Hi,
Is there any clear indication as to whether the weights in Bessler's wheel (which seem to have been cylindrical) rolled on any surface within the wheel, as opposed to simply falling in air (as if connected to an arm or strut) until it knocked against a surface?
Erm, I'm sorry if this has been talked about before, but I found it hard to search past topics on this, was hoping someone would have an idea off the top of their heads or could point me to a previous thread. I've read the different contemporaneous quotes both in "Clues" on this website, and at offyre.com, and none of them seem to clearly suggest any rolling.
Well, thanks for any help on this. I've been toying with the riddle of the wheel off and on for a year. I sort of assumed the weights might have rolled. But maybe contemporaneous accounts hint at no rolling.
Tom
did weights roll, or just fall, in Bessler's wheel?
Moderator: scott
re: did weights roll, or just fall, in Bessler's wheel?
Hi Tom and welcome to the forum. I think you'll find as many opinions about what might be going on inside Bessler's wheel as there are people trying to figure it out. One day someone's bound to make the correct guess :)
re: did weights roll, or just fall, in Bessler's wheel?
Hi ovyyus, and thanks. I've visited here occasionally.... much of it is way over my head but nonetheless....
What's a bit odd is that several observers described a knocking sound and one of them went so far as to describe a slight "scratching" sound. Yet--at least based on the small sampling I've seen--none of the accounts clearly describes a rolling sound. If these 4-lb weights had been rolling around, you'd think surely they'd have made quite a sound and one of those guys woulda mentioned it. If there is a mention of it, then that helps resolve this. If there isn't, it's puzzling... it suggests there was no rolling or very little, and the main action was a pivoting or swinging or falling. (unless there was a rolling sound and it was just too obvious to merit mentioning....) If no rolling, then why cylindrical weights... maybe just happenstance....
Tom
What's a bit odd is that several observers described a knocking sound and one of them went so far as to describe a slight "scratching" sound. Yet--at least based on the small sampling I've seen--none of the accounts clearly describes a rolling sound. If these 4-lb weights had been rolling around, you'd think surely they'd have made quite a sound and one of those guys woulda mentioned it. If there is a mention of it, then that helps resolve this. If there isn't, it's puzzling... it suggests there was no rolling or very little, and the main action was a pivoting or swinging or falling. (unless there was a rolling sound and it was just too obvious to merit mentioning....) If no rolling, then why cylindrical weights... maybe just happenstance....
Tom
re: did weights roll, or just fall, in Bessler's wheel?
Hi Tom, rolling sounds can be easily disguised so my guess is that perhaps the lack of a rolling sound might not necessarily indicate an absence of rolling. As an old pool shark I know that a little felt is all that's required to silence a rolling mass ;)
re: did weights roll, or just fall, in Bessler's wheel?
Hi, yup that's a possibility. I have to say, there are a couple of circumstances why I got to wonder whether the absence of remarks about a rolling noise was due to muffling or padding. For one thing, 4-pound weights rolling along even good padding would make some sound. (Even pool balls rolling on a pool table make some noise .... then again, maybe it was just the shabby pool tables I always played on....)
Also, I'd suspect a heavy cylindrical weight rolling over a surface 26 times a minute every minute for 8 weeks would wear down or loosen any sort of soft padding. (Yup I'm accepting the witnesses' observations of the tests as substantially accurate, without deception.)
The account by Johann Christian Wolff seems suggestive to me on this: "I conclude, not only from this but also from other circumstantial evidence, that the weights are attached to some moveable or elastic arms on the periphery of the wheel. During rotation, one can clearly hear the weights hitting against the wooden boards. I was able to observe these boards through a slit."
If he'd detected any sort of rolling sound (and, as mentioned, I suspect at least a faint rolling sound woulda been audible even with careful muffling), in context I'd think he'd have mentioned it, in contrast to or in addition to his speculation that the weights were attached to arms or struts.
Maybe Collins' book or one of those sources cites some statement that gives a clear indication about this.....
Also, I'd suspect a heavy cylindrical weight rolling over a surface 26 times a minute every minute for 8 weeks would wear down or loosen any sort of soft padding. (Yup I'm accepting the witnesses' observations of the tests as substantially accurate, without deception.)
The account by Johann Christian Wolff seems suggestive to me on this: "I conclude, not only from this but also from other circumstantial evidence, that the weights are attached to some moveable or elastic arms on the periphery of the wheel. During rotation, one can clearly hear the weights hitting against the wooden boards. I was able to observe these boards through a slit."
If he'd detected any sort of rolling sound (and, as mentioned, I suspect at least a faint rolling sound woulda been audible even with careful muffling), in context I'd think he'd have mentioned it, in contrast to or in addition to his speculation that the weights were attached to arms or struts.
Maybe Collins' book or one of those sources cites some statement that gives a clear indication about this.....
re: did weights roll, or just fall, in Bessler's wheel?
It's very possible that rolling weights were used as a diversion. Most over-balanced wheel designs are slightly under-unity, so they could be added to a functioning wheel with a fairly low energy cost (just the energy of friction, sound, heat etc that they give off). This would be a very effective patent-protection system - confuse people with what looks like a working wheel, but the power is coming from somewhere else.
IF Bessler was not lying, and IF the translation is correct, then Bessler said the force comes from "swinging". This I find more likely than either rolling or impacting. Impact is very wasteful - rolling less wasteful, but I can't see any potential for energy gain.
Swinging invokes centrifugal and centripetal forces, and the equation start to require Velocity instead of simple balancing of forces which seem doomed to unity at best.
Things that intrigue me about Velocity is that A/ Velocity is completely relative, and B/ whether a body is at rest of in motion is completely relative to an arbitrary frame of reference - rest & motion are the same, only Acceleration requires energy input..., and C/ within a chosen reference frame, we say that Energy = 1/2VelocitySquared ...
This suggests to me that Energy is also abitrary, based on a chosen reference frame ... so maybe we can run a system with two reference frames, and get energy from the differences between them ...
Who knows what Bessler did - it was supposed to be very simple. Or maybe the person who said it was simple was fooled by a simple rolling system that was a diversion ...
IF Bessler was not lying, and IF the translation is correct, then Bessler said the force comes from "swinging". This I find more likely than either rolling or impacting. Impact is very wasteful - rolling less wasteful, but I can't see any potential for energy gain.
Swinging invokes centrifugal and centripetal forces, and the equation start to require Velocity instead of simple balancing of forces which seem doomed to unity at best.
Things that intrigue me about Velocity is that A/ Velocity is completely relative, and B/ whether a body is at rest of in motion is completely relative to an arbitrary frame of reference - rest & motion are the same, only Acceleration requires energy input..., and C/ within a chosen reference frame, we say that Energy = 1/2VelocitySquared ...
This suggests to me that Energy is also abitrary, based on a chosen reference frame ... so maybe we can run a system with two reference frames, and get energy from the differences between them ...
Who knows what Bessler did - it was supposed to be very simple. Or maybe the person who said it was simple was fooled by a simple rolling system that was a diversion ...
Anything not related to elephants is irrelephant.
re: did weights roll, or just fall, in Bessler's wheel?
Bessler never said "swinging".greendoor wrote:...Bessler said the force comes from "swinging"
re: did weights roll, or just fall, in Bessler's wheel?
Has the concensus changed on the swinging of the weights. Was this a incorrect translation or what. I must have missed that.
Mike
Mike
http://www.besslerwheel.com/clues.html
Clues to the Wheel's Design
Machine was set in motion by weights.
- Bessler
Weights acted in pairs
- Bessler
Weights gained force from their own swinging.
- Bessler
Weights came to be placed together, arranged one against another.
- Bessler
Weights applied force at right angles to the axis.
- Bessler
Springs were employed, but not as detractors suggested.
- Bessler
The machine's power was directly proportional to its diameter.
- Bessler
Weights may have been pierced in the middle and attached by connecting springs.
- Acta Eridutorum, An Account of the Perpetuum Mobile of J. E. E. Orffyreus, 1715
Weights were heard hitting the side of the wheel going down.
- eyewitness accounts
Machine made scratching noises, as if parts or poles moved over one another.
- eyewitness accounts
Weights may have been attached to movable or elastic arms on the periphery of the wheel.
- Johann Christian Wolff, eyewitness account
Weights may have landed on slightly warped boards.
- Johann Christian Wolff, eyewitness account
Weights were cylindrical.
- Johann Christian Wolff, eyewitness account
About 8 weights fell during each revolution of the wheel, which took about 3 seconds. (wheel diameter ~ 12 feet)
- Joseph Fischer, eyewitness account
If this page contains information which has been disproved, could the webmaster please correct this information.
A Google of Bessler & Swinging indicates that the quotation "Weights gained force from their own swinging" is widely attributed to Bessler himself.
Clues to the Wheel's Design
Machine was set in motion by weights.
- Bessler
Weights acted in pairs
- Bessler
Weights gained force from their own swinging.
- Bessler
Weights came to be placed together, arranged one against another.
- Bessler
Weights applied force at right angles to the axis.
- Bessler
Springs were employed, but not as detractors suggested.
- Bessler
The machine's power was directly proportional to its diameter.
- Bessler
Weights may have been pierced in the middle and attached by connecting springs.
- Acta Eridutorum, An Account of the Perpetuum Mobile of J. E. E. Orffyreus, 1715
Weights were heard hitting the side of the wheel going down.
- eyewitness accounts
Machine made scratching noises, as if parts or poles moved over one another.
- eyewitness accounts
Weights may have been attached to movable or elastic arms on the periphery of the wheel.
- Johann Christian Wolff, eyewitness account
Weights may have landed on slightly warped boards.
- Johann Christian Wolff, eyewitness account
Weights were cylindrical.
- Johann Christian Wolff, eyewitness account
About 8 weights fell during each revolution of the wheel, which took about 3 seconds. (wheel diameter ~ 12 feet)
- Joseph Fischer, eyewitness account
If this page contains information which has been disproved, could the webmaster please correct this information.
A Google of Bessler & Swinging indicates that the quotation "Weights gained force from their own swinging" is widely attributed to Bessler himself.
re: did weights roll, or just fall, in Bessler's wheel?
Although widely attributed to Bessler, due to one (dare I say colourful) interpretation, Bessler never actually wrote "swinging". While some prefer a "swinging" interpretation, probably because it helps support their current pet theory, Bessler appeared far less specific in his intended meaning - as usual. Perhaps, "weights gain force from their own motion" is the Bessler-speak we're more familiar with :)Weights gained force from their own swinging.
- Bessler
According to John Collins, which is this quote source, the term "warped boards" is a mistake and it should read "elongated boards". John can not presently (last I heard) locate a copy of the original letter written by Wolff in order to confirm this data one way or another.Weights may have landed on slightly warped boards.
- Johann Christian Wolff, eyewitness account
Some, like Bill, dispute the use of the word "swinging" as a description of the movement of the weights in Bessler's wheels. It seems that Bessler never used a word that translates exactly to the English word "swing" or “swinging� when talking about his wheel. Bessler used words that translate more precisely as “motion� or “movement�.
Let’s face it; weights had to move in Bessler’s wheel. If they moved then they either rolled or slid or they were attached in some movable way to the wheel. Rolling and sliding weights make noises that are somewhat unique. A ball rolling on a pool table is a sound that most people would recognize, even though the table is covered with felt in an attempt to suppress the noise. Likewise a weight sliding along a surface makes a distinct noise that is identifiable. Witnesses stated that they heard scratching noises in the early wheels. Could this be from sliding weights? Sliding weights produce more friction than rolling weights, so why use sliding weights? I tend to think the scratching noise was from moving weights and not specifically from sliding or rolling weights.
I tend to rule out both sliding and rolling weights because of a particular reason that is a little hard to explain to those who don’t have a solid understanding of how moving weights behave. Such weights move themselves; that is they don’t have a connection link to other weights nor to the wheel. As such their movement is always “behind the curve� in that they respond to the rotation of the wheel rather than cause the rotation. Some may hassle me for that statement because obviously rolling and sliding weights can cause wheel rotation. You must study the path of rolling and sliding weights to really understand my meaning, for as I said, it is hard to explain. For a weight to push a wheel forward it must be aggressive and be ahead of the curve. It must move earlier rather than later. To do this something must move the weight before it follows its natural rolling or sliding path. This requires an attachment or inter-connection of some type. Bessler talks of weights needing to be inter-connected, which also seems to me to rule out rolling and freely sliding weights.
So if we rule out freely rolling and sliding weights then what we have left (using Sherlock Holmes logic) is some type of connected weight. How do you connect a weight and still let it move? One simple way is to place the weight on a rod. The rod then either slides or swings. If the rod slides then it might match what the witnesses heard on the earlier wheels, but this doesn’t prove sliding. Swinging is noiseless, until the weight bangs against a stop. This more closely matches what the witnesses heard on the later wheels.
A free swinging weight has the same limitations as a rolling or sliding weight, as it is always behind the curve. Only by inter-connecting a weight to modify its motion can the weight be pushed ahead of its natural motion path. When a swingable weight is inter-connected and is thus no longer free to swing freely then a question arises, “Can it be stated that the weight swings?� Probably not! This may be why Bessler never used words that translate into “swing� or “swinging� when describing the movement of his weights.
Did the old German language have a limited meaning for “swing� that caused it to mean only freely swinging movement and not an inter-connected controlled-swing type motion? Or was Bessler just being careful to not give away too much info? Is “swinging� a wrong descriptive term for whatever the motion of the weights?
I tend to think that weights were attached to the ends of levers and were inter-connected, somewhat like Bessler shows on the toys page. Using modern English words their motion can best be described as “swinging motion� even though each weight was not free to swing like a pendulum. I try to always use the term “swinging motion� or some such similar wordings because Bessler never actually said that his weights swing.
Let’s face it; weights had to move in Bessler’s wheel. If they moved then they either rolled or slid or they were attached in some movable way to the wheel. Rolling and sliding weights make noises that are somewhat unique. A ball rolling on a pool table is a sound that most people would recognize, even though the table is covered with felt in an attempt to suppress the noise. Likewise a weight sliding along a surface makes a distinct noise that is identifiable. Witnesses stated that they heard scratching noises in the early wheels. Could this be from sliding weights? Sliding weights produce more friction than rolling weights, so why use sliding weights? I tend to think the scratching noise was from moving weights and not specifically from sliding or rolling weights.
I tend to rule out both sliding and rolling weights because of a particular reason that is a little hard to explain to those who don’t have a solid understanding of how moving weights behave. Such weights move themselves; that is they don’t have a connection link to other weights nor to the wheel. As such their movement is always “behind the curve� in that they respond to the rotation of the wheel rather than cause the rotation. Some may hassle me for that statement because obviously rolling and sliding weights can cause wheel rotation. You must study the path of rolling and sliding weights to really understand my meaning, for as I said, it is hard to explain. For a weight to push a wheel forward it must be aggressive and be ahead of the curve. It must move earlier rather than later. To do this something must move the weight before it follows its natural rolling or sliding path. This requires an attachment or inter-connection of some type. Bessler talks of weights needing to be inter-connected, which also seems to me to rule out rolling and freely sliding weights.
So if we rule out freely rolling and sliding weights then what we have left (using Sherlock Holmes logic) is some type of connected weight. How do you connect a weight and still let it move? One simple way is to place the weight on a rod. The rod then either slides or swings. If the rod slides then it might match what the witnesses heard on the earlier wheels, but this doesn’t prove sliding. Swinging is noiseless, until the weight bangs against a stop. This more closely matches what the witnesses heard on the later wheels.
A free swinging weight has the same limitations as a rolling or sliding weight, as it is always behind the curve. Only by inter-connecting a weight to modify its motion can the weight be pushed ahead of its natural motion path. When a swingable weight is inter-connected and is thus no longer free to swing freely then a question arises, “Can it be stated that the weight swings?� Probably not! This may be why Bessler never used words that translate into “swing� or “swinging� when describing the movement of his weights.
Did the old German language have a limited meaning for “swing� that caused it to mean only freely swinging movement and not an inter-connected controlled-swing type motion? Or was Bessler just being careful to not give away too much info? Is “swinging� a wrong descriptive term for whatever the motion of the weights?
I tend to think that weights were attached to the ends of levers and were inter-connected, somewhat like Bessler shows on the toys page. Using modern English words their motion can best be described as “swinging motion� even though each weight was not free to swing like a pendulum. I try to always use the term “swinging motion� or some such similar wordings because Bessler never actually said that his weights swing.
-
John Collins
- Addict
- Posts: 3299
- Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2003 6:33 am
- Location: Warwickshire. England
- Contact:
re: did weights roll, or just fall, in Bessler's wheel?
Hi Jim
Can you please explain before I go “insane�, what you’re talking about when you say that rolling or sliding weight’s are always behind the curve, or when you say Only by inter-connecting a weight to modify its motion can the weight be pushed ahead of its natural motion path.
Ken
Can you please explain before I go “insane�, what you’re talking about when you say that rolling or sliding weight’s are always behind the curve, or when you say Only by inter-connecting a weight to modify its motion can the weight be pushed ahead of its natural motion path.
Ken
All material motion requires a source of energy, a body to store the energy, and the energy of motion.
re: did weights roll, or just fall, in Bessler's wheel?
Ken, start by looking at a very simple situation of a heavy ball rolling in a round barrel type wheel. When stationary the ball settles at the exact bottom. When the wheel is rotated the ball gets lifted up on the ascending side of the wheel and then it rolls down. So it is behind the curve. It is always reacting too late to help rotate the wheel. The ball must be lifted up early on the descending side of the wheel then it will be ahead of the curve and it can do some work. Without being first moved ahead of the natural motion path in some way a rolling ball is always behind the curve; it is always reacting too late. This is true no matter what path the ball follows when it is free to move itself. Only by directly forcing the ball to move early can it cause the wheel to rotate. This requires the ball to be controlled or connected in some manner. Then it is no longer a freely rolling ball.
All movable weights on a rotating wheel will have a natural path that they follow. This path is normally always balanced on average during a full cycle. A weight that is "behind the curve" is being moved by the wheel and is slowing the wheel. A weight that is "ahead of the curve" would be pushing the wheel and thus speeding it up. The curved path I'm talking about here is the natural balanced path that a weight normally follows on a rotating wheel.
The only way that I see to force a weight to move ahead of the curve is to use the movement of a second weight. Thus they become inter-connected so that one of the weights gets moved early ahead of the curve and this makes the second weight move late behind the curve.
Do the two curved paths balance each other in the greater scheme of things or can the ahead of the curve weight gain a greater advantage over the disadvantage caused by the behind the curve weight?
All movable weights on a rotating wheel will have a natural path that they follow. This path is normally always balanced on average during a full cycle. A weight that is "behind the curve" is being moved by the wheel and is slowing the wheel. A weight that is "ahead of the curve" would be pushing the wheel and thus speeding it up. The curved path I'm talking about here is the natural balanced path that a weight normally follows on a rotating wheel.
The only way that I see to force a weight to move ahead of the curve is to use the movement of a second weight. Thus they become inter-connected so that one of the weights gets moved early ahead of the curve and this makes the second weight move late behind the curve.
Do the two curved paths balance each other in the greater scheme of things or can the ahead of the curve weight gain a greater advantage over the disadvantage caused by the behind the curve weight?
re: did weights roll, or just fall, in Bessler's wheel?
Hi Jim
Thank you for explaining; you never cease to blow me away with your ideas.
Two weights come together A and B, weight A is connected to the wheel, while weight B is in a cense not, but moves with the wheel. While the wheel is in motion weight B pushes of from weight A through some kind of spring action at some point, and in doing so throws the wheel ahead of the curve giving it a boost while weight B is pushed back behind the curve, weight B being pushed back shouldn’t effect the wheel in a negative way as it really isn’t connected to the wheel, (in a cense). Hope I got it right.
Ken
Thank you for explaining; you never cease to blow me away with your ideas.
Two weights come together A and B, weight A is connected to the wheel, while weight B is in a cense not, but moves with the wheel. While the wheel is in motion weight B pushes of from weight A through some kind of spring action at some point, and in doing so throws the wheel ahead of the curve giving it a boost while weight B is pushed back behind the curve, weight B being pushed back shouldn’t effect the wheel in a negative way as it really isn’t connected to the wheel, (in a cense). Hope I got it right.
Ken
All material motion requires a source of energy, a body to store the energy, and the energy of motion.