did weights roll, or just fall, in Bessler's wheel?

[Stewart]

We've talked about this issue with the word 'swinging' a number of times, and my own view is that whilst the German noun 'Schwung' could mean 'swinging', it is more likely to mean impulse/momentum in the context of the sentence. This is also backed up by the Latin version of the text. When I hear the word 'swinging' it makes me think of something oscillating, whereas the word 'Schwung' would probably more commonly be translated as 'swing', and with the word 'swing' you don't necessarily have an oscillation. For example you swing a golf club. Also in German the word is used in the same way we might use it in the following context: the party is in full swing. In German a flywheel is referred to as a 'Schwungrad', so it's possible to get a feel for the use of the word to mean momentum. It's difficult for me to explain the word further - just have a look at the meanings and uses of the word in the following online dictionary: http://www.dict.cc/?s=schwung

I'm currently working on a post about chapter XXIX of part II of AP as requested by Steve who wanted to see if I could shed light on the part where Bessler talks of having some machines without weights (sorry for the delay Steve, but you'll see why it's taking me a while...). In order to give a complete overview of circumstances surrounding the writing of that chapter I've gone back to Wagner's tract which prompted Bessler to write the chapter, and then back to GB which prompted Wagner to write what he did. I'll post my findings and analysis as soon as I can. One interesting thing I got from Wagner's tract was his use of the word 'Schwung', which in the context he uses it is indisputably intended to mean momentum, as he is referring to the use of weights arranged around the circumference of the wheel like a flywheel.

Anyway, back to the DT text in question.... the following are parts of my own unfinished translations of the text in DT that talks about the interior of the wheel. First the German....

"The inner structure of this tympanum or wheel is of such a nature, after which a number of weights arranged according to 'a priori' (that is, scientifically demonstrable) laws of mechanical perpetual motion, continuously drive the wheel after/from [a] single received rotation, or after/from [a] single impressed force of the swing/impetus/momentum, and its revolution must continue so long as that is to say the whole structure maintains itself, without any further assistance and help [from] external motive forces which would require restitution: ..."

and the Latin....

"[The] interior structure [of the] tympanum or wheel is so constructed, in order that weights, arranged according to 'a priori' or scientifically demonstrable laws of mechanical perpetual motion, may drive the wheel without rest [from a] single received impulse & revolution, and may cause perpetual motion, as long as of course [the] structure itself [does] not lose its position and order/arrangement; and without any further help & without another added source of motion which may need to be restored. ..."

I hope this helps a bit - my full translation of this part of DT will hopefully be available in my forum soon.

Stewart

Translations copyright © Stewart Hughes

[ovyyus]

Some, like Bill, dispute the use of the word "swinging" as a description of the movement of the weights in Bessler's wheels...

Jim, I certainly don't dispute your use of the word "swinging". But Bessler never used the word "swinging". Do you see the difference? Perhaps I need to explain.

Most people, like you, tend to read their own perspective into Bessler's cryptic clues and ambiguous statements in an effort to support their own current pet theory. The downside of such a biased reading is that other possibilities may be discounted out of hand (or rationalized into oblivion) in favour of that persons preferred solution. Of course, this shouldn't effect others working on the same problem from their own unique perspective - unless one persons biased reading process inappropriately promotes alteration of the original data.

Jim, you might justify a personal preference for "swinging" for whatever reasons you like, but Bessler never used the word "swinging". You do not know what was inside Bessler's wheel therefore your speculation about what may or may not constitute a 'correct' movement is purely subjective and clearly biased towards your own preferred outcome. If we start actually changing Bessler's own words and meanings in order suit a personal need or a preferred outcome, then where does it end?

[ovyyus]

"...and without any further help & without another added source of motion which may need to be restored..."

That seems like an interesting additional stipulation. Is Bessler suggesting that an added source of motion (prime mover) that does not need to be restored might be acceptable?

Thanks for the translation Stewart and I look forward to hearing your views on the AP section (page 353) where Bessler seems to suggest PM without the use of weights.

[Ben]

I think they swing outside to cause one side to be heavier, but have to roll back into the inner orbit.

[Ben]

so i say both.

[tomfleet]

Thanks to everyone for this interesting discussion. Can I just add that, whatever the movement of the weights, I'd think that surely it had to be a relatively compact and contained movement, and relatively low on friction. I guess I'm inclined, like JimMich, to suspect it was weights on a lever, or some kind of setup with rigid (but pivoting or turning) struts, arranged to move in relatively compact arcs or sumfin. Or, if it was a sliding or rolling motion, it would have been at most a very short and compact slide or roll.

There are the contemporary hints of rather little noise (observers only remarked on the knocking and some "scratching"). But that aside, basically, if 4-lb weights were moving around 26 times a minute, every minute for 8 weeks, they had to move in a relatively smooth and short movement, or else (I can't help but think) the mechanism would have deteriorated noticeably. A loosened plank or fitting, a worn-down and roughened or shaky surface, more audible noises.... something or other would have had to give, unless the motion of the rather heavy cylinders was a compact, contained, and relatively invariable and frictionless motion.

This is all partly in light of what I'm assuming to be relatively rough standards of craftsmanship of the day. In Bessler's time I guess his cylindrical weights may have been pretty smooth. But they would have been far from perfect, and any kind of wooden or metal boards or framework within the wheel, and the joints and fittings and so forth, would be pretty rough and primitive.

[ovyyus]

But they would have been far from perfect, and any kind of wooden or metal boards or framework within the wheel, and the joints and fittings and so forth, would be pretty rough and primitive.

Tom, I think you'd be amazed at just how precise and well made machines and instruments were in the 18th Century. I would encourage you to research the matter further. I doubt many here would be capable of equaling some of the complicated and exacting mechanical wonders produced in Bessler's 'primitive' age.

[John Collins]

I agree. I once saw John Rowley's Orrery. It was said to contain 56 gear wheels of varying sizes and ratios, each was hand made - amazing! Bessler made clocks, Gartner too was a master craftsman and then there was the famous marine chronometer made by John Harrison.

JC

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Stewart....

I'm currently working on a post about chapter XXIX of part II of AP as requested by Steve who wanted to see if I could shed light on the part where Bessler talks of having some machines without weights (sorry for the delay Steve, but you'll see why it's taking me a while...). In order to give a complete overview of circumstances surrounding the writing of that chapter I've gone back to Wagner's tract which prompted Bessler to write the chapter, and then back to GB which prompted Wagner to write what he did. I'll post my findings and analysis as soon as I can. One interesting thing I got from Wagner's tract was his use of the word 'Schwung', which in the context he uses it is indisputably intended to mean momentum, as he is referring to the use of weights arranged around the circumference of the wheel like a flywheel.

I just appreciate you taking the time. Muchos Gracias for that.....I know I had been a stickler for this for quite awhile and Bill just said it as I have many times. We need to stay as generic as we can with these interpretations unless we have a solid point of reference to see them in an exacting way. To remove the difference of perspective in this endeavor only limits our vision as to what we might try. If the "swinging" interpretation becomes so widely accepted, we paint ourselves into a corner as far as a cooperative goes.....everyone will just accept that it has to swing, and that is just NOT what it says....it just doesn't. I choose to maintain a broad perspective on these such interpretations for the good of the whole cooperative....I''ve said it before.....just because I don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. Jim has great insight and as far as I'm concerned, a pretty good direction right now that might just pan out. I hope he's right! But, for the good of the overall....it does not specify swinging.

Jim's description to me as to being "ahead of the curve" is about spot on for an over balanced wheel....the overweight has to be ahead of the rest of the system at all times.....until,unloaded, it reaches that threshold where it maintains itself at a specific speed. As Jim mentions the connectivity and "pairs of pairs" there is also the path to consider....

AP.....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.

Hey Tom.....

There are the contemporary hints of rather little noise (observers only remarked on the knocking and some "scratching"). But that aside, basically, if 4-lb weights were moving around 26 times a minute, every minute for 8 weeks, they had to move in a relatively smooth and short movement, or else (I can't help but think) the mechanism would have deteriorated noticeably.

The 4 lb. weights were mentioned in the Merseburg wheel, not the Kassel. There are differences to consider in this. The Merseburg rotated at about 40 rpm's, not 26 and the performance was not as strong as demonstrated with the Kassel. There has been no mention of any weight proportion for the Kassel wheel. Also, the scratching noises were only mentioned in respect to the one way wheels....the one way wheel descriptions also never mentioned anything about banging/tapping/knocking sounds like those of the two way wheels.

You know, we talk about all these arrangements and what needs to be where. I think the basic understanding of that becomes obvious to most after a certain point of research into just what isn't working and why. Bill and I are interested in this interpretation of Stewarts because.....IMHO....if he means what has already been interpretted in a somewhat conclusive way, then what we might be looking for is much more than "a little more here than there.....". There will be a causitive, so to speak, at work in Besslers designs that needs to be discovered before the OOB effect takes place......cause and effect....once that comes about, it's going to be obvious and then the contolling aspect will need to take place. Again, JMHO......;-)


Steve

[Alexioco]

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.

May I just ask, couldnt the scratching noises be from the moving poles/tensions in MT 14/15?

Alex

[Quartz]

Hi steve

This is stHansvonlieven’s point of view on this subject, and I have reached a point were I agree with his point of view.

stHansvonlieven wrote

“Bessler is not difficult to translate. Where he is obscure he is deliberately so. He gives nothing away and even goes out of his way to throw red herrings. No amount of interpretive translation will change this.�


Its the red herrings that throw's a wrench in it, With that being said, I don’t believe any body is perfect, meaning that in all of what he said/wrote there could be quite possibly a slip of the tong, but I doubt it, as he was so...... careful not to give anything away.



Ken

[Quartz]

Hi Steve

You wrote

If the "swinging" interpretation becomes so widely accepted, we paint ourselves into a corner as far as a cooperative goes.....everyone will just accept that it has to swing, and that is just NOT what it says....

Your never going to know for “sure� what he really meant because of his play on words. I believe no stone should be left on turned, I have seen a lot of ideas here and many don’t involve swinging, so I don’t think as a group we are stuck in a Conner with swinging. I think were a diverse group with many ideas.


Ken

[ovyyus]

Your never going to know for “sure� what he really meant...

While that might be true, I think we should be aware (and beware) of the difference between translation of Bessler's words and personal interpretation of what Bessler might have meant.

Stewart has shown us that it's possible to accurately translate what Bessler wrote. Hans agrees. Jim, and others, show us that it's possible to interpret what Bessler wrote in order to promote a personal perspective. However, I don't think that confusing the two will do us any good at all - one is faithful translation of Bessler's words; the other is personal interpretation (changing) of Bessler's words.

Personal interpretations, speculations, and rationalised pet theory meanings are sometimes very interesting, but IMO it's important to maintain the clear distinction between what Bessler actually wrote and all this surrounding noise. The person who replicates Bessler's demonstrations might be better positioned to foist their personal interpretation upon Bessler's words :)

[Quartz]

Edit

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Ken.....

Your never going to know for “sure� what he really meant because of his play on words. I believe no stone should be left on turned, I have seen a lot of ideas here and many don’t involve swinging, so I don’t think as a group we are stuck in a Conner with swinging. I think were a diverse group with many ideas.

I didn't say we were stuck in a corner with swinging....my intent was that if it is continually interpretted in that way, it becomes the accepted interpretation. The reason it is not at this time is because there are certain people here who do try to remind those that may be new here as to this point.....it does not say swinging....it could, however be interpretted in that way if one was to choose so.

As far as Besslers writings go, I have pretty much maintained that I prefer the witness descriptions/accounts of how each of these wheels performed. I would love to get more information in this respect as to the operations of the one way wheels. There's just not enough there for my own personal interest of these. These accounts were not subject to his "red herrings" of interpretational diversions......he couldn't control what these people presented as far as the demonstrations go. He could only control the demonstrations.

Ken, when you read through and actually digest these descriptions and get a feel for what was going through some of these distinguished peoples minds at the time......they were floored! I have just tried to imagine what it would be like to see just how this contraption was able to not only revolve of it's own accord.....it could also perform work! These people witnessed it first hand. Rowley spent pretty much the rest of his life trying to duplicate what Bessler had acheived, he was so overwhelmed by what he saw. He had no problem believing that what he had witnessed was genuine.....it was that impressive.

So, I just have a hard time getting warm and fuzzy feelings anymore in particular arrangements that are a direct descendant of the same tried and failed ideas that have come before us. I think after a certain period of time most folks reach that point and then understand it has to be something way outside of the box. I do take my hat off to a guy like Rowley, who had master credentials as a craftsman and definitely a keen eye and a turn for mechanics as to making a go of this PM wheel of Besslers.....and he couldn't crack that nut!


Steve