Hypothesis .. Raising GPE without using Law of Levers ? ..

[Fletcher]

Since I'm checking in tonight anyway I might as well add this - fwiw, whatever B's. solution to the easy fast lift was it was ironically imo very basic - as evidence Karl said he was surprised no one else before B. had thought of it ! - Karl saw how it worked and understood it in order for him to say that, and also say to his ministers that it was easy to understand and build ..

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

[justsomeone]

And also the reason Bessler wanted his money up front for a sale.

[Sam Peppiatt]

The slight shifting of the bearing blocks attached to the support posts, (as the wheel rotated), was probably caused by a small wobble of the shaft. In more mechanical terms it is referred to as shaft "run out". In could have been do to any number of reasons-----------------------Sam

[daxwc]

Fletcher: B. copied their engraving into his DT , BUT made some alterations - he included two opposed crank handles to the wheel axle and some other minor things .. what he didn't do was address the opening and closing crack in any way, shape, or form ! - he avoided it completely .. a magicians deflection ..

Here is what I don’t understand:
1) The bearings are open.
2) Does Bessler put the C notch back on the pillar always towards the load.
3) Why doesn’t he just screw the bottom of the legs down if it is vibrating around.
4) Why didn’t he address Wagner’s barb; it is not of his character to avoid it.
5) Why did he never show it outside at the fair?

Now I assume the pillars went to the roof so the stone load lifting didn’t put leverage onto the pillars.

No witnesses seem to report any axle movement in the bearings. Even on heavy machinery today if the shaft is not centered or taking load variations you can visually see the shaft move or flex in covered bearings in a race as Sam said "run out". So…?

Wagner was right to assume fraud because that’s how it looks.

[daxwc]

JC’s AP:
IV (b) Wagner asks: “Has Orffyreus demonstrated what he
promised?”
Wagner asks a lot of foolish questions. He should therefore, have
asked this - whether I have, in fact, ever promised to demonstrate
something, and then broken the promise? I am alleged to have
professed, on the strength of one test lasting half an hour, during
which - Wagner says - the raising of the weights was due to sheer
momentum - that I had demonstrated convincingly to the world the
true perpetual motion. Those are unadulterated, crude, harsh lies! I
ask you - how can you possibly lie in such a fashion? You weren't
even there, you stayed away from the scene, like a lazy mill-donkey.
You lie through the mouths of others and didn't even take the trouble
to attend the demonstration personally.
If, as you say, you're honest, why did you stay in your bed? For if,
as you've made out, you did join the worthy assembly and stay
there from beginning to end, you would have clearly seen that the
run, before translocation, was longer than you've described it, and
that, after it had been put on new bearings, it ran almost until
midnight. [ Part of the test involved Orffyreus moving his device
from one set of bearings on one set of uprights to another set in
front of the assembled witnesses, to obviate any suspicion of a
secret mechanism hidden in the posts.] In those evening hours still
more unknown well wishers assembled. But of course, all this
320
means nothing to you, does it? But what it doesn't do is to prove
what you want it to.

VII (b) Wagner`s ‘doubts’ would not have been removed by
demonstrations
Once again Wagner wishes to criticise the demonstration, saying
that his doubts were not removed by it. Let's just sum up this matter
properly! It's all down to Wagner alone, is it? Because the student
wasn't present, the experiment was valueless? Why did he spare
himself the trouble of attending the demonstration? If he'd obliged
me by accepting (the invitation), I'd have gladly sent the sedan-chair
along for him. Indeed, I would even willingly have placed the
322
exalted gentleman on the wheel - and would have spared no
expense to ensure that the whole demonstration was not carried out
by a moron with several screws loose in front of a crowd of fools.
But it didn't go like that, did it? People didn't even mention Wagner -
so they couldn't have wanted him there, could they? And so his
doubts, and his murderous criticisms, couldn't be so easily
answered. As it happened, the eminent assembly did not desire my
Mobile to keep running on and on - rather, in order to ascertain that
there was no question of any driving mechanism being hidden in the
supporting posts, we had the device removed and placed on
different bearings. As soon as this had taken place, and the rotation
was observed in the new position, and it was clear that there was no
mechanism and that Borlach's statements were lies, everyone was
satisfied, and departed, expressing congratulations. For no-one
had any knowledge of the existence anywhere of another wheel like
mine. Were you, Wagner, to devise such a wheel, then you'd
disturb my rest.

xxxxx

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
326
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.

[Sam Peppiatt]

daxwc,
If, if your are still talking about the bearing blocks, I don't understand your concerns. The bearing block was open at the top but, side to side the shaft and, probably a brass bushing, would have been tight. So; the bolts holding the blocks to the post would have intentionally been left a little bit lose, so that it could wiggle a little.

They probably couldn't see the shaft all that much, but the bearing block is what they could see shifting as the wheel turned. Because of the run out in the shaft, tightening the blocks down tight would caused sever binding of the bearings.

I do the same thing with nylon incerted nuts, to secure the bearing but, at the same time let them have a little freedom of movement, to prevent binding up.
Anyway, I don't understand your suspicion for fraud---------------Sam

[daxwc]

Copilot: In 1712 Germany, when they referred to "open bearings," they likely meant bearings that weren't enclosed or sealed, allowing the axle to be visible and accessible. Back then, machinery was crafted with a focus on functionality and ease of maintenance, given the technological limitations of the time.

Here's what "open bearings" entailed during that era:

Visibility and Access: Open bearings allowed craftsmen and operators to easily inspect the axle and bearing surfaces. This was crucial for identifying wear, damage, or alignment issues without disassembling the machine.

Simplified Lubrication: Regular lubrication was essential to reduce friction between moving parts. An open design made it straightforward to apply oils or animal fats directly to the axle and bearing surfaces whenever needed.

Ease of Maintenance: With all components exposed, any necessary adjustments or repairs could be performed quickly. This was especially important since machinery often required frequent upkeep due to the less durable materials and fabrication methods available.

Simpler Manufacturing: Enclosing bearings demanded more precise engineering and additional materials, which might not have been feasible or cost-effective. Open bearings were more practical to produce with the tools and skills of the time.

Regarding their construction:

Materials: Bearings were commonly made from wood, bronze, or iron. The choice depended on the application's demands and the materials' availability.

Craftsmanship: Skilled blacksmiths and carpenters would carefully shape the bearings and axles. Precision was vital to ensure smooth rotation while supporting the mechanical loads.

Design: The bearing typically consisted of a plain surface where the axle would rotate—a design known as a plain or journal bearing. There were no rolling elements like balls or rollers, which became common much later.

So more or less sat in a copper saddle U?
Exactly! You've nailed it. Back in 1712 Germany, the "open bearing" was essentially an axle resting in a U-shaped saddle made of copper or bronze. Imagine the axle laying snugly in this metallic cradle:

Axle
↓
┌─────────┐
│ │
│ │ ← Copper U-shaped Saddle
└─────────┘
Here's why this design was significant:

Easy Maintenance: The open U-shape allowed craftsmen to readily inspect the axle for wear and tear. Lubrication was straightforward—operators could apply oils or animal fats directly onto the contact surfaces without dismantling any parts.

Reduced Friction: Copper and its alloys, like bronze, were favored because of their low friction properties. The softer metal of the saddle would wear instead of the harder iron axle, making replacements easier and less costly.

Simplified Construction: With limited machining capabilities, creating a U-shaped saddle was practical. It required less precise tooling compared to enclosed bearings, fitting the skills and resources available.

Direct Cooling: Open bearings dissipated heat more effectively. As machinery operated, friction generated heat, and the exposed design helped prevent overheating, which could warp components.

[daxwc]

So with all that; how is the pillar post crack moving without the axle noticeably moving? The axle is free to move upward.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Right. I did go off on it.

It allowed for freedom of movement in one direction only; up and down but, not side to side--------------Sam

Also, the shaft would have been hidden by the bearing block. They couldn't see it that well especially six feet up in the air, mostly hidden by the block. The block moving, that's about all they could see.

The shaft was moving, that's what was moving the block.

[daxwc]

Johann Christian Wolff (1679 - 1754)
Professor and Philosopher
Viewed the bi-directional wheel in 1715
"When the machine was ready to rotate, all adjacent rooms were opened and the bearings were completely uncovered. To prevent anyone accidentally seeing the internal structure of the machine, he covered it."

So strange the pillars needed to go to the roof and the crack was moving.

Remember also when lifting a load the first pulley is making the force push straight down on the axle because it is on the floor.

[daxwc]

JC’s “Gründlicher Bericht”
Further, the Inventor, Monsieur Orffyreus, in the presence of all,
caused the Wheel to be lifted from the framework in which it had
hitherto resided. He allowed everyone to examine the framework
from top to bottom – especially the middle section, where some had
claimed that suspicious markings were carved into the board most
distant from the spectators’ vantage-point. He also permitted
examination of the iron trunnions on the axle which rested in the
bearings during normal running, and the result of all these
examinations was that not the slightest sign of any chicanery was to
be seen – and that includes the absence of any holes in either
bearings or cladding – in short, everything was found to be in perfect
and, indeed, blameless order. As yet further proof of the “innate
nature” of the motive principle, the good Orffyreus, unasked, after
removing the Wheel from its original framework, placed it in another
one some distance from the original, and there, with the new bearings
open at the top, he caused the device to revolve, just as before, in
either direction, at will, as often as the impressive (and impressed!)
gathering requested.

[Sam Peppiatt]

You lost me daxwc, I don't have a clue what you are talking about. What's is it that is so strange? The post was secured to the floor and the celling. What's wrong with that-------------Sam

The bearing blocks had to be open at the top. How else could you lift the shaft up and out?

[Fletcher]

And also the reason Bessler wanted his money up front for a sale.

Very right js ! ..

He said in DT that a buyer could collect their runner only after it was paid for in full - and that it was of so little artistry ( simple ) he was worried that the buyer would demand their money back ( paraphrased ) .. what could disgust a buyer that much ? - embarrassment, feeling extremely gullible and foolish, disappointment, not receiving value for money ? - like the buyer had built the thing up in his mind expecting that he had paid for a roll and sausage with onions mustard and ketchup, only to realize his expectations didn't match the reality of the plain roll he received, even if it was a runner .. and no, I'm not suggesting for a moment there was any fraud, quite the opposite !

What this tells me is that the interior of his runners was indeed quite simple, of not much artistry, and easy to understand just as Karl also said - probably unsurprising mechanically or somewhat familiar to those with some practical experience ..

So imo there is much more to the story of why his runners ran, while all others had been wrong and did not ! ..

[Gregory]

Thanks.

I do it in the game "Besiege". Not sure what 3d engine it uses.
I like it since it lets me test stuff in 3D instead of the the old 2d (drawings). And no, i don't consider it to be perfect , since after all it is just meant as a game, not a physics simulator.
It is just horrible for doing things like scissor lifts/storkbills. They just becomes too heavy.
For wheels, kinda ok, but compared to real life, it seems weights fall too slow , and with very little friction (it do have (air)drag i think) , stuff that swings sometimes seem to have a life on their own.

It did however let me make a runner, which also seemed to work in Algodoo, but not in the real world. I tested it twice, not working in the real world, but maybe three's the charm. Doubt it though. (And no, it's not in my videos).

Oh right, it's inside a game. Not to be trusted as much then.
I was just got the idea, that it would be interesting to code a simulation in a 3D engine...

[spinner361]

You lost me daxwc, I don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Sam, John Collins wrote a book called Perpetual Motion: An Ancient Mystery Solved? This has all of the information about Bessler's life that John could find. There are other books that John Collins has written about Bessler, but this one in particular will get you up to speed quickly.