Landgraf Karl von Hessen-Kassel

[ovyyus]

...and its particular wording implies an ambiguous meaning as they can't both be right, on the face of it.

They could both be right if Bessler used a powered lever and Wagner did not.

[Silvertiger]

This quote,

"Even Wagner, wherever he is now, will have heard
that one pound can cause the raising of more than one pound.
He writes that, to date, no one has
ever found a mechanical arrangement sufficient for the required
task. He's right! So am I, and does anyone see why?"

...and its particular wording implies an ambiguous meaning as they can't both be right, on the face of it.

JC

Yes...they can both be right. Wagner was completely spot-on when he said that no one had found the mechanical arrangement. But THEN Bessler says, "So am I, and does anyone see why? What if I were to teach the proper method of mechanical application? Then people would say: 'Now I understand!'" Bessler is the only one who knew, and Wagner didn't believe it. Therefore, they were both "right" according to their own reasoning.

[raj]

Lifting more than one pound with one pound
AND
Lifting a weight in a flash
in a wheel
Are the clockwise and counter-clockwise actions of the same mechanism, that is using springs.

That can be seen in my Auto Wheel drawings.

Raj

[gravityman52]

There is no doubt, in my mind, that the open axle would allow many options that could not be accomplished with an axle in place. The options for making an out of balance condition are truly amazing

[ovaron]

@ sleepy

Maybe you are right with your opinion from the witness comments that the bi wheel needed a push not to supply cf, but to kick the mechanism in the wanted direction. Besslers statement that the wheel hardly turns when there is only a single "crossbar" inside speaks against cf.

If I arrange to have one cross-bar in the
machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself
at all, but, on the contrary, when I arrange several bars, pulleys
and weights, the machine can revolve much faster,

[WaltzCee]

. . .
Intrinsic force wise the probable contenders are gravity and Cf's.
. . .

I've always considered Cf a problem to be solved.

Also, cats are impossible to herd.

[Robinhood46]

I've always thought that the initial push needed to be hard enough to give enough movement to all masses involved as to allow the configuration of weights to overcome friction and allow everything to fall into place continually.
Gravity does not just make things fall closer to the center of the earth, it makes them accelerate.
Am I correct to say that if you reduce the acceleration by 50% you still have acceleration and you still have the downward force of the mass.
I dare say that the first effect of any resistance on a falling mass is reduction of acceleration and then follows a state of constant velocity followed by reduction in speed.
I have such a hard time trying to understand why it's so hard to just take a tiny portion of the acceleration to create a tiny unbalance ?

[Silvertiger]

Excellent question. The answer lies in the fact that, with current knowledge, any portion of the energy taken from said acceleration will also induce a reaction (Newton's Third) that will stall the motion even faster.

[Robinhood46]

I can't see that it would stall the motion, reduce the acceleration slightly would cause an acceleration of less importance but an acceleration all the same.
Or do yomeanen that the effect of reduced acceleration on the down side would simply be equal to the reduction of acceleration on the up side?

[Silvertiger]

If you took energy from the acceleration, which is a vector quantity, where else could you put it except into a different vector, i.e. a different direction and/or position? The only other direction available is the opposite direction, as obviously one cannot take a portion of an acceleration and feed it back into the same direction without it being exactly the same as it originally was or less. If you change its position along the radius, the acceleration will also change. Hence, the wheel will stall.

[Hotzenplotz]

Does anyone have a source where one can prove that Landgraf Karl actually saw the mechanism? It is always pointed out that Landgraf Karl of Hesse-Kassel was the only one who actually saw the mechanism. Where are the sources for this? He is the most important witness, for the genuineness
of the Besslers wheel. How is it that there is nowhere to find evidence of this? Is it just hearsay to what is now simply taken as a fact without questioning it?

This is a very good question and it is NOT correct that the Carolo Attestat gives the answer, cause the attestat only testifies the four week running of the wheel but NOT a view inside by Carl. It is sad, that nobody here notices such an important mistake.

[John Collins]

I am not in the UK at present but from memory, I have seen a letter to HMs government in which a conversation with the Landgrave is recounted in which the Landgrave says he has seen the inside of the wheel and it is very simple and he is surprised thst noonecelse has thought of it before.

Also I have copy of a letter from Bessler to the Landgrave in which he requests the payment promised to him if he allowed the Landgrave access to his wheels interior. There iare other pieces of circumstantial evidence which supports the conclusion that the Landgrave demanded access before he could grant his patronage to Bessler.

JC

[Hotzenplotz]

I am not in doubt that Carl saw the interior of the wheel. But I think it is important to know a) when he did, and b) what his own statement was, if there was one. I think it is not good to mix up this private session with the Weissenstein test, because maybe Carl saw an earlier or later version of the wheel. There is also some contradiction on the price he had to pay. Some say it's 4000 Talers, some say it's 8000. Was it really him to explain the amazing simplicity of the structure, or are these words of Wolff? I think it would be good to be a bit more accurate with these questions, cause Carl with no doubt was the most important witness.

[unstable]

I had not seen this thread until today. I'm glad I'm not the only one here who has had / had strong suspicions.

Claudio

[John Collins]

I would have thought that it was obvious that Karl saw the interior before he even agreed to give Bessler with a home and an income. Clearly that was before he built the Weissenstein wheel, which he did at Kassel. The price agreed was 4000 Thaler and an oath to protect the secret until Bessler had sold the secret.

I have a copy of the letter from Karl (or rather his agent whose name escapes me at the moment) detailing the agreement plus providing carriage of Bessler’s belongings to Kassel, dated so I can let you know the date.

Strong suspicions Claudio? About what?

JC