Would JC contradict me ?

[nicbordeaux]

Would John Collins contradict me if I said that there is a very strong possibility the the "box" shown in a Besler sketch is not an "air box" as commonly suggested, but a water box or tank ?

[John Collins]

No Nick, I wouldn't contradict you, but are you talking about the Merseberg wheel drawing or one from Maschinen Tractate?

JC

[nicbordeaux]

http://www.besslerwheel.com/images/Kassel-1stFigure.jpg

That figure in particular because I'm not sure the second one also labelled Kassel is exactly the same device. There again, not having read up on the actual Bessler wheel study, I'm likely wrong.

Whatever, the water tank fits in nicely with something I'm working on presently, and which shows quite some promise.

I wouldn't want to give indication of what my experiment and thoughts are in public, but if "water tank" is something you consider part of the Besler wheel, I will willingly share my thoughts by private mail.

[DrWhat]

John or nicbordeaux, could someone explain what the structure is under the whole wheel designated with the letter "r" (the Kassel-1stFigure above)

I assume it is a drainage track or something similar.

Thanks

[nicbordeaux]

At a guess and if the assumption about water tank is correct, a leaf spring. JC would be better qualified than me to answer that one. I' m working on not the global concept, but various parts I think I can guess the purpose of.

[Ed]

Of course it's a water tank. It's one of the load tests for Bessler's wheel to perform. And r is a drainage track. Who said it had anything to do with air?

[ruggerodk]

Nic:
If you are referring to the box in front of the drawing with a Archimedes screw, I find it very strange that anyone could imagine it as an 'air box'...are they totally blind?

Apart from that, the drawing was either a part of a PR leaflet (sales prospect) only showing some of the machinery the wheel was able to drive - in that case no clues or hidden hints involved - or...Bessler was turning his driving mechanism inside out.
That is: The machinery shown was not the result but the reason, not the driven but the driver!

regards
ruggero ;-)

[nicbordeaux]

Ruggero, you have it in a nutshell. The driven and the driver are interacting, there is transfer both ways with some energy loss, but a net gain from CG shift causing G induced e. The medium and the way it is contained and therfore behaves are the likely "secret". The wheel is the aparant mover, but other "accumulator/accelerator" stuff is at work. Hoping everybody thinks I'm mad and doesn't have a clue as to what this is about.

[ovyyus]

That is: The machinery shown was not the result but the reason, not the driven but the driver!

Highly unlikely given the wheel was also demonstrated with no loads attached.

[nicbordeaux]

ovyyus : was the wheel not run with nobody allowed to see the inner workings ? Was there room for a stationnary "box" in the wheel ?

[ovyyus]

Nicbordeaux, Karl saw inside Bessler's wheel but he divulged no technical descriptions. Obviously, no one knows how Bessler's wheel worked. That given, your free-form guesses might well be as good as any, no matter how unrealistic they may seem :)

[Jon J Hutton]

Hmmm. Is there any proof that Karl saw inside the wheel or just saw the drawing.

JJH

[ovyyus]

JJH, you think Karl would pay 4000 Thalers to see a drawing... and then stake his reputation on it? I don't think so.

[John Collins]

It seems clear to me, on the face of it at least that the drawing is simply an illustration of the archimedes pump test that he is supposed to have demonstrated on more than one occasion.

The tank is there to provide the water for the demonstration and to catch it after it has been pumped.

There are a number of minor clues in the drawing relating to the configuration of the mechanisms, and other stuff, but which on their own would convey little if anything to anyone examining it. You need to consider more than one drawings to start to reach some kind of conclusion.

I don't think there is any doubt that Karl saw inside the wheel; as Bill says he paid for the privilige and he put his reputation on the line when he supported his claims. Don't forget he also made his comments about how simple it was that a carpenter's boy could make one.

JC

[ruggerodk]

Highly unlikely given the wheel was also demonstrated with no loads attached.

If you consider attaching a heavy pendulum, a heavy brick-box, a heavy bucket and some heavy woodsticks as being 'no loads'....then you could be right.
But that's not the case here.
Bessler himself stated that the wheels was run by different principles, indicated by the differences in the drawings.

Nic:
Yes...if you 'read' the drawing from right to left, you'll have a driver.

regards
ruggero ;-)