RRRRyan wrote:wow, ... anyone who could create enough low range acoustic energy to lift 70lbs or spin a 12 ft wheel at 60 rpms (even it if weighed 1kg) in the 1700s would have done something on par with what Bessler claims to have done. So then the question would be why hoax when you have something else amazing? Remember, Bessler predates Edison by something like 200 years. Maybe he had a heard (pun intended) of tap dancing oliphants instead of fat lazy horses?
messed around with them they found that there was a definite accoustic vibration taking place
So you're saying that scientists found that hitting hollow brass drums created acoustic vibration? What a discovery!
I'm all for brainstorming... keep the ideas coming. I just don't like missing a chance to make a joke either.
Cheers! I'll even rep you.... cause this one was a hoot. Please fellas keep up the conversation and just laugh with me if you can. :-) If we can't laugh what fun is there? Really, really... there could be something to this. Until it is known nothing is off the table. Even alien technology! I have this idea that......
LOL.....there was a bit more to it than just the fact they vibrated. The design of these were such that there was a flat surface for carrying a load. Also, they were able to be filled with perhaps water to help tune them to a particular frequency depending on the applied load. Now, this was all just speculation on someones part as to just what these ancient devices could have been used for, and an interesting peice of speculation it was from my perspective. I wish I could tell you more about it or provide a link.....this was about 15 years or so ago that I came across this.
Steve
Finding the right solution...is usually a function of asking the right questions. -A. Einstein
Almost no clatter and rattle was to be heard with the Draschwitz wheel; the wheel was made up of 8 spokes and was completely empty near the circumference, as one could see through the various cracks in the casing made of thin splinters, but there was not the slightest trace of a rising and falling weight to be heard or seen.
can someone verify, this Draschwitz wheel was completely silent? I thought they all had the light tapping sound on the downward side? This statement seems to say there was no sound at all? Also, why did he say "almost"? I can fathom Bessler making it quieter but completely silent would probably mean a few a few things more. Was this true of both (wasn't there 2?) bi-directional wheels?
...ooops, don't be mad ovvyus. I should have edited my post. \o/
RRRRyan wrote:Was this true of both (wasn't there 2?) bi-directional wheels?
The Draschwitz wheel was the second wheel that Bessler displayed. Both the first and the second wheels turned only one way. I think Bessler even insisted that they not be turned backward. Both of these wheels were somewhat quiet and only "scratching" noise were heard, as if something was sliding or rubbing. The third and fourth wheels were bi-directional and it was these wheels that made banging noise about eight times each rotation.
I have speculated that the prime mover mechanism moved weights out-of-balance in the early one-way wheels. The later bi-directional two-way wheels where balanced when at rest and I speculate that they were always balanced with the prime mover mechanism driving them by impulse of the weights against the wheel.
It may be that the earlier one-way wheels also had an element of impulse drive - Bessler made reference to the fact that he originally used felt as a noise reduction method but gave up on that when the felt kept wearing out, but I can't remember off hand whether that was in solely in the context of the later bi-directionals or not ?
Jim wrote:I think Bessler even insisted that they [uni-direction wheel] not be turned backward.
Jim, that's not true.
AFAIK, Bessler's only insistence was that his wheels not be turned at a speed faster than they were designed for.
But it does raise an interesting question: how would the uni-direction wheel react to being forced to turn backwards? We know it maintained a constant forward rotation force when at rest, but how did that force react to an applied reverse rotation of the wheel - did the force remain constant (as though it was constantly driven by a wound-up spring) or did the force reduce in proportion to reverse speed?
So now my question is, how did he know there were "8 spokes" if this wasn't the "8 click" wheel? He could "see" the peripheral was empty but did he explain why he though there were 8 spokes?
I assume that Wagner could see eight spokes, which is odd when you think about it. You would assume that the cladding would have covered the spokes. If he had inferred the eight spokes from the sound of eight weights landing, he would have mentioned that wouldn't he?
The cracks in the 'splinters' which he says he could see through, were probably gaps in the planks or boarding Bessler used to clad the machine. 'Splinters' is a translation anomaly probably. Could he have seen through the gaps while the wheel turned? I doubt it, so he might have been talking about the periphery being empty when the wheel was stationary, so we cannot assume it was always empty.
Bear in mind too, that Wagner was trying to prove that Bessler was a fraud so he would be searching for proof of fraud and if he could offer evidence that the periphery was empty, then the external appearance of the wheel was bigger than it needed to be and that must be because it served no purpose other than to add credibility to his claims.
very odd. Assuming we believe Bessler we already know that Wagner outright lies on several occasions. I'm just intrigued by this one because 8 spokes happens to match with 8 clicks but this is not the wheel that clicked. hmmm. Thanks for the great dialog on this. Any other ideas are welcome of course.
