Would JC contradict me ?

[ovyyus]

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.

Ruggero, it is most certainly the case that Bessler's wheel was able to work without being attached to pendulums, box of bricks, water screw, stampers, or any load whatsoever. Why do you think the wheel was only operated under load?

[ruggerodk]

Ovyyus...that's not what I'm saying.

You see, what Bessler show as a load in his drawings is a clever illusion.
But if you look carefully, what seems like a load is actually the principle driver mechanism only arranged in a different 'more familiar' way.

It's very easy to conclude from the drawing that obviously, "Yes, this is a wheel driving a screw" and "Yes, this is a wheel driving a wood-stamp mill" and "Yes, this axle roll up a bucket". We are used to see this kind of mechanics and accept it without questioning the premises.
We fill in the picture before we even see it. We know by a flash what it is.

Fortunately, we are not all fooled by Bessler's tricks.

This particular drawing of the Kassler wheel shows several major errors which should tell every first grade student, that it could never function:
Basiccally the wheel turns the wrong way; the screw turns the wrong way; the square-pulleye (around the screw) cannot turn as it is fixed to the box's walls; the wood-stamps and their connected pins are inside-out and the pins are not straight but angled; the bucket are not lifted but falling....

Look again - it's all right infront of your eyes.

regards
ruggero ;-)

[neptune]

@ruggerrodk . Whilst you could be right , or partly right , you must not lose sight of the advances in drawing techniques since Besslers time. I am no art student , but the art of perspective is a relatively recent invention. In todays world of mass production , we take for granted the Draughtsmans art and skill , and the standardisation of his technique. Just bear in mind that it was not always so. You, especially should realise this.

[ruggerodk]

I know Neptune, that drawing technique (and especially the tools) seems more advanced today than at Besslers time...but, but, but...perspective drawing was very advanced allready several hundred years ealier (Just look at Master DaVinci). Next to that, Bessler should have been very cabable of drawing his own inventions right even down to the finest detail. At least the way the screw turns, and the way the bucket rope turns and also the 'layering' of items in his drawings (MT proves that Bessler mastered these basic drawing skills).

He show us exactly what was the principle items...right before our eyes.

regards
ruggero ;-)

[ovyyus]

Ruggero, it's not the first time this idea has surfaced. It seems easy to observe the shortcomings in Bessler's drawings, and speculate we are all somehow blinded to 'obvious truths' contained in them. But making productive headway with these recurring observations seems as elusive as ever. Perhaps you'll have more luck. FWIW, I don't think Bessler would risk depicting anything close to his secret in a published drawing.

[nicbordeaux]

Could be we're all talking at cross purposes, but the wheel isn't revolving of it's own accord, we all agree on that, Somebody said "so simple a carpenter's ppprentice could understand and build it", so the basic principle is there, obfuscated by a lot of other stuff.

I'll side with Ruggero on this one, if what he actually means is that the "driven" load is in fact an integral part of the system, and what enables the wheel to rotate. What you should be looking for is a load that would store and restitute energy, and as there are losses to "outside environment", also be a means of harvesting more "gravity" force via the interaction with the wheel.

Anyway, i agree with anybody who says I'm just spewing hot air until such time as I explain that in detail, and I won't. What I will do is run some simple experiments and publish them if they don't work.

[ruggerodk]

well well well Ovyyus, you don't say.
Tell me: What idea are you specifically referring to? And please link us all to these ealier ideas...then we don't have to waste more time discussing it here...;-)
To be frank, I don't think you have the slightest idea of what I'm talking about.

Nic:
With 'load' I mean: The wood-stamp (heavy weight) is part of the 'driver' principle arrangement. So too are the angled sticks connected to them. Same goes for the turning screw, the pendulums and the ropes around the axle.
But as 'drivers' they are applied differently than the 'driven' load shown on the drawings.

regards
ruggero ;-)

[JINX]

I am really looking forward to your next post.

Dave

[ovyyus]

Tell me: What idea are you specifically referring to?

The idea that Bessler's published wheel drawings describe the inner working of his wheel by illustrating principles of operation, in plain view, in the depicted load/wheel arrangements.

I can gather from the rest of your post that you'd prefer no further input from me. Done ;-)

[nicbordeaux]

ovyyus : for the benefit of ignorant fools like myself, would you consider further input ? The thread belongs to everybody :)

Nick

[John Collins]

Its true the wheel would have to turn near-side downward to wind up the bucket. This would turn the screw the wrong way to pump water and yes, the square pulley cannot turn because it is too large for the box, but I cannot tell if it is fixed to the box and it might, as Neptune suggested, be a perspective problem. Yes, the two arms connecting to the stamps are mis-aligned but I don't find the pins on the stampers angled, its more likely in my opinion that the perspective has been somewhat exaggerated.

So what can we make of this? Too many mistakes for such careful drawing - is it likely that Bessler could have made so many elementary errors? Both of his Merseberg drawings have similar mistakes and one could conclude that they were deliberate.

In my opinion Bessler is saying that the drawing relates to his mechanism but, as you see it, it is wrong. He intended that anyone trying to glean information from the drawing would conclude that he had made a mistake in getting the drive directions confused. The other mistakes appear to be simply artistic errors but they are intentional. Unfortunately in my experience they are only helpful in confirming a design already created and this makes me think that the real purpose of these drawings was to provide proof that he had published the correct design prior to any subsequent claimant to the invention.

With no workable patent system available in Germany he was forced to do what the discovers of other ideas or facts or hypotheses had done previously - publish the idea in an encoded form, eg Latin anagrams.. Galilieo published "s m a i s m r m i l m e p o e t a l e u m i b u n e n u g t t a u i r a s", which translated to mean "Altissimum planetam tergeminum observavi", or "I have observed the highest planet tri-form." Others such as Huygens, Hook, Wren and Newton all resorted to similar stratagems. The advantgaes are obvious. Priority was established yet nothing was given away to potential rivals.

In addition to the drawings we have the distinct likelyhood, in my opinion, that there is more to be found in the text in 'Apologia Poetica' and 'Das Triumphans...'

JC

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Ruggero, If I am not mistaken there was no mention of any load being permanently attached to the Gera wheel. I went back through the books and checked through witness descriptions and there was no mention of any kind of stamping devices or any other of the such that attached to that wheel. From any of my research into those descriptions, the first wheel was the most basic....it just took off running at about 50 rpm's when the cord was released.


Steve

[bluesgtr44]

I am a bit more fond of DT myself. It seems to be a much more "at ease" writing from Bessler. He didn't have to put up with a lot of crap at this time thanks to Karl.


Steve

[Dave Roberts]

Actually, the wheel itself may be considered a permanent "load" if it rotates independently of the internal mechanism (driven by the internal mechanism).

[ruggerodk]

JC: You just nailed it perfectly. I totally agree on your view...except from the angled pin (please look at the close up below showing the layering at the pivot point...PS: can you could provide a high resolution closeup for details, please?).

Steve: We are talking about the drawing to be Bessler's documentation. To my knowledge there was never a drawing of Gera.

Ovyuus: No, I don't ask you to shut up, but to say something relevant to the subject - I don't find it very interesting to hear that what we are discussing have been discussed before.

regards
ruggero ;-)[/list]