Most important clue?!

[jim_mich]

The bi-direction wheel is as simple as two and two. Pair of pairs. The weights swing/oscillate/move due to CF. They can never find a position of rest except if rotated backwards. One weight speeds up as another slows down. CF is relative to the square of the velocity of the weights. The CF driving the faster weight increases by up to four times while the CF hindering of the slower weight decreases to near zero. The weights play crack the whip. Then they bang against a spring cushioned stop pushing the wheel forward. At which point the weights have exchanged places and the cycle repeats. The system gains energy much like a mechanical Maxwell's Demon.

[Stewart]

...You also wish me to inform you why the Draschwitz machine did not create a similar noise; well, I'll tell you. The two machines can easily be contrasted, as they worked on quite different principles. The former (Draschwitz) one turned in only one direction, but the latter (Merseburg) one turned, as everyone could see, both ways. The former was provided with felt coverings, but the latter was as bare as a bald head. I have many other machines of various types - some, for instance, with weights, others without.

By stating that he can build PM machines which contain no weights at all, isn't Bessler telling us that gravity and/or inertia are not relevant his basic PM principle (energy source)?

I think you've misinterpreted this quote, and understandably, as it seems a clear statement at first but actually you need to see how Bessler uses the word 'Gewichte' (weights) elsewhere to understand that you can't draw your conclusion from it.

Here's the original...

"...
Zu dem hab ich (laß dir nur dienen)
Sehr viel und mancherley Machinen;
Etliche haben zwar Gewicht'/
Auch welche wieder keine nicht; NB.
..."

and here's my translation...

"...
Besides I have (let me just advise you)
very many and various machines;
several indeed have weights,
others which don't; NB.
..."

The word Gewicht' here has an apostrophe at the end, which was done to replace a vowel for rhyming/metering purposes. It replaces an 'e' in this instance giving 'Gewichte' which is the plural form of 'Gewicht', so he is saying 'weights'.

But 'weights' here refers to something specific, a physical object, and not general weight/heaviness. Also, he doesn't refer to all physical objects with weight as 'weights'.

You need to look at how Bessler talks about weights elsewhere to fully appreciate this, so here are a couple of examples...

In MT1 to MT8 he shows and talks about them as designs with 'Kugeln' (balls/spheres). We would probably call these weights, but Bessler makes a distinction. MT1-8 are all ball-wheels, and in MT9 he says:
"Since one has experienced, that with those ball-wheels, that is to say, like the figures and designs that were seen so far, little has been achieved, therefore one has speculated on another principle, namely: on weights!"
(The last word used here in German is 'Gewichte'.)

Next is an excerpt from a letter Bessler wrote to Wolff where he talks about different PM designs...

"... as have very many and various kinds/types, that also have different principles; e.g. [they] may move themselves by weights, balls, springs, internal wheels, etc. etc. also internal water, oil, alcohol, mercury and wind, ..."
(the German word used here for 'weights' is 'Gewichten' - the 'en' ending is dative plural)

Once again you can see a distinction here between weights, balls, water etc. but all of these have 'weight'. It's also possible to appreciate here how, when Bessler says that the Draschwitz and Merseberg wheels used different 'principles', that this could be just different designs for overbalancing the wheel and could be as simple a change as using balls or water instead of 'weights', as well as of course the fact that one was unidirectional and the other bidirectional.

Stewart

[silverfox]

Obviously the weights have to be connected to something and taken together with that something they could also be considered as a single "unit" that might be fashioned as single piece out of some suitable material.

That would serve just as well or perhaps even better if you were concerned about either spreading out any unwanted stresses or better concentrating or focussing some that might actually be desirable at certain key points.

Not that I particularly want to go there, but you could also have parts that penetrate or go through others at points where that simply wouldn't be feasable in a structure that had parts of differing weights and materials that might easily need a structural integirity that simply gets in the way of that or is just too complicated to work around.

All of this is easy enough to say, of course, and easy enough to do in our times and with the kind of computerized design that can handle the calculations and material specs and even suggest the best kind of forms or shapes to do that for us, but not so easy in the 1700's with only a quill pen, a bit of parchment, and nothing but trial and error to get where you want to go.

To be perfectly honest, all I think Bessler is doing is making a passing reference to some of his previous experiments in that phrase machines of various types and I don't think that he necessarily meant that any of those were actually PM devices, only that as result of his work in general that he could easily envision a way to build a model without actually needing any physical weights "per se" to do it. So I wouldn't try to read anything more into it than that.

[Fletcher]

Once again you can see a distinction here between weights, balls, water etc. but all of these have 'weight'.

It's also possible to appreciate here how, when Bessler says that the Draschwitz and Merseberg wheels used different 'principles', that this could be just different designs for overbalancing the wheel and could be as simple a change as using balls or water instead of 'weights', as well as of course the fact that one was unidirectional and the other bidirectional.

Stewart

I appreciate your historical accuracy & clarity Stewart - things with mass have 'weight' but Bessler makes the distinction between different types of mass e.g. weights, balls, water, oil, alcohol, mercury - he then calls their use [to move themselves] different principles [of overbalancing] but clearly it is the same fundamental principle used with different weight forms - he gives nothing away really.

I think the next bit however is more interesting.

Next is an excerpt from a letter Bessler wrote to Wolff where he talks about different PM designs...

"... as have very many and various kinds/types, that also have different principles; e.g. [they] may move themselves by weights, balls, springs, internal wheels, etc. etc. also internal water, oil, alcohol, mercury and wind, ..."

(the German word used here for 'weights' is 'Gewichten' - the 'en' ending is dative plural)

Here he differentiates further by identifying things other than strictly mass displacement, such as springs, internal wheels, etc, etc and wind [pneumatic] for moving themselves - this would suggest to me that Bill's interpretation of no strict mass displacement weights might still be in the running, or at least could be cleverly designed that way, if you knew the Prime Mover force & method he used ?

[Michael]

Edit. I see Fletcher beat me to it.

Bessler also said in A.P. he had built over 50 machines. I find this puzzling, I'll look up the quote and post it, been wanting to.

[Stewart]

Yes - I'll leave you to draw your own conclusions from that Wolff letter excerpt. I just wanted to point out that in the AP quote in question, saying he has machines without weights does not necessarily mean they have no mass being acted on by gravity as a source of their movement (could be balls for example).

Stew

[John Collins]

I wasn't sure where to post this but this thread has some relevance.

Stewart's translation goes,

"He/One shall be called a great craftsman,
who can easily/lightly throw up a heavy thing,
and when one pound falls a quarter,
it shoots four pounds up four quarters. &c. "

This is my understanding of the passage.

In my opinion this relates to the fact that there are five sets of mechanisms in Bessler's wheel. It may be seen more easily if you reconsider the meaning, literally – when one pound falls one quarter and four pounds rise four quarters - is the same thing as saying each pound falls one quarter and each pound rises one quarter, only it says that when that one pound falls one quarter, four pounds rise through four quarters. In other words if there were five mechanisms on the wheel and one of the weights fell, it would make the other four move upwards and around the wheel – so as one weight falls, four weights rise and one plus four equals five.

We know that the weights worked in pairs therefore it seems to me that Bessler was also telling us that the weights were all of equal mass.

I'm sure to catch some flak for this but it seems to me to be too obvious that the idea that a pound weight can lift a four pound weight four times the distance the pound fell, is ridiculous and an alternative meaning must be sought. Since we know, in my opinion, that 5 was the key to success in Bessler's mind, it seems to me that anything which hints at that number must be the true meaning. Of course I know I am obsessed with the number 5 where Bessler is concerned but I have been unable to find any other satisfactory explanation for the passage that doesn't require more overturning of the laws of physics.

JC

[Michael]

I'm sure to catch some flak for this but it seems to me to be too obvious that the idea that a pound weight can lift a four pound weight four times the distance the pound fell, is ridiculous and an alternative meaning must be sought.

Depends. But I've already talked about this.

[Ed]

John, are you talking about something like this? Keeping in mind that the squares would be your mechanisms, whatever they might be. This is just to get a rough idea what you are talking about as a starting point. What are your thoughts as to distances moved by all these 5 weights?

Or are you saying the gray weights follow the circumference of each quarter of the wheel when the one weight goes down?

[justsomeone]

Sorry John but I respectfully disagree with you again. I do value your opinions but don't agree with this assessment. One pound CAN fall one quarter and raise four pounds four quarters high. It may be a play on words or it may be a huge clue to the solution. Just because Bessler states this " CAN " happen doesn't necessarily mean he used the 4 to 1 ratio in his wheel. JMHO and I also could be wrong. ;)

[Ed]

Michael, you are the king of quickly editing posts! And that depends on YOU moving fast enough. LOL

I agree Bessler's statement only sounds impossible without the correct understanding, but I'm trying to understand where John is coming from though, maybe he knows something we don't. ;-)

[Michael]

Michael, you are the king of quickly editing posts!

I only modified my original statement, I didn't think the details were necessary.
My right Ed until the time frame is up ;).

[Fletcher]

I C a lot of your posts just have just one word Michael, EDIT - is that like IIRC, or, IINM, or LOL ?

EDIT - Educated Discourse Intentionally Terminated ;7)

[Michael]

Hmmm, we must be accessing different versions of Besslerwheel Fletcher, I see only one post with just an edit in the joke section. Didn't think it favored women well even though I think it somewhat true and funny.
;) Back to the subject.

[Fletcher]

hmmm .. must be - searched author Michael - key word edit - 105 results or which 27 one word only.

One of them was in the jokes section, IIRC ;7)