Either Bessler or his benefactor made the comment the wheel was so simple even a carpenter's boy could construct it. There might be a distinction between simple and obvious.
My comments are slightly off topic but all in all we are still dealing with poor translations due to meanings spread out over 300 years. For instance, since all Karl said was it was simple, how do we not know he didn't mearly mean the principle instead of the mechanics? There is the quote "the weight gain force from their swing" and this has set many down a certain path looking for an answer, yet force and energy are not the same thing. To think they are is a common misconception from people not versed in physics. So should the translation actually mean energy, or is force the correct translation? If the statement is correct as is it does not lead to the answer. Michael.
For anyone wishing to expand this discussion point.
That’s me! Force is energy, only when force is released (Me thinks)
I also just finished translating the holy books and came up with the only true religion (I'm in the money).
When an object doubles in speed its kinetic energy increases four times. When a rotating wheel (with an object near the edge) doubles its speed then the centripetal force increases four times. Now, Michael, tell me that force and energy are different in these situations. In the case of Bessler's statement I don't think it makes much difference which word is used. I think either "gains energy" or "gains force" would have very similar meanings. If the weights gain energy then that energy is what powers the wheel. If the weights gain force then that force it what pushes the wheel in some way, probably by pushing the weights out of balance.
Kinetic energy can be tranformed into force over a period of time. Force during a period of time can be transformed into kinetic energy.
Centripetal force is an indication of the kinetic energy within a moving weight. If you change the speed then the kinetic energy changes, put if you only change the radius and not the actual velocity then the kinetic energy stays the same while the CF changes.
Swinging weights on a rotating wheel have rather complex forces, yet they would be a very simple device.
Without thinking of wheels, my definition of force and energy is as follows.
Force is the amount of gradient potential between 0 and + such as gravity or electrical theory.
Volts (E) is the force that pushes electrons measured in amps (I ) through a conductor with resistance (R).. E=IxR. ExI= watts or energy.
Gravity is a force and it has gradient. When a falling mass hits an object energy is released in the form of measurable force.
The same concept can be used in a waterwheel or combustion engine, force times rate of delivery minus resistance leave usable energy. Energy that can be turned back into force, such as turning a wheel.
The point is force and energy are different. It's an important difference and that's why there is a separation between the two regardless whether they share common geometry or a plane. Neither I, nor anyone else can argue for or against what Bessler meant since we are not he. What this calls for is approaching the whole subject matter with a critical mindset. Bessler was very cautious. And crafty, we know this much to be true. Force causes an object to undergo change and as was pointed out before change doesn't require energy. Centripetal force by use of a rod is an example of this.
All we can do is explore possibilities. Bessler said his weights were forced not to follow thier normal center of gravity. He also said ( according to the current translation which could be wrong ) that his weights gained force from their swing. It could be that since a rotational accelerating weight will gain force as well as kinetic energy, the force gain is used to cause a change to something else without any energy being used. If true it would be an important statement but he's still not letting anyone see into his secret bag of tricks. In otherwords, it could be important but it is not the vital component which is; what is absolutely needed for a perpetual motion machine to work is for it to attain more energy than what is starts out with upon a cycle completion.
First we need to see how accurate the translation is before anything else.
I'll also point out that when an object doubles its velocity and it's energy quadruples, it only seems mysterious at first because energy's geometry isn't seen by the eye like velocities geometry. Energy is rooted on the square, velocity on the line. A square is greater than a line. Greater comes before lesser. In other words there is a hierarchy. If this hierarchy is paid attention to, and if it's understood that somethings can't readily be seen with the naked eye, then it isn't mysterious that energy magically quadruples because energy comes first. What is "mysterious" then is, why is velocity half? Then it becomes obvious that part of the understanding is energy is real, and it is the greater part. It is not a product of velocity, velocity is a product of energy.
Last edited by Michael on Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Simple! Drop a weight. Have the program pause at 1 second and at two seconds. (or single step it) Have the program display (Measure) the KE of the falling weight.
The KE will be four times at 2 seconds than at 1 second.
Neither I, nor anyone else can argue for or against what Bessler meant since we are not he. What this calls for is approaching the whole subject matter with a critical mindset.
A critical mind would consider the contexts, both of the sentence and the historical one. I'll back up to the beginning of what was said. The beginning is a good place to begin.
My comments are slightly off topic but all in all we are still dealing with poor translations due to meanings spread out over 300 years. For instance, since all Karl said was it was simple, how do we not know he didn't merely mean the principle instead of the mechanics?
Looking at the context of the sentence Karl explained how simple it was, that a carpenter's boy could build it. Putting the sentence in historical context, it isn't likely a carpenter's boy or Karl or even for that matter Bessler had the calculating and mathematical ability of Newton to understand the principle behind it.
Newton, as you might recall, developed calculus to understand mass in motion and also had a prodigious ability to crunch numbers.
I would agrue against principle and for construction.
I think we all have a reasonable grasp of the differences & similarities between force & energy. Perhaps our varying answers & interpretations illustrate the conceptual differences & the initial confusion around Newton's time, in trying to describe it & when each term should be used. As Stewart pointed out in another thread Bessler just used the term 'kraft' which basically meant they were inter-changeable, as we tend to do today for expediency.
Force is a gradient or potential as Ralph said. As Michael said it is intrinsic & basal [underlying order of hierachy]. It is not possible to describe what it is [in units] just what it does i.e. how it effects material body's. There are different types of forces but sticking with the mechanical & gravity theme we can look at the relationship between force & energy.
Force generally denotes a push or pull. It is a vector with direction & force vectors are summed. So a force can alter a body's speed or direction of motion. A force [if it is a gradient] is conservative in that it works in one direction [like gravity]. There are other forces that are not conservative like friction. It applies in any direction.
The simplest analogy is John Collins favourite of a ship anchored mid stream & then pulling up anchor. We can even use the ship anchored mid stream as a linear model of Jim's falling pendulum example. If the ship lets out its anchor chain instead of lifting anchor it will run down stream until the chain is tight. This is akin to Centripetal force of a rotating pendulum, the difference being that the KE gained while accelerating in the current is not turned 90 degrees from the field. N.B. if a bob is attached to a massless pendulum rod [no frictional losses] & let drop [rotate] from 1 minute past 12 o'cl it will have the same Kinetic Energy as the same mass dropped free fall the same vertical height straight down, but the momentum vector is 90 degrees different. N.B.1. There is however a substantial time difference in falling the same height.
N.B.2. In the case of a falling pendulum it can be thought as as a near perfect spring analogy, almost able to return the mass to its starting PE & height [less losses].
Energy is the term used when we want to describe how a force acts in the material world i.e how a force manifests. Energy is the capacity to perform work & is able to be measured [in joules] which makes it different from a force i.e. its a real world application of a force as measured by its ability to do work.
So a body can be acted on by a force which changes its speed or direction. That body then has momentum [a vector] & its energy [ability to perform work] can be measured & calculated using the KE equation.
007 ... I tend to agree. The translations I have seen say Karl said simple to build. I note that sometimes this gets changed in conversation to simple enough for a carpenters boy to understand. I tend to think it was simple to build [with skills] but that the principle which provided the force or extra energy each cycle was not common knowledge & therefore unlikely to be fully understood & appreciated by Karl, though he could see its obvious application.
Edit : You may be right Michael - just described as simple enough for a carpenters boy to make ?!
Last edited by Fletcher on Thu Aug 09, 2007 4:53 am, edited 3 times in total.
Looking at the context of the sentence Karl explained how simple it was, that a carpenter's boy could build it.
I'm going from memory here but I don't think Karl said that.
John or Bill can you help out? I think all Karl actually said was it was simple.
Edit; Fletcher it seems we were posting around the same time.
In trying to further the explanation; an object which has velocity in comparision to another frame of reference has energy. Actually to be correct both frames of reference have energy in relation to each other.
1. Try to harness that energy and the object/ or objects in relation to each other slow. The energy becomes used and goes elsewhere.
2. To alter the objects course requires force. Using centripetal force by way of a rod requires energy from the object ( in otherwords the object must be moving in relation to something else) , but it doesn't require energy from the force we are attempting to use. In otherwords to cause an object to change doesn't require point 1.
By way of verbal explanation this is the main difference between force and energy.
The quote from my book was 'His Highness assured me that the machine is so simple that a carpenter's boy could understand and make it after having seen the inside of this wheel'.
John Collins, Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2006 6:09 am, Post subject: re: Unusual Jack
There is the quote "the weight gain force from their swing" and this has set many down a certain path looking for an answer, yet force and energy are not the same thing. To think they are is a common misconception from people not versed in physics. So should the translation actually mean energy, or is force the correct translation? If the statement is correct as is it does not lead to the answer.
I doubt Bessler was versed in physics. I think it's impossible to understand what Bessler meant by giving contemporary meanings to his words.
Intelligent people enjoy the opportunity to defend their positions. Even if one has a well thought out position it could have some error in it. Others might point out something that wasn't obvious.
Cowards would rather beat around the bush with obscure references.
Michael wrote:I'm going from memory here but I don't think Karl said that. John or Bill can you help out? I think all Karl actually said was it was simple.
Michael, from memory Karl said a carpenters boy could easily understand and build the wheel. Karl also stated something to the effect that he was surprised that no one had invented a similar machine before Bessler.
Also...
'...I took the liberty to ask him [Karl], as he had seen the inside of it, whether, after being in motion for a certain time, some alteration was made in the component parts; or whether one of these parts might be suspected of concealing some fraud; on which His Serene Highness assured me to the contrary, and that the machine was very simple...' - letter from Willem Jacob 'sGravesande to Sir Isaac Newton, 1721.
'...This is also consistant with what Orffyreus says, that anyone could easily understand his invention, as soon as he is allowed to look into the wheel.' - letter from Christian Wolff to Johann Daniel Schumacher, 3rd July, 1722.
Simple to understand, easy to construct, principle is obvious when seen - so what's the problem then :P
I think it is pretty clear that Bessler needed a force that could then be harnessed/applied to a part of his wheel to perform actual work [energy] in moving the weights to an over-balance situation.
I'm just as certain that Bessler was skilled in mechanics, in at least the empirical sense, if not fully conversant with the physics of his day to explain why a lever works the way it does. It was in his interests to be able to adequately explain to his contemporaries how his wheel worked, when the need arose after sale. It could also be reasonably assumed that they would grasp the principle, as Karl had done, without too much head scratching, & writing of letters to Newton for his opinion.
Last edited by Fletcher on Wed Aug 08, 2007 11:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
