound when the weights were reinstalled.

Since he only pushed down once, then we know only that some spring type device was used; we don't know which form it had (leaf, helical, disk, etc.).

We also don't know how it was utilized; did it store his energy and release it all at once as a startup mechanism, or more slowly? Was it attached to the axle? Was it attached to one lever? Was it attached to all of the levers?

Get out your razor.

Razor => Keep It Simple.

General Comment .. We don't know with certainty much about what type of spring form was used and for what exact purpose. We have to deduce that within the context of B's. PM Principle of "preponderance, or excess weight, or excess impetus". We do know with certainty that springs deform and store elastic energy put into them as strain energy, which can be given back later as KE.


[[ Google .. Strain Energy >> Mechanics > energy stored in an elastic body under loading.

e.g. "ligaments and tendons are elastic structures that can store strain energy, like a spring"

Q. What is meant by strain energy?

A. Strain energy is a particular form of potential energy which is stored within materials which have been subjected to strain, i.e. to some change in dimension. ]]


Q. Do we have any "clues" as to what type/form of springs B. used ?

A. Yes, it's been mentioned many times before .. MT18 visual and comments; and imo the spiral clothing visual cue of HM Toy D in the TP.

ETA : "The bow twangs" could well be a metaphor for strain energy. MT18 suggests this to me since it contains little else.

A further note .. in MT17, immediately previous to MT18, B. comments on the use of conventional springs to pull a following lever upwards (and outwards by default) raising a weight and effecting operation. n.b.1. its use of springs creates back-torque that kills any advantage gained in early movement and height gain of the lever-weight. n.b.2. we saw springs used like this in KB's wheel and K Waenga's wheel for instance. n.b.3. note that B. uses the words (hardcopy - effect a motion; digital - effecting operation) - and in the MT forward he tells us to combine illustrations and look for a movement and motion - just saying !

John Collins MT digital :

No. 17 Some speculators have gone further still and have imagined lifting up certain weights and effecting operation through several springs, and in this instance the figure has a good and large appearance. An acute mind will readily see and grasp what to make of this thing.

No. 18 This is (hardcopy - similar to) the previous spring-model, and it seems to be good, but seeming is different from being. In the meantime, the principle should not be disdained or entirely disregarded, for it says more than it shows. I, however, will show more than speak of it at the appropriate place.

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

[Fletcher]

For the sake of completeness while I'm thinking about it ..


John Collins MT Digital (Dig) and Original Hardcopy (OHC) Comparisons ..


Dig .. No. 17 Some speculators have gone further still and have imagined lifting up certain weights and effecting operation through several springs, and in this instance the figure has a good and large appearance. An acute mind will readily see and grasp what to make of this thing.

OHC .. No. 17. Some speculators have gone even further, imagining that with a few springs one can raise certain weights and effect a motion, and therefore this design is well regarded by many. An sharp mind will quickly perceive and grasp what to make of this device.



Dig .. No. 18 This is the previous spring-model, and it seems to be good, but seeming is different from being. In the meantime, the principle should not be disdained or entirely disregarded, for it says more than it shows. I, however, will show more than speak of it at the appropriate place.

OHC .. No. 18. This is similar to the previous spring-model, and it seems to be good, but seeming is different from being. At the same time, however, the principle is not to be scorned or disregarded, for it tells more than it shows. I however, will show more than tell about it in the proper place.

Additional Comments .. N.B. curiously, illustration MT17 has a separate pic of what appears to be a tapered and regular curved lever-weight added above the wheel next to the 17 box. In the 17 illustration the curve radius of all lever-weights remain the same suggesting no strain energy associated with deforming of the tapered lever-weight shown above (i.e. don't need to be tapered). Additionally the text to 17 suggests that the squiggly lines connecting between lever-weights are ordinary spring like objects and actions, which ... "imagined lifting up certain weight / imagining that with a few springs one can raise certain weights". IOW's they are not connecting pull-along ropes that have usual tension forces, and are spring analogues receiving and discharging Elastic PE as they do the theorized lifting.

In which case why include a tapered curved lever-weight in 17 woodcut when it belongs to MT18, which would benefit from tapered lever-weights for its "telling" and which is its only method of receiving and discharging strain energy i.e. the 'twanging the bow', imo !

ETA : the alternative view is that MT17 does have just pull-along ropes (not coil springs between levers) connecting spring lever-weights. And that the spring lever-weights flop over tdc pulling on the ascending side etc. Note there are no rim-stops and the figure is shown all wrong. All the levers on the descending side would hang down much further than shown and the topmost 'connectors' would be taut - that's not how they are shown suggesting some slackness or stretchability like a spring.

If they are just the same tapered flexible lever-weights the difference is 17 uses pull-along cords and/or coil springs to transfer force. And 18 does not have these having no connectors and just axle and rim stops to transfer force.

Either way it's a big red flag with these 2 MT's, imo.

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

[Fletcher]

Ok .. let's look at it another way ..

Let's take B. at his word and assume that MT's 17 and 18 are similar spring-models. That would mean they both use tapered lever-weights hinting at graduated ability to deform over the length with thickest near the axle the least deformation potential and thinnest at the tip
with the most.

Both have axle stops. Only MT18 has rim stops.

Forgetting for the moment that in MT17 the connectors (whether ropes or springs) are not shown of equal length (see between 8 o'cl and 12 o'cl connector length), and when they should be taut they are not shown as taut. Let's call it down to artistic licence and move on.

What else is wrong from the artistic representation point of view ?

MT18 shows the flexi-lever-weight drooping down (deformed and loaded with strain energy) at 10.30 o'cl but fully extended and straight at 1.30 o'cl (when unloaded). Clearly we are left with the impression that as the wheel turned and the weight on the CW ascending side reached just before the vertical above axle it was whipped across and out to the rim stop on the descending side i.e. the "spring" twanged and was unloaded of strain energy and its weight was accelerated across the wheel and collided with the rim stop arresting its motion. This is a dynamic representation.

MT17 does not show this whip effect. It is a static representation like flexi-lever-weights have just been placed there. The 8 o'cl lever-weight ascending should have a significant bend in it but ALL the lever-weights in the illustration have the same unchanging curve to them. Next, the flexi-lever-weight at 12 o'cl should have whipped forward as the weight approached the vertical from the axle. And the down-going flexi-lever-weights should have at least been straight if not a reverse bend in them as there are no rim stops to arrest the movement of the weights directly.

Something is not adding up in a big way imo .. and not just artistic licence.

The juxtaposition imo is this ..

In 17 we have no tapered lever-weight whip effect when there should be one ! i.e the flexi-lever-weights do not deform.

In 18 we have a tapered lever-weight that can only deform in one direction before it is arrested !

The more obvious logical fallacy straw-man argument is that in 18 the rim stops arrest the lever-weights acceleration absorbing some of its KE and momentum. And in 17 the lever-weights are arrested by connector ropes or springs which do a similar job as the physical rim stops of 18 but the weights movements aren't directly intercepted. Both visually front skillful diversions.

[eccentrically1]

Let's look at it again

... 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 ( BW.com They are slightly warped (me .. curved )). 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. ...

This seems to tell us it was built like 17 or 18. So the elastic arms could be one type of spring. But B.'s statement about 'springs are used but not as my detractors suggest' should tell us that type of spring and the way it is utilized that it's not the spring he is referring to; it seems too obvious. So is it the spring he pushes down on (most likely a coiled compression type; shape could have been spiral, conical, may or may not be important)? That would seem obvious as well. He knew they were all watching him push it down and that they could hear it expand upwards.

The $64 question I have would be is this the only reference to springs his detractors suggested?

[Sam Peppiatt]

ecc1,
There is another reference to springs by Johann Burckhard. See John Collins book page 89. Fletcher will say it's all a lie. I'm not so sure. Supposedly, the weights were pierced in the middle and attached by connecting springs.

Oddly, that's exactly the right way to hook up the springs and weights, to be used as a brake. I think, Burckhard reported what he saw; then was ordered by the Prince to retract it, to keep it secret. Now, Burckhard is like, what weight / what spring, I didn't see any thing, it was all a big mistake. But, if you want to believe Fletcher, fine with me---------------Sam

[johannesbender]

This is the crux of the matter IMO , Bessler build his wheel on an axle with a bolt preventing the axle from rotating , and he wrote that , when he untightened or removed the bolt , the wheel immediately began to revolve.

The one directional wheel had to be held down in place with a cord to prevent it from revolving , which is the same thing with the bolt on the axle.
That means , there was a force regardless of whether the wheel was in motion or not , there was an immediate permanent force .
With one cross bar or mechanism it would go slow and appear like it could hardly rotate itself , and with more added it would speed up etc.

What can be described in terms of mechanics or physics , that would result in the wheel having an immediate permanent one directional force when the wheel is not moving , and to top it of the more of it you add the better it worked .

I'm sure the common tried and tested ideas and principles can be called up to answer the question for the initial immediate force , but its actually the mechanism's resetting requirements that breaks the usual theory , the same thing that breaks MT13 .

I think we might be left with , either solve the reset for free or find extra energy, or find a principle that needs no reset .

[mryy]

Does the Apologia Poetica describe some arrangement of the Stork's Bill (SB) in the Bessler Wheel? I believe so.

"Who indeed is keen to question, question this booklet. My deeds will not [be] revealed before time, yet who wants [to] guess, contemplate, which word-pageantry I now mix/blend into one another: a Gartner/gardener is no fence-breaker a Wagner/wainwright wants bore holes/to bore holes avarice is a root [of] evil." Stewart

Here's my interpretation: SB resembles a (broken) fence and the leaves of a plant with the lever tip or root below, and rut lines appear where the SB is absent. See colored selections in upload.

Wagner the Wabbit, carrot swiper, what can I say ...


Select Quote:

"But even here Bessler could not enjoy his success for long. Gärtner had zeroed in on him again and was scheming wherever he could. On the morning of July 22, 1715, he and Christian Wagner from Leipzig and Johann Gottfried Borlach (who was later appointed Saxon Bergrat*) entered Bessler's house in Merseburg to look inside the wheel and thus unmask the alleged fraud. This may have already violated applicable law as trespassing. The fact that Gärtner disregarded this makes it clear how strong his feelings of hatred must have been. Bessler, who was in bed with a severe migraine, could not prevent it given the superiority of three people. Maybe he had guessed that something like this could happen and had removed important parts as a precaution. In any case, Gärtner did not find a working bike and felt that his suspicions were confirmed. Convinced that the truth was on his side, he announced in the country that the fraud was now proven."

https://www-besslerrad-de.translate.goo ... x_tr_hl=en

[eccentrically1]

ecc1,
There is another reference to springs by Johann Burckhard. See John Collins book page 89. Fletcher will say it's all a lie. I'm not so sure. Supposedly, the weights were pierced in the middle and attached by connecting springs.

Oddly, that's exactly the right way to hook up the springs and weights, to be used as a brake. I think, Burckhard reported what he saw; then was ordered by the Prince to retract it, to keep it secret. Now, Burckhard is like, what weight / what spring, I didn't see any thing, it was all a big mistake. But, if you want to believe Fletcher, fine with me---------------Sam

That’s speculation on burckhard’s part , isn’t it?
The weights were only described by the witnesses that touched them through the cloth that they were cylindrical. They weren’t allowed to touch the ends, so that led some to believe they were “pierced” or had a hole or eye for attaching a weight.
Let’s let fletcher speak for himself.

[eccentrically1]

This is the crux of the matter IMO , Bessler build his wheel on an axle with a bolt preventing the axle from rotating , and he wrote that , when he untightened or removed the bolt , the wheel immediately began to revolve.

The one directional wheel had to be held down in place with a cord to prevent it from revolving , which is the same thing with the bolt on the axle.
That means , there was a force regardless of whether the wheel was in motion or not , there was an immediate permanent force .
With one cross bar or mechanism it would go slow and appear like it could hardly rotate itself , and with more added it would speed up etc.

What can be described in terms of mechanics or physics , that would result in the wheel having an immediate permanent one directional force when the wheel is not moving , and to top it of the more of it you add the better it worked .

I'm sure the common tried and tested ideas and principles can be called up to answer the question for the initial immediate force , but its actually the mechanism's resetting requirements that breaks the usual theory , the same thing that breaks MT13 .

I think we might be left with , either solve the reset for free or find extra energy, or find a principle that needs no reset .

the one way wheels could have definitely been spring started. It would satisfy the razor.

[Tarsier79]

The spring is also speculative. People heard a spring like sound. Someone mentioned before that it could be the mechanism to fix the weight, like a quick release. That being said, there is no reason he couldn't have used a spring somewhere in a mechanism.

[eccentrically1]

If he pushed down on a mech to ‘fix the weight’ then did it only fix one weight? Presumably the spring like sound occurred when he released it. (‘As it expanded upwards “ ) implies a sudden release rather than a catch and release ,imo. However there is every reason to believe there is at least one spring somewhere. So says the razor.

[Fletcher]

ecc1,

There is another reference to springs by Johann Burckhard. See John Collins book page 89 [PMAAMS?]. Fletcher will say it's all a lie. I'm not so sure. Supposedly, the weights were pierced in the middle and attached by connecting springs.

Oddly, that's exactly the right way to hook up the springs and weights, to be used as a brake. I think, Burckhard reported what he saw; then was ordered by the Prince to retract it, to keep it secret. Now, Burckhard is like, what weight / what spring, I didn't see any thing, it was all a big mistake. But, if you want to believe Fletcher, fine with me---------------Sam

That’s speculation on burckhard’s part , isn’t it?

The weights were only described by the witnesses that touched them through the cloth that they were cylindrical. They weren’t allowed to touch the ends, so that led some to believe they were “pierced” or had a hole or eye for attaching a weight [spring].

Let’s let fletcher speak for himself.

I was giving you guys a break from me lol.

IIRC Johann Burckhard Mencke was the editor of a respected publication "Acta Eruditorum" which published an article titled "An Account of the Perpetuum Mobile of Johann Ernst Elias Orffyreus". He was there in 1715 at the Merseburg translocation test along with Wolff et al.

Wolff is the only one at Merseburg who mentions hearing an iron spring-like sound of expansion when B. replaced the weights tho I hardly imagine he kept that from his fellow investigators and testimonial signatories. In the Acta Eruditorium article Mencke relates about 'circumstantial evidence', a phrase also used by Wolff as we saw earlier.

John Collins PMAAMS? pg 90 .. 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".

Johann Burckhard-Mencke does not admit to seeing anything, but did offer his speculation that weights were pierced (at the ends / middle) and attached by connecting springs. There was no corroborating evidence to back up that view AFAIRemeber.

[Fletcher]

This is the crux of the matter IMO , Bessler build his wheel on an axle with a bolt preventing the axle from rotating , and he wrote that , when he untightened or removed the bolt , the wheel immediately began to revolve .

The one directional wheel had to be held down in place with a cord to prevent it from revolving , which is the same thing with the bolt on the axle .

That means , there was a force regardless of whether the wheel was in motion or not , there was an immediate permanent force .

With one cross bar or mechanism it would go slow and appear like it could hardly rotate itself , and with more added it would speed up etc .

What can be described in terms of mechanics or physics , that would result in the wheel having an immediate permanent one directional force when the wheel is not moving , and to top it off the more of it you add the better it worked .

I'm sure the common tried and tested ideas and principles can be called up to answer the question for the initial immediate force , but its actually the mechanism's resetting requirements that breaks the usual theory , the same thing that breaks MT13 .

I think we might be left with , either solve the reset for free or find extra energy , or find a principle that needs no reset .

Hey jb .. I'll try and keep it short .. Your observations are valid as it was something that always perplexed me also, for a long time.

I had to reconcile it somehow ..

Either the records and/or translations were inaccurate and it stopped at favoured positions with immediate torque, or the records and translations were just as they read i.e. it started with immediate torque from any position stopped.

Going back to my go-to MT's, 44 and 48. They are SO NOT runners ! But B. says with different applications added to 44 and structures added to 48 they will give a motion. Side note .. in MT48 B. actually says 'the principle is good' in both the Digital and Hard Copy translations - this means the OOB principle is good i.e. a good example of a mechanical principle of OOB that doesn't work.

Both these "wheels" astound me because they are SO unworkable, so they are good examples to tease us with.

When extra structures (applications) are added to them they can accelerate and be self-moving runners etc.

3 possible contexts here for one-directional wheels, with extra's added ..

1. with the extra's from ANY position they start and have immediate torque and acceleration because the wheels are faked with pre-wound springs (in the general sense) in place - I don't consider a real possibility.

2. with the extra's from ANY position they start and have immediate torque and acceleration that continues to operational speed.

3. with the extra's they start ONLY from favourable torque positions and then continue to accelerate etc.

4. once B. installed the extra's he hand primed them (ONE TIME) with his muscle energy (activation energy) to be released and get an immediate start from any position. And this muscle activation energy was replaced by energy from motion once rotating. In effect excess momentum was gained from a supply of energy within from the motion of the OOB host and the extra's.

IOW's it had to be primed at its very first start-up after the extra's were added. If B. just added extra structures to MT48 and they were NOT pretensioned to be released as a temporary spring then it's hard for me to imagine the wheel doing anything but gently move to keel position, or stay keeled, imo. Certainly not boost away with force from the get-go as reported !

[thx4]

I read you and I find it funny that you don't mention the MT47 which answers all your questions.
What B doesn't say is that the balls are reassembled one by one and not in groups as on his not very clear drawing.
The wheel is being assembled and so is the stork's beak, the only reason to continue is to see that the energy is already there.
MT44 and MT48 as presented will never work, but if you reassemble the balls one by one the answer is different.
The acceleration of the stork's beak for those who have already worked on the subject is formidable speed, much faster than gravity, which is a turtle 35 km/h lol.
In my case I have to lift 0.1 KG with 1.2KG of thrust is it possible?
It seems too simple to me, but as I have never seen such a system before, it seems useful to try.
A++