What size was Bessler's first wheel?

[jim_mich]

How small was Bessler's first wheel? John Collin's book PM-AAMS says the first wheel at Gera was about 3 feet in diameter. But Bill's website and Scott's website both says about 6.5 feet. I've also heard speculation that Bessler may have built wheels other than the four well documented ones. What evidence is there for this and do we know what size they might have been?

Could it be that Bessler's very first barely working wheel was about 3 foot and built shortly before the publicly demonstrated Gera wheel at 6.5 foot?

Is there any evidence that Bessler had a smaller model at home during the later years after Karl died?

[John Collins]

Hi Jim, all the measurement given on Bill's web site are the correct ones. My book is still the version published in 1997 and was correct at the time of going to the printers, however since then further investigation has shown that there were errors in the translations done several years ago - not by my friend Mike, but by earlier researchers.

Bill and I corresponded about this some time ago and he has made it his purpose to post only the most accurate and up to date information about Bessler's wheels. So take his measurement as the most accurate ones.

There is evidence of a smaller wheel kept at his home. In 1729 mention is made of a smaller wheel at home which only turned in one direction and could not be moved from its position. Also mention is made about a wheel found in pieces at his home after his death.

Unfortunately I have no idea how big either of these two wheels were

John Collins.

[jim_mich]

Thanks John.

[Oystein]

In Besslers (maybe) last letter, he writes that he has finished a wheel that also was sold. Because of an ongoing war, the wheel was not picked up and payed for before he died. I guess this is the destroyed wheel found at his home..

So there should be strong evidence of a wheel, mentioned by Bessler himself.

And there where also, as you said John, mention of a smaller at his home several years earlier..

So I guess this adds up to at least two more wheels. But of course the witness report lacks..

[John Collins]

Yes that's true Oystein, and that makes at least six wheels.

JC

[jim_mich]

Bessler talks of his first successful wheel as barely turning. This would seem to be a different wheel from the first publicly displayed wheel.

So the count might be seven?

[rlortie]

First wheel barely turning , or wheel barely turning with only one bar, lever and/or mechanism?

First edition of this work on the famous perpetuum mobile by J. E. E. Bessler (1680-1745), who changed his name in the cabbalistic manner of Albam into Orffyreus or Orffyr. Born near Zittau, Bessler lived an adventurous life as a glass cutter, clock maker, wood turner, gem carver, copper engraver, organ builder and soldier, which took him to most European countries. He constructed his first perpetuum mobile in Prague, and exhibited two others, in Gera and in Merseburg. Appointed "Commerzienrat" by landgrave Karl of Hesse-Cassel in 1716, he constructed at Castle Weissenstein what became one of the two most famous perpetuum mobiles in history, the other being the one of the second marquis of Worcester (1663). The wheel, about 350 cm in diameter, and 37 cm thick, consisted of a light framework of wood, covered with oilcloth so that the interior was concealed, and was mounted on an axle which had no visible connection with any external moving agent. Kings, princes, professors and learned men all came to admire it, and went away convinced. It is remarkable that the machine made a big impression on the mathematician W. J. s'Gravesande from Leiden, who wrote to Sir Isaac Newton giving an account of his examination of Bessler's wheel. However, it is not recorded whether the ageing scholar ever received a reply to his letter, nor is anything further known of Bessler and his strange wheels. The inventor seems to have destroyed his last wheel himself, on account of difficulties with the landgrave's government regarding a licence for it or, as another story has it, because he was annoyed at s' Gravesande's examination. At the end of the present work, there are several rhymed verses in Latin or German in praise of Bessler's perpetuum mobile. - Slightly browned throughout as usual, otherwise a well-preserved copy of this outstanding work. - Graesse V, 44; Ord-Hume, Perpetual Motion. The History of an Obsession (1977), p. 68f.; Feldhaus, Die Technik, p. 783f.; ADB XXIV, 418 (under Orffyré).

Pg 354
Please note carefully these facts:- If I were to place, next to a 12-Ell wheel, one of 6-Ells, then, if I wanted to, I could cause the smaller one to revolve with more force and useful power than the large one. I can, in fact, make 2, or 3, or even more, wheels all revolving on the same axis. Further, I make my machines in such a way that, big or small, I can make the resulting power small or big as I choose. I can get the power to a perfectly calculated degree, multiplied up even as much as fourfold. If I can arrange to have just one cross-bar in the machine, it revolves very slowly. Just as if it can hardly turn itself at all, but on the contrary, when I arrange several bars, pulleys, and weights, the machine can revolve much faster, and throw Wagner’s calculations clean out of the window!

[wheelrite]

I wonder if 'cross-bar' means some sort of parallelogram, as in the hammer toy.
Also Bessler mention weights, pulleys, but not springs in this entry yet he does say springs are essential later.

[Fletcher]

Jim .. IIRC there is a report [in PM-AAMS ?] that Besslers first working wheel [presumably a smaller experimental one] was used to turn a grindstone in his workshop for sharpening implements etc ?

Wheelrite .. I don't believe he said springs were essential at all. That can not be concluded imo, just that in one of his wheels they were used & not in an ordinary way.

[Fletcher]

Ahhh .. so what did s'Gravesande say that so upset Bessler ???

I think he made comment that Newton was wrong about Kinetic Energy = MV i.e. it wasn't MV but mv^2 (which s'Graversande did thru impact in clay experiments [thanks Stewart, from a previous discussion] which later got changed to 1/2mv^2 with further refinement in modern times.

Was s'Gravesande to close to discovering something important ? If he proved Newton wrong, why did it personally so upset Bessler ?

[jim_mich]

Ah-ha! Now another piece of the puzzle makes sense to me, for it is the V^2 part of s'Graversande's Kinetic Energy formula that is the source of the power of Bessler's wheel. If s'Graversande were to make comments about this it might very well have upset Bessler. He was very close to the truth!

[rlortie]

IMO the one learned witness Bessler considered a "fop' and got under his skin was not s'Graversande but Wagner. I believe AP clearly makes this obvious. Wagner was much younger than his peers that witnessed and examined the wheel. As such he wished to impress the elders such as s'Graversande and Leibniz. His ongoing scrutiny and accusations became intolerable for Bessler.

If there were any shady dealings regarding Sir Isaac Newton I would put my money on Leibniz. He had an ongoing battle with Newton for years over copy rights on calculus.

Newton was one of the inventors of the branch of mathematics called calculus (the other was German mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz).

Now it just so happens that there was no love lost between Leibniz and Newton. On the other hand Leibniz was a very close friend of Johann Bessler and his father. They lived under the same roof and traveled together on academic passports.

I myself would consider the chance that Leibniz may have been biased in Besslers favor if it meant any discredit of Newton and his standing.

Ralph

[John Collins]

I'm not sure about the reference to a grindstone being powered by Bessler's first wheel. I hesitate to correct anyone without checking first but I cannot remember such a reference so I'm sticking to six wheels for now until I've checked the point.

I think Bessler was irritated by 'sGravesande's over-zealous examination of his wheel. He became impatiant at 'sGravesande's questioning and don't forget he had been exhibiting the wheel for some nine years by the time the professor came to examine it and although he had an illustrious reputation, Ralph, he was not an elder, he was only about the same age as Bessler, 33. Bessler wrote about this visit in rhyme on the door of machine room and it was seen by an English visitor to the site some years later.

Ralph I cannot understand your comment "On the other hand Leibniz was a very close friend of Johann Bessler and his father. They lived under the same roof and traveled together on academic passports."

How do you know he was a close friend of Bessler's father? What makes you think they live under the same roof? What does 'travel together on an academic passport' mean?

John Collins

[rlortie]

John and forum members,

John is correct about Willem s'gravensande's age at the time of his inspection of Besslers wheel. I stand corrected and curse the false lead that prompted my to post my above statement.

Shortly I will answer to the rest of the story, first I must locate the sources as most were lost due to PC crash!

Willem Jacob 'sGravesande

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Born: 26 Sept 1688 in 'sHertogenbosch, Netherlands
Died: 28 Feb 1742 in Leiden, Netherlands

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Willem 'sGravesande's family were originally named Storm van 'sGravesande and even later members continued with the old form of the name, for example Laurens Storm van 'sGravesande was governor of Essequibo from 1742 to 1772. Willem's early education was at home with a private tutor named Tourton who was employed to educate Willem and his brothers. Tourton saw that Willem had considerable mathematical talents and he was able to encourage him in that direction even though Willem was expected, as were his brothers, to make a career in the legal profession. He studied law at Leiden University, entering the university in 1704. He wrote a doctoral thesis on 'suicide' and submitted it in 1707.

'sGravesande and his brothers all became lawyers, practising in The Hague. He maintained an interest in mathematics and science, however, and published Essai de perspective at Leiden in 1711 (see [3] for details). He was influential in the setting up of the periodical Journal littéraire de la Haye in 1713. This journal gave him a natural vehicle for his writings and he contributed several book reviews and essays which were published there. His essays show that he was thinking about problems of the day in quite deep philosophical terms. The most famous of these essays, which was published in volume 12 of the journal, was Essai d'une nouvelle théorie du choc des corps fondée sur l'expérience. In this essay 'sGravesande discussed one of the major problems of the day, namely that of vis viva, or living force, which is a 17th century concept of energy. Now there were two rival theories, one due to Huygens and Leibniz, the other due to Descartes. The first considered the force acting on a body integrated over the distance travelled, the second integrated over the time. In his essay 'sGravesande argued in favour of the Huygens-Leibniz interpretations stating:-

The force of a body is proportional to the mass multiplied by the square of its velocity.

Samuel Clarke attacked the ideas that 'sGravesande presented in this essay, but 'sGravesande was able to reply with a robust defence of his ideas.

Appointed as secretary to the Dutch Embassy, he was sent to England in 1715 to congratulate George I on has accession to the throne. While in London he was elected a Fellow of the Royal Society on 9 June 1715. He got to know Newton, Desaguliers and John Keill at this time and, after returning to The Hague in 1716, he continued to correspond with Keill. In 1717 'sGravesande became professor of mathematics and astronomy at the University of Leiden. In addition, he became professor of philosophy there in 1734 [1]:-

By this time Hermann Boerhaave and sGravesande were established as the twin luminaries of Leiden, attracting hundreds of foreign students each year. From the outset of his teaching in both physics and astronomy 'sGravesande modelled his lectures on the example of Newton in the 'Principia' and 'Opticks', although in later years they incorporated other influences, especially that of Boerhaave. Moreover, he adopted from Keill and Desaguliers the notion of demonstrating to his classes the experimental proof of scientific principles ...

'sGravesande taught and wrote many texts on Newtonian science and Keill's contributions. He wrote textbooks on mathematics and philosophy. For example he wrote a textbook to teach mathematics which he published in 1725. His writings on philosophy proved somewhat more controversial: for example the philosophy textbook he published in 1736 was highly criticised for his treatment of necessity and freewill. The Latin text, however, enhanced his reputation as a teacher and was translated into Dutch and English. He also published and edited works written by others, for example the Opera varia and Opera reliqua by Huygens, several works by Keill and the Arithmetica universalis by Newton. This work of Newton was published by 'sGravesande in 1732 and four years later Voltaire, another strong supporter of Newton on the Continent, travelled to Leiden to have 'sGravesande approve his own work on Newton Elémens de la philosophie de Newton. Voltaire wrote after his visit of both the kindness and the scholarship shown by 'sGravesande.

The most influential of sGravesande's publications was the two volume book Mathematical Elements of Physics published first in Leiden in 1720 and 1721. The book was written in Latin and entitled Physices elementa mathematica, experimentis confirmata, Sive introductio ad philosophiam Newtonianam but an English translation was quickly made by Desaguliers and the two volumes were each published in the same year as their Latin original. The book went through many editions and 'sGravesande put much effort into the continual updating of the work. The book was popular in Britain and Germany but, although a French translation was prepared and published in 1746, as might be expected, the work did not gain the same popularity in France. Newtonian physics was criticised by most Frenchmen as they rallied behind Descartes. 'sGravesande begins his text by claiming:-

I have thought fit to make good the Newtonian method, which I have followed in this work.

He also claims:-

In physics we are to discover the laws of nature by phenomena, then by induction prove them to be general laws; all the rest is to be handled mathematically.

Here, of course, he is arguing that experiments will provide the basis for understanding physical laws rather than producing laws though pure thought. Volume I of the text includes:-

... the theory of matter, elementary mechanics, the five simple machines, Newton's laws of motion, gravity, central forces, hydrostatics, hydraulics, sound, and wave motion.

Volume II includes:-

... three chapters of fire (containing electricity), two books on optics, one on the system of the world, and a final book entitled "The physical causes of the celestial motions".

The motion of the planets, he claims, is due to universal gravitation, by the cause of gravity remains a mystery to him:-

... and cannot be deduced from laws that are known.

A rather strange episode occurred in 1721 when 'sGravesande visited Kassel to examine a machine invented by Orffyreus which purported to be capable of perpetual motion. He was invited by the landgrave of Kassel to pass judgement of whether the machine was genuine or whether Orffyreus was a fraud. 'sGravesande could find no evidence that deception was involved, and also seems to have believed that such a device would not contravene the laws of physics. Following his examination of the machine he wrote Lettre à Mr Newton sur une machine inventée par Orffyreus: Remarques touchant le mouvement perpétuel.

This would have him at age 33 (as John claims) upon his visit to Bessler!!
Article by: J J O'Connor and E F Robertson

August 2006


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MacTutor History of Mathematics
[http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk ... sande.html]

[rlortie]

More on Bessler vs s'gravensande.

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~his ... sande.html

It appears that Bessler was eight years s'Gravensande's senior!
1688 to 1742 = age 54 for s'Gravensande
1680 to 1745 =age 65 for Bessler

Following out take from Wiki

Bessler and his machine vanished into obscurity. It is known that he was rebuilding his machine in 1727 and that s'Gravesande had agreed to examine it again, but it is not known whether it was ever tested. In 1727 Bessler's maid, Anne Rosine Mauersbergerin, testified that his machines had been turned manually from an adjoining room. s'Gravesande wrote that he believed Bessler was "mad" but not such an obvious fraud. Bessler died in 1745, aged sixty-five, when he fell to his death from a four-and-a-half-story windmill he was contructing in Fürstenburg. The secret of his perpetual motion machine, whatever it was, died with him.

Bessler may have been over zealous with s'Gravenside's scrutiny, but it appears to me that he was defending Bessler and his wheel. Why else would he have wrote Sir Isaac Newton that he could find no hidden power source. I would not have made such a statement unless I had examined it very closely, and I am sure that s'Gravenside would have done the same!

http://physics.kenyon.edu/EarlyApparatu ... ratus.html

Ralph