Bessler's Proof ?

[........]

James.Lindgaard -

I just purchased John Collins' digital version of Apologia Poetica and read the whole thing last night. On page 297 Bessler answers a question:

Ninthly:- “Am I able to guarantee that my workmanship will be
durable?�

Answer - were I to give such a solemn guarantee, I would have to
ensure that the main parts are made of the best iron, steel and
brass, even if a considerable amount of money is involved. Then
it will stay sound for a long time! In short, no matter what the
costs, they're not too high - especially when, as is the case round
here - metal isn't really that expensive.

And here on page 291: "I'd like, at this point, to give a
brief description of it. So then, a work of this kind of
craftsmanship has, as its basis of motion, many separate pieces
of lead. These come in pairs, such that, as one of them takes up
an outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axle."



edited to add bold font

Hi Dawn,
Wood can be durable as well as light weight.
Weights also were used in pairs in pendulum clocks.
With scissors, if demonstrated to be true, then
Bessler's (one anyway) secret would be known.

edited to add; when there are 4 sections or compartments in a set of scissors, if one closes, they all close.
By using a 4:1 ratio to close the first compartment, a maximum of 4 times the weight can be lifted as is dropping if this theory is correct.
As such, lifting 2 lbs. the same height that 1 lb. drops will validate this theory. A proper demonstration will be forthcoming.
Until then, there is this for your consideration,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mqKF5nzmkgw

[Gill Simo]

Eh? Attention all newcomers......hang around here for year upon year , you're unlikely to learn anything of interest.....other than the reputation system being arse about face that is!!

[Grimer]

Speaking for myself I've learnt a hell of a lot - and had a lot of fun doing it.

Much more interesting than watching the tripe turned out by SKY, etc., and the MSM.

[........]

@All,
Have been talking with Alexioco and will try and show why i believe the drawing is a "proof" for Bessler.
Myself, I do not have a place to build and will be having surgery...again.
I may be able to do a demonstration of the mechanics. Alex is the person who originally got me interested in trying to match specific mechanical behavior to Bessler's clues.
As Steve mentioned about a liquid metal being used, this is highly possible because as he would say, it's density.
And in Bessler's time,metal was expensive. it is possible that the iron for the axle was the only solid metal used.

Jim

Jim, I never said anything about a liquid metal being used. You did ask me about "fluid" and I pointed out that I thought he was using it as an adjective and not a noun.......basically, to describe the movement as being "fluid". Other than that, I can't think of him ever referring to using a liquid metal of any sort being used.....and yes, he does mention mercury but as a clue in that silly little poem of his.


Steve

Steve,
It would be my mistake then. Some of his clues do not work well if he used only scissors as I believe about this design.

[........]

@All,
This is a modified drawing of Mt 25 I made a long time ago.
If you look at some of his drawings like Mt 31, 32 etc., he is lifting a weight by having a cross wise lever dropping.
With the basic design in the picture, the leveraged force is about 2:1. This is because the line would be 1/2 the distance from where the lever pivots and the CoG of it's weight.
This is where scissors allow for more lifting to be done than the lever drops. Or what everyone would call the Prime Mover. The idea that when understood would be accepted as the cause of motion.
As for causing the weight to be extended, Bessler did say it shot out. A cross bow does this. As such, by having the same point being lifted in the other direction when the wheel rotates 180 degrees, it would shoot the weight outwards.

edited to add; I may need to wait to build because I lack the proper equipment. Could me just me or the way I was raised but won't do a poor quality build. Could demonstrate the principle but doubt anyone would care. Of course, with how much work it is, I can see why people avoid it :-)

[........]

@All,
As Bessler is known to have been a clock maker. The basic
way a pendulum clock was powered is by using 2 weights. One would be slightly heavier than the other. And the drum would have a line wrapped around it that supported both weights. It would also be geared as low as 1500:1. This would be to try and keep the time movement on the clock accurate. It is the pendulum which actually controlled the clocks movement ensuring the accuracy of the clock.
As one weight is lifted, another weight drops. This is something that might not work well in a wheel.
This is because the distance from center and mass of the weight would always have the same force.
And Bessler in paraphrasing said if you can make 4 ounces fly as 16 ounces. That is a 4:1 ratio. This is one reason why my demonstration will be using the same ratio.

[........]

@All,
Here are some pics. The first is the basic test I am doing.
I have found I do need to reduce the amount of friction. I am
using a 1/4 in. dowel and have no means to drill a 5/16 or 9/32 in. dia. hole. I would need to buy a mini drill press to do that. Then with a better grease, the scissors would probably work much better. Either that or have it built using modern materials. This how ever would not support Bessler. Only building something materials he had available then would support his work.
Until then, might as well relax.

The 2nd and 3rd pics are one way to make a long lever. By using scissors that are not functional and are 3 wide, they provide excellent support.

If nothing else, there is always the water wheel and Bessler did work on mills. Even in that design, as one weight falls, another is lifted. And with sufficient leverage and only one pivot point, would still seem highly probable. Of course, most people do not consider water as a weight and it would allow fluid motion in both sense of the word. Something Bessler might have found amusing.

[........]

@All,
Almost forgot some comments Bessler made (if I remember correctly).
He said it barely moved itself and then he made more levers and pulley's.
And when it was working well, it shot the weights. What I am mindful of is that the scissors might not have worked until they were within 30 to 45 degrees of the level of the axle. A threshold so to speak.
And this would go to Mt 24. On the way down, the lever in front of the scissors would actuate it. And when a lever is on it's way up, it retracts the scissor following the one it is with.
This would place the levers in front of the scissor. What some of Bessler described was his developing his wheel.
To demonstrate this, I would need to modify or most likely need to build a different test. A partial wheel would be best so it could be shown how rotation changes what works with what.

[WaltzCee]

GSun May 01, 2011 10:55 am

The attached drawing is something I always thought was a clue.
It might be, but it might also be Bessler's proof. He might have thought that even his supporters would be doubtful and left somethign that helps to illustrate some of his clues.
If you consider the weights relationship to the axle of the wheel, it would have 1/2 the force as it swinging from the pendulum. You know, 22.5 degrees vs. 45 dergees.
What was it Bessler said, one weight replaces another. This could be why the specific positioning of the weights.
The weight on the pendulum would be on the long lever, and the weight it is replacing would move towards the axle.
It may be that by knowing how using trigonometry helps to create simple relationships that allow a design as complex as his wheel to be so simple anyone could build it. Yet I do believe the quote was originally an insult, but to understand how simple mathematical relationships can uotline the design of his wheel would be for those of us who like math.

[Wassup]

The attached drawing is something I always thought was a clue.
It might be, but it might also be Bessler's proof. He might have thought that even his supporters would be doubtful and left somethign that helps to illustrate some of his clues.
If you consider the weights relationship to the axle of the wheel, it would have 1/2 the force as it swinging from the pendulum. You know, 22.5 degrees vs. 45 dergees.
What was it Bessler said, one weight replaces another. This could be why the specific positioning of the weights.
The weight on the pendulum would be on the long lever, and the weight it is replacing would move towards the axle.
It may be that by knowing how using trigonometry helps to create simple relationships that allow a design as complex as his wheel to be so simple anyone could build it. Yet I do believe the quote was originally an insult, but to understand how simple mathematical relationships can outtline the design of his wheel would be for those of us who like math.

This is like the treadle that powers a grindstone. A pumping action creates directional rotation. What wasn't allowed to be considered
is that while this treadle type mechanism swings the pendulum to and fro, on a grindstone the motion would be up and down. It would
be vertical instead of horizontal.
How to lift a weight on a wheel? That wasn't allowed to be asked. And that was 12 years ago. And on a grindstone, when the pedal is pushed down,
the treadle pulls one side of the wheel down with it. That is using leverage to change the vertical height of the joint where the lever and the
horizontal bar are joined.
And if the pedal is leveraged, then it becomes a similar application as to what Bessler used. But was not allowed to consider this 12 years ago.
Instead it became about translations and other things but nothing about what I posted. And it was funny, Jim_Mich said I was wasting people's time
when they didn't have to post in my thread. Yet I was victimizing them when they were discussing a completely different topic.
It seems that no one was willing to consider the mechanics of motion and how force is applied matters. Mine eyes have been opened.
Basically if part 1 is leveraged ("D" is disconnected) then it can lift the connecting rod between "B" and "C". And when I mentioned math and mechanics it became word play. And if anyone notices, I actually showed the treadle. A mirror image similar to the code Bessler used shows it.
Granted, I did rotate it 90º as well. And yet I'm the problem?