The ONE WORD that could give it ALL AWAY !

[cloud camper]

Thanks for your contribution Arch. There are many things to learn here!

One issue still bothers me greatly and that is B's statement that everything turns with the wheel.

That simply cannot be if the wheel is "empty and light on one side of the wheel but heavy and full on the other".

A wheel such as this would simply keel so the heavy side is facing down and any internal rotation would be impossible due to the extreme lopsided weight bias.

Could this possibly be a mistranslation?

Now for the bidirectional wheel we presumably have two identical mechanisms internal to the wheel, one which turns it CW and the other CCW.

This at least results in a statically balanced wheel, as shown in this diagram.

An internal bottom weighted keel could have been used to maintain internal horizontal orientation for the bidirectional wheel but what about the monodirectional wheel that wanted to keel strongly?

Are there any drawings of the monodirectional wheel?

[Georg Künstler]

by cloud camper » Thu Dec 16, 2021 2:15 am

Thanks for your contribution Arch. There are many things to learn here!

One issue still bothers me greatly and that is B's statement that everything turns with the wheel.

That simply cannot be if the wheel is "empty and light on one side of the wheel but heavy and full on the other".

A wheel such as this would simply keel so the heavy side is facing down and any internal rotation would be impossible due to the extreme lopsided weight bias.

Could this possibly be a mistranslation?

No, it is correct, everything is turning in the wheel in the same direction.
Also the statement "empty and light on one side of the wheel but heavy and full on the other" holds true.
Her you must think not absolute, think relative, one side is relative full, the other is relative empty.
This is for the bi-directional wheel.

In my opinion, and that is the actual stand of my knowledge, Bessler has 2 different versions to build the Permanent Movement driven by gravity,
The Bi-directional wheel is not a dupplication of the one directional wheel.
The function is completely different.

[johannesbender]

depends on what full and empty means , heavy and light may be a calculation of total opposing mass , but full and empty may mean force such as torque because of force "cancelation" ,it may mean something else too though..

eg. you can have 1 side heavy and 1 side light , but it doesn't necessarily mean you have a sufficient moment in a direction that overcomes the other moment , therefore empty and full..

remember B cautioned , paraphrased , that if think motion will persist because ,guiding some weight a little further from the center while others are guided a little closer to the center you are better of with an empty balanced wheel.

my opinion is that you can't add to "gain" ,but you need to remove unwanted forces to get more , in such matters a matematician will tell you 1 and 1=2 ,a typical mechanical engineer will tell you 1 and 1=0 ,i think you need to look at 1 and 0=1...

[ArchCalc]

Well, how about “hanging”. Something could hang one way, then another on opposite then switch?

[WaltzCee]

. .. .. .
I think I should have said blank space. Instead of crowding weights together, create a blank space behind them.

behind? Where is that?

Would this blank space equate to anti-matter, mathematically speaking?

Would it serve some parasitic oscillating function?

[Fletcher]

One issue still bothers me greatly and that is B's statement that everything turns with the wheel.

That simply cannot be if the wheel is "empty and light on one side of the wheel but heavy and full on the other".

Could this possibly be a mistranslation?

AP : German

... Denn mein Werk wird nicht aufgezogen;
Es läufft bei dem Präpondium
Zugleich auch alles mit herum;
So lang’ Materi’ hält und wäret,
So lang’ es von sich selbst rum fähret.

Auf einer Seit’ ist’s schwer und voll,
Auf jener leer und leicht (wies sol.) x.

DeepL Translation :

... For my work is not raised;
It runs with the prepondium
At the same time, everything also runs around;
As long as matter lasts and is,
As long as it goes about by itself.

On one side it is heavy and full,
On the other, empty and light. x.

Mike Senior Translation wrt John Collins AP digital Pg 348 :

... for my device does not need winding;
it runs according to "preponderance",
and turns everything else along with it;
so long as its material shall endure,
it will revolve of its own accord.

On one side it is heavy and full;
on the other empty and light, just as it should be.

[cloud camper]

Thanks Fletch for digging up these translations - I dunno - still not totally clear in my mind that B means absolutely EVERYTHING turns with the wheel. Seems like there could be some wiggle room here.

We all know that B likes to tell the truth but always with a twist to try and throw you off.

Just like when he says the weights "shoot up in a flash" - he didn't say they shoot up all the way - thats what he wanted you to think but actually just a little after impact.

This to me then is the most difficult clue to reconcile.

With the monodirectional wheel I just can't see how we get out of a heavily lopsided wheel keeling either in a running or non running mode.

In either mode we just would have to have a secure connection to an external post to prevent flipping heavy side down. But there do not seem to be any illustrations of the monodirectional wheel to analyze.

And if we have impacts occurring in the wheel, you just can't have controlled impacts with everything tumbling around inside the wheel and with the witnesses hearing impacts only on the downgoing side - you would hear weights hitting everywhere!

It seems that the bidirectional wheel could have been developed primarily to create a static balance for the wheel that eliminated the keeling problem and only secondarily achieved bidirectionality!

[Fletcher]

I'm not sure if its much help but I take everything B. says with a grain of salt. Sometimes a large grain. He had an agenda.

IOW's truthful to a point.

Or as Georg said everything is relative. Relative to what ? - you don't have the full context on which to judge.

Some things he said will be literal, and others could be more figurative in meaning, imo.

I wouldn't go the the bank with any of them. Plenty of wiggle room as you said.

He was building a word puzzle, and he didn't intend for anyone, much less Wagner or Borlach et al, to complete it. As this thread shows I placed far greater importance on other avenues than his written word games from AP and DT, fwiw.

[Georg Künstler]

by cloud camper » Fri Dec 17, 2021 2:10 am
And if we have impacts occurring in the wheel, you just can't have controlled impacts with everything tumbling around inside the wheel and with the witnesses hearing impacts only on the downgoing side - you would hear weights hitting everywhere!

An hit/impact which was heard on the downgoing side is an asymmetric action.
I tried to develop this way of construction with the Walker, some years ago.
Everything is going around and is producing impacts on the downgoing side.
The walker was carrying 8 pendulums, which are allowed to swing.
http://kuenstler-energie.de/fileadmin/u ... walker.avi
The construction is tumbling in the wheel.
I tried to control the reswing of the Pendulum weights with ratches.
The timing, synchronisation was not correct, I know today.

The impact/hit point of the internal octagon is in the lower area of the wheel.

Now, the following construction is easier to build, and maybe the carpenters apprentice version.
When we use a storkbill as a carrier (it is just a movable parallelogram), then the impact/hit will occur in the upper half of the wheel.
Then we have a side shift from the upper part of the storkbill, followed by an impact/hit.
The internal construction is like a collapsing window frame, tumbling in the wheel.
The storkbill (parallelogram) is a carrier of pendulum weights,
Every impact is producing an upswing with a flash function of the pendulums, completely synchronized, the weights act in pairs.
The horse in front of the chart.
A dynamic system, a connectedness system.

[eccentrically1]

. .. .. .
I think I should have said blank space. Instead of crowding weights together, create a blank space behind them.

behind? Where is that?

Would this blank space equate to anti-matter, mathematically speaking?

Would it serve some parasitic oscillating function?

I think he means between each weight leave more space.

[eccentrically1]

Right, so an intelligent buyer would have secured the patent. It wouldn’t be necessary to keep it secret. Anyone interested in a pm wheel would have to pay for a license to build one. Unlicensed versions would be destroyed.

It's not that simple. People back then are self sufficient. They would make a rough wheel for their own use. It's not comercialized so I don't think it's illegal. Even if you smash wheels in the city, rural area is even harder to control. The wheel will spread to other country and everyone build one for their own use. You can't contain that.

You could allow small personal use, the real money would be in the scaled up versions that mine operators, mill operators, etc. would need. They would make up the difference.

[eccentrically1]

As I said earlier, the main reason the sale was not completed was down to Bessler’s demands that he be allowed to leave as soon as he had been paid. He couldn’t afford to let anyone see the inside of his wheel before he got his payment, because they could say it wasn’t worth the money and leave, knowing exactly how it worked. The buyer did not like like those terms either because they didn’t trust him not to chest them. This whole problem should have been avoided because, on Leibniz’s advice, Bessler had allowed a very senior and trusted member of the aristocracy to view and approve and verify the internal design as genuine. But even with all the tests and Karl’s validation, people were still suspicious, and were unwilling to pay up front. The escrow arrangement failed because of the volatile and paranoid nature of Wolff’s employer. Read what I wrote about him in my biography of Bessler

JC

I don't agree that's the main reason. How far would he have gotten with a ton and a half of silver if the buyer felt cheated? If Karl was so trusted, why was everyone still suspicious? They didn't need Wolff to set up an escrow situation payment, that could have been done by anyone. Something is missing.

[eccentrically1]

A business person only care how to make money off this deal. The fact that the wheel is simple say that he cannot make money off of it. Patents won't do anything because you can't patent law of nature. People can modify 50% of the design and they can claim a new patent. The only candidate for buying the wheel is the government because the money comes from tax payers. The problem back then probably the same as today, it would put thousands out of jobs and create massive economic chaos. So why buy an invention to shelf it.

The government paid for the Longitude solution, around the same time I believe. You wouldn't patent the "PM law", you would patent the wheel design.
Money would be in licensing .
The lost jobs would be replaced by wheel construction jobs.

[eccentrically1]

I just get this feeling the increase size of the wheel does not cause an increase in power. Adding wheels on the same axle just adds the power only.

The wheel presented was a favourable size to show the effect.

However steam power would increase with volume / pressure.

Regards

The evidence that the bigger wheels had more power is in the record.
In his testimonial letter, Karl admits that more wheels on the same axle is a better method.

(especially if several such
machines can be combined in tandem)

[eccentrically1]

The only reason to get a patent on it these days would be to put your name on it. Once the genii is out of the bottle, you wouldn't be able to stop wheels being built (nor should you.) Big companies will be hesitant to openly build any (they'll patiently wait for the patent to expire), and trying to stop every "infringer" will mean you will spend the rest of your life in court trying to extract money from people who most likely don't have much of any...

I don't agree, even if someone found PM today it would be game-changing. The infringement of patents is a problem in every area so I wouldn't expect PM to be any different.