Now just what did he mean by "gain force from their own swinging"? What force becomes present when a weight swings? I say the only answer is centrifugal force.Bessler wrote: the inward structure of the wheel is of a nature according to the laws of perpetual motion, so arranged that certain disposed weights once in rotation, gain force from their own swinging, and must continue their movement as long as their structure does not lose its position and arrangement.
Both torque and force have similar meanings. Torque means force around a pivot point. This brings us back to swinging weights. By "revolution of the weights about a wheel's axis" I assume you mean just the simple rotation of the wheel and weights while the weights just ride along and don't move. This makes no sense because it clearly would not power a wheel. Therefore we are back to weights that swinging and the force/torque derived from such. Swinging and shifting have similar meanings. The easiest way to allow a weight to shift while still maintaining control is to have it attached to a pivot point. And so we are back to swinging weights and that force which is gained by their swinging. To me this is clearly referring to centrifugal force. Bessler did not use the word "centrifugal" but it is clear that this is what he was talking about.Ken wrote:What could "gain force from their own swinging" mean? Lots of things. Bessler was working and writing in an era where the concepts of mechanics were still a bit fuzzy. And, of course, the fact that he was a "hands on" type craftsman rather than a academician certainly did not contribute to his being able to accurate describe a mechanical system. He may have been using the word "force" to mean "torque". As far as "swinging" is concerned, that could simply refer to revolution of the weights about a wheel's axis. Or, it could refer to the small amount of shifting individual weights underwent as they traveled around the circumference of the wheel.
In another place Bessler talks about one lifting four and 4 lifting 16. This is the exact ratio of centrifugal force produced when a weight swings freely a half turn from 12 o'clock to 6 o'clock. So again Bessler talked about centrifugal force.
Bessler's later two-directional wheels require that initial push to start them. They required a minimum rotational velocity in order to do their thing. This is a clear indication that centrifugal force was involved.Ken wrote:I really would like to believe that the "CF approach" has merit, but there are a variety of factors that discourage me from adopting this approach. Mainly, there is the sticky matter of Bessler's earlier one-directional wheels being self-starting from any position. If he was, as you suggest, "harnessing" CF, then it would seem that he would have had to have always given his wheels an initial push to get them rotating. Yet, there is no suggestion of this in the Bessler literature.
This leaves us with only the "sticky matter" of Bessler's one-directional wheels being self starting. I don't see this as a problem. But explaining why it's not a problem becomes quit complicated. I started to write an explanation then I erased it as it was too long and complicated. Simply stated the out of balance is left over from the swing of the weights as the wheel was decelerated and stopped. When the wheel was released this initial out of balance started the wheel rotating. As the wheel reached a minimum speed centrifugal force reset the weights out of balance again and the wheel then increased to maximum speed. Without any of this left over 'out of balance' condition I feel the wheel would have needed a small push to start it going again. The two-directional wheels were made differently so that when they were stopped they became balanced.
