Question for Bill

[Fletcher]

Quote: "the velocity is proportional to these weights and the diameter of the wheel."

OK! so what are we referring to, size of the weights or density of the weights?

IMO neither - there are two parts to the statement about the wheel :-

1. the velocity is proportional to these weights

2. the velocity is proportional to the diameter

IMO, velocity is not proportional to the weights [mass] per se, but to the displacement or shift distance - this is a work done scenario i.e. small mass over larger distance or large mass over short distance [it is the same] - the greater the shift distance the greater the leverage, the greater the velocity, therefore weight displacement capability is what is important here [for a given mass] & not size or density [assuming all drive weights are roughly the same weight].

If the wheel diameter is a determinant for the force generated by the PM then a greater diameter will allow a greater PM force to shift weights a greater distance/displacement, therefore greater velocity, all else being equal.

[John Collins]

I agree Fletch and the diameter size, relative to the thickness of the wheel, will always be the same, so it doesn't matter how big the weight you have to shift as long as there is sufficient room for a long enough lever to shift it, hence the need for a large diameter relative to the thickness of the wheel. That of course applies only to the one-way wheels; the two-way wheels were double the thickness hence the conclusion that two mechanisms were installed - one for each direction.

Ralph I would not pay too much attention to the described 'sound of eight weights'. That applied to the two-way wheel and was sufficiently vague IMO, as to be treated with some scepticism. I know that there is no reason why there should not have been eight weights but I have never been able to understand why Fischer, who described the sound and who spent considerable time studying the wheel and timing it etc, was only able to say that there was 'the sound of about eight weights falling...'

I have speculated that the actual sound may have been irregular due to Bessler adding an additional couple of weights to confuse the ears of the listeners - or he may have added felt to one or more weights to deaden the sound of their impact.

In trying to clarify this area I have tried to work backwards from the reported sounds and imagine why Fischer was unsure of the number of weights, and I came to the conclusion that there must have been some irregularity in the sound which made it difficult to actually count them for each revolution. Presumably he sometimes counted 8 and sometimes 7 or nine, but came down on the number 8 for some unknown reason - which may mean that he believed that the number of weights was more likely to be 8.

Alternatively sometimes the impacts may have been late due to minor variations in the speed of the wheel, or of course one can also assume that sometimes a weight landed early.

Who knows?

JC

[graham]

Fletcher, I'm not in agreement with this statement of yours.

If the wheel diameter is a determinant for the force generated by the PM then a greater diameter will allow a greater PM force to shift weights a greater distance/displacement, therefore greater velocity, all else being equal.

The smaller wheels ran faster than the larger ones. So IF the weights were indeed "swinging" they could have been swinging in an arc of let's say about 30 deg of the wheels circumference.

Now 30 deg on a small wheel would be a shorter distance than on a larger wheel. Therefore it would take less time for weights to complete a swing on a small wheel resulting is more swing cycles per minute and hence a faster running wheel than a larger one.

That's how I visualize the internal movement. I could be wrong. :-(

Graham

[rlortie]

John,

Ralph I would not pay too much attention to the described 'sound of eight weights'. That applied to the two-way wheel and was sufficiently vague IMO, as to be treated with some skepticism.

I totally and always have agreed to your above statement. The banging heard has always been given credence to weights shifting. Little thought has ever been mentioned that the sound may have been a transition point in the wheel itself and has nothing to do with the number of weights.

Ralph

[wikiwheel]

"I totally and always have agreed to your above statement. The banging heard has always been given credence to weights shifting. Little thought has ever been mentioned that the sound may have been a transition point in the wheel itself and has nothing to do with the number of weights. "

Ralph

Ralph, I have always thought that the "8 weights" sounds were the "shotgun shoots". Anything a bow would have to "twang" to project would make a quick sound.

Interesting that bessler says "shotgun" and not rifle or pistol. Shotgun implies many projectiles being required in the motion for a short distance, instead of just one at a time as with a rifle at possibly a longer distance.

Suppose that lead pellets were in small compartments on the perimeter, and that they were continually being shot with a spring (bow type of spring) downward to the other side, say, from 9-12 over to 3-6. They would then land in open compartments there in an inaccurate but useful way.

What would happen?

Mik

[Fletcher]

Fletcher, I'm not in agreement with this statement of yours.

If the wheel diameter is a determinant for the force generated by the PM then a greater diameter will allow a greater PM force to shift weights a greater distance/displacement, therefore greater velocity, all else being equal.

The smaller wheels ran faster than the larger ones. So IF the weights were indeed "swinging" they could have been swinging in an arc of let's say about 30 deg of the wheels circumference.

Now 30 dag on a small wheel would be a shorter distance than on a larger wheel. Therefore it would take less time for weights to complete a swing on a small wheel resulting is more swing cycles per minute and hence a faster running wheel than a larger one.

That's how I visualize the internal movement. I could be wrong. :-(

hmmm Graham .. perhaps I do need to clarify that further & choose my words more carefully than I already do :)

This is a power relationship rather than RPM [velocity of wheel in this context because Bessler is talking about the diameter of the wheel] - you are completely right in your summation - a shorter swinging lever would arrive faster that a longer lever but the distance the internal weights are moved horizontally will dictate how much power the wheel has due to the increased leverage of greater distance shifted - greater leverage will also cause the wheel to revolve faster & accelerate faster up to optimal RPM - so there is an engineering trade off between wheel RPM [at a certain diameter (IMO PM related) & length of lever] & power able to be generated by shift distance obtained from the PM - Bessler actually says this [paraphrased again I am afraid] by saying given enough time he could arrange to have the wheel turn as fast or a slow as he likes & develop more or less useable power as he chooses - he then also tells us that with just one cross bar/crucifix/cross form the wheel could barely turn itself, so by inference the more internal mechs/levers/PM's ?? he could get inside the physical space of his wheels [without interfering with or restricting each other] the greater the RPM & power able to be generated.

I have speculated that the actual sound may have been irregular due to Bessler adding an additional couple of weights to confuse the ears of the listeners - or he may have added felt to one or more weights to deaden the sound of their impact.

In trying to clarify this area I have tried to work backwards from the reported sounds and imagine why Fischer was unsure of the number of weights, and I came to the conclusion that there must have been some irregularity in the sound which made it difficult to actually count them for each revolution. Presumably he sometimes counted 8 and sometimes 7 or nine, but came down on the number 8 for some unknown reason - which may mean that he believed that the number of weights was more likely to be 8.

Alternatively sometimes the impacts may have been late due to minor variations in the speed of the wheel, or of course one can also assume that sometimes a weight landed early.

Who knows?

Hi John .. I would like to speculate further on your comments here & offer up some alternative conclusions that may also fit the available evidence.

Firstly, the fact that Fischer was 'unsure' as to the exact number of impact sounds each revolution i.e. might arrive early [9] or late [7], averaging 8 per rotation, can be explained if catches/latches are used to release something that swings/moves/falls - catches are notoriously hard to coordinate exact release positions unless there is a very positive movement of the latch & then gravity has to be ready to act - so some may have been 'sticky' or conversely were very free etc - also if something was to swing from a vertical position, rather than a horizontal position, then after it got past TDC the pivot friction could impede the optimal swing start position so that it swung marginally late & arrived late, perhaps enough to confuse the witnesses about the exact relative rim positioning of impact & the number of impacts per revolution - I always wondered why they just said 'sound of weights gently hitting on the descending side' & why that wasn't much more specific in detail, unless it varied from time to time & wasn't 'exact' as I've described.

Secondly, an alternative explanation for the sound of weights gently hitting/impacting can be explained in another way - sure, Bessler said he used felt to deaden the sound, but it is plausible that the gentle hitting 'sound' was a direct result of the weights arriving with reduced velocity i.e. less Kinetic Energy [a deaden blow & therefore less sound], so they had a softer landing than say free fall weights would have that had built up a lot of Ke by comparison - an example would be the way a parachutist arrives gently to earth.

EDIT: It is my conclusion that the witnesses would have watched a position on the rim & then counted how many impact sounds were generated each revolution on the descending side of the wheel - since there was only a 'best estimate' of the number of impact sounds it is reasonable to conclude that the sounds were heard near the bottom of the wheel in the bottom right quadrant of a CW turning wheel - if the sounds were in the first quadrant or near 3 o'cl then it would be easy to determine the number of sounds accurately [& the witnesses would have said where they heard the sounds from] - if the sounds were at say 5 or 5.30 pm then a weight arriving late could confuse the count as the sound appeared to register at or past 6 o'cl - N.B. counting sounds coming from a fast revolving wheel can get your head spinning as your eyes send different messages to your brain than your ears - conversely at slow revolutions it was possibly easier to count the sounds accurately but as the wheel sped up within 2 or 3 revolutions to full clip it then became impossible to accurately count them for the reasons I give.

[rlortie]

Mik,

The "shotgun" was more fitting in Bessler's time. The name or term "Rifle" did not exist until the latter 1800's when rifling was invented to add AL or spin to the bullet. The first rifles were used by the military and were only issued to specified sharp shooters.

Suggest a Google search for "rifle history" there is a good one in Wikipedia.

Ralph

[Stewart]

Interesting that bessler says "shotgun" and not rifle or pistol.

I think both terms may lead to confusion, and I'd actually choose the word 'musket', which was the generic term at the time for long-barreled hand-held firearms. 'Shotgun' causes one to think of a modern shotgun firing many small pellets and, as Ralph points out, 'rifle' refers to the rifling of the barrel of a musket to spin the projectile, which was not common until after Bessler's time. A musket does fire 'shot' of course, but only one at a time, and so has more in common with a modern bullet-firing rifle than a modern shotgun.

So, my advice would be to think of that part of AP as: 'the musket fires' or 'the gun fires'.

The word Bessler uses is 'Büchse', and it can also mean 'box', 'can' etc. and I think the reason it has become used to refer to a musket/long-barreled gun is because it describes the shape of the barrel as a pipe/tube (Rohr).

This is what it says in the old Krünitz encyclopedia:

Büchse, Rohr, L. Bombarda, Sclopetum, Fr. Arquebuse, ein Gewehr, welches aus einer eisernen Röhre, der Lauf genannt, in einer hölzernen Einfassung, der Schaft genannt, und einem Feuerschlosse besteht.

Büchse, pipe/tube, L. Bombarda, Sclopetum, Fr. Arquebuse, a gun/rifle, which consists of an iron tube, called the barrel, in a wooden surround, called the stock, and a firelock.

I looked up the Latin equivalent words given there in my Latin dictionary and get:
bombarda = bombardment/bombard
sclopetum = rifle

and the French word 'Arquebuse' means 'musket'.

The musket of Bessler's time would have had a flintlock. It looks like there is one hanging on the wall in the second portrait found in John's DT.

EDIT: The one in the portrait might actually be an air-rifle/musket. Here's something Bessler says in chapter 10 of AP:

NUn laborirte ich in Sulphur/
Und das weit-treibende Schieß-Pulver.
Wind-Büchsen macht' ich auch zur Hand/
Die schossen schöne und galant:
War über diß ein guter Schütze/
Mir waren alle Dinge Nütze/

Here's my translation:

Now I worked in sulphur,
and the far-projecting gunpowder.
I also made wind/air-muskets by hand,
which fired nicely and gallantly:
was also a good shot,
all things were [of] use [to] me,

The word Bessler uses for air-musket/rifle is 'Windbüchse'. Here's a link to the German wikipedia entry (look at the picture there for an example):
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windb%C3%BCchse


Stewart

[wikiwheel]

Stewart, thanks for all your hard work and accuracy in translation. I feel we have been shortchanged in previous ones. Your reasoning makes more sense.

What about "the bow twangs". Is is really a bow or a crossbow and does "twang" mean twang or something else?

I can't understand why a translator would further define "gun" as a "shotgun". There's no reason to do that.

[mickegg]

With Bessler's large wheel turning at 26 rpm and hearing eight weights fall (208 beats) have
a listen and count it for yourselves.

Probably not as regular as a metronome but it gives one an idea.

http://www.metronomeonline.com/

Set to 208 and listen

Regards

Mick

[AB Hammer]

mickegg

Thanks for the metronome link, it helps to give a sound speed.

This has been a string I seem to only be able to read. But once being a gun nut, as muskets go, some where also made for shot purpose in air and gun powder types. The 3 types of gun powder muskets where, match lock, wheel lock, and flint lock. Well developed in Bessler's time.

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Ralph....

OK! so what are we referring to, size of the weights or density of the weights?

The mass, Ralph...I just "quick shot" that in there without the real reference, so here goes the whole thing.....

DT...pg. 191, J. Collins..."To this end they are enclosed in a structure or framework, and co-ordinated in such a way that not only are they prevented from attaining their desired equilibrium or "point of rest", but they must forever 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."


From this site, Ted of Chicago...."These parts are enclosed in a case and are coordinated with one another so that they not only never again reach an equilibrium (or point of rest) for themselves but incessantly seek with their admirably fast swing to move and drive on the axis of their vortices loads that are vertically applied from the outside and are proportional to the size of the housing. "

Two different translations....basically alike...basically

Hey Fletch and Graham....

Quote:
Another thing....trying to separate the two effects. He states that the wheel, moves with the weights...and "gains force from their own swinging/motion".....and then yet....."the velocity is proportional to these weights and the diameter of the wheel." Hmmmmm.... Steve

'the weights themselves are the Perpetual Motion' - Steve : 'the wheel moves with weights' - the OOB wheel is the overbalancing mechanism - and "gains force from their own swinging/motion - it is a dynamic system that must have movement to generate the Prime Mover Force, & then the weights can shift.

The smaller wheels ran faster than the larger ones. So IF the weights were indeed "swinging" they could have been swinging in an arc of let's say about 30 deg of the wheels circumference.

Now 30 deg on a small wheel would be a shorter distance than on a larger wheel. Therefore it would take less time for weights to complete a swing on a small wheel resulting is more swing cycles per minute and hence a faster running wheel than a larger one.

That's how I visualize the internal movement. I could be wrong. :-(

Graham

My reason for the mentioning these outtakes on force and velocity....is that he separates the two within the same paragraph. And with good reason, IMHO....once the load is attached to the axle, it is going to take a good bit of say.....leverage to get it going or started from a static state...so, if Bessler designed the wheel to have the ability to lift "X" amount of lbs. from a dead standstill, he would be able to figure out just how much leverage (example)....he would need to be able to demonstrate this without posing a threat to his secret. The "impressive velocity" he is talking about is the maximum rpm's, I believe.....and now the force...

DT...pg. 190-191, J. Collins...."NO, these weights are themselves the PM device, the 'essetial constituent parts' which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the PM principle) indefinitely - so long as they keep away from the center of gravity."

This site...Ted of Chicago..."The upper weight is not attached to an external mechanism, nor does it rely on external moving bodies by means of whose weight revolutions continue as long as the cords or chains on which they hang permit. As long as it remains outside the center of gravity, this upper weight incessantly exercises universal motion from which the essential constituent parts of the machine receive power and push."

The difference between these two interpretations are another discussion in itself....


So....put it all back together again....

DT....."NO, these weights are themselves the PM device, the 'essetial constituent parts' which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the PM principle) indefinitely - so long as they keep away from the center of gravity. To this end they are enclosed in a structure or framework, and co-ordinated in such a way that not only are they prevented from attaining their desired qwuilibrium or "point of rest", but they must forever 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."

Ted...."The upper weight is not attached to an external mechanism, nor does it rely on external moving bodies by means of whose weight revolutions continue as long as the cords or chains on which they hang permit. As long as it remains outside the center of gravity, this upper weight incessantly exercises universal motion from which the essential constituent parts of the machine receive power and push. These parts are enclosed in a case and are coordinated with one another so that they not only never again reach an equilibrium (or point of rest) for themselves but incessantly seek with their admirably fast swing to move and drive on the axis of their vortices loads that are vertically applied from the outside and are proportional to the size of the housing."

I'm not sure about this "upper weight" interpretation by Ted....I can see where there is "Uberwicht"....this converted to a modern (?)..."Uberwiegt". This comes out to "outweigh, over balance, preponderate. " Just not real sure on the "upper weight".


Steve

[wikiwheel]

Let's face it. The Ted of Chicago translation has a lot to be desired. I never really trusted this "Ted" anyway. Any relation to "JC" of "UK" maybe??

LOL.

MIK

[bluesgtr44]

hey Mik....

Let's face it. The Ted of Chicago translation has a lot to be desired. I never really trusted this "Ted" anyway. Any relation to "JC" of "UK" maybe??

Don't know why there is this animosity towards John C., but I personally disagree with your distrust of he and the information he has provided. I hold Mr. Collins in high regard for the effort he has put forth and the information he has willingly divulged to the rest of us in the form of publications. Now, if the fact that he makes a few bucks off of his hard work and maintains some of the information for future publications.....nothing is stopping you from doing the leg work yourself.

I do agree that Teds version is a bit confusing....

Both of these translations, however...point out a containment for the weights....encased, framework....and it is this that helps keep them out of the center of gravity. I want to know that path....I think the path is planned and not a direct result of the mechanism....it is it's own mechanism, so to speak. The prime mover provides the impetus to the weights, the encasement/framework provides/maintains the path....I know i have said this before and it is just an opinion.....they can't get out! They're stuck in this monotonous repetition of cycle after cycle. Basically, it is a very controlled environment and it has to be.


Steve

[John Collins]

No Mik, Ted of Chicago is no relation to me, although I do know him and we have corresponded regularly for the last few years. I'm John Collins; why would I offer two different translations? As a matter of fact there is a third one I'm aware of, which I shall dig out and post unless its been posted before. I'll check first.

EDIT - I make very little on each book, and in fact over the years I've spent far more on paying for translations and writing to literally hundreds of foreign addresses asking and paying for copies of files. I don't mind the cost because it was done as and when I could afford it and when its gone its gone - and any way it was a hobby for me. A few months ago I did a rough calculation of what I'd spent on research over the last 30 years and I reckoned it came to about £15,000 or $30,000 and that doesn't include my original copy of Das Triumphens.

JC