the clues give it away

[arthur]

This selection of clues is from my memory of research, so please don't look too closely into who said what when.

these key points should clearly illustrate.....................................................................................

- Weights apply force at right angles to the axis.

- Weights gain force from their own swinging.

- Weights were heard hitting the side of the wheel going down.

- Weights are attached to movable or elastic arms on the periphery of the wheel.

- Springs are employed.

- a simple arrangement of weights and levers.

- weights travel in an elliptical path around the axle
closer to the axle on their way up.

- SO SIMPLE A CARPENTER"S APPRENTICE COULD BUILD IT.

....................................................................an unbelievably simple design that roughly resembles a swastika.....

[evgwheel]

Hi Arthur
Glad to see your first post and the simplicity of your thoughts. I hope that they stay that way, before you get all confused by our learned friends who will throw things at you that Bessler would have never understood. What Bessler meant or how to translate his meanings is not as important as the basic facts from your post and i believe the answer will come from a bloke just doing his thing (although this forum has send me in a different direction) slightly)) I have always been fascinated by the swastika shape. EVG

[ovyyus]

- Weights apply force at right angles to the axis.

- Weights gain force from their own swinging.

- Weights were heard hitting the side of the wheel going down.

- Weights are attached to movable or elastic arms on the periphery of the wheel.

- Springs are employed.

- a simple arrangement of weights and levers.

- weights travel in an elliptical path around the axle
closer to the axle on their way up.

- SO SIMPLE A CARPENTER"S APPRENTICE COULD BUILD IT.

Hi Arthur and welcome to the forum. I've highlighted the parts of your clues that are the result of pure speculation, incorrect translation, and/or 3rd party fabrication.

[rlortie]

Hello and greetings Arthur,

Welcome to the forum!

Some time back on this forum I used the swastika as an example to give my opinion on weights attached in such a symmetrical design.

If you would care to delve into this subject deeper, you will find me responsive. Old ideas brought back by a new generation always makes fodder for innovation and possibles once overlooked.

Ralph

[scott]

Hi Arthur. For answers to some common questions please see the wiki, esp:

http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index. ... rtal:Myths
and
http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index. ... rtal:Clues

-Scott

[arthur]

Thanks evgwheel, ovyyus, rlortie, and scott

ovyyus,

This was not all my "speculation, incorrect translation, and/or 3rd party fabrication."

I found these "clues" on various websites:


The following is found on this site:)
http://www.besslerwheel.com/clues.html

"WEIGHTS GAINED FORCE FROM THEIR OWN SWINGING."
- Bessler
"WEIGHTS MAY HAVE BEEN ATTACHED TO MOVABLE OR ELASTIC ARMS ON THE PERIPHERY OF THE WHEEL"
- Johann Christian Wolff, eyewitness account

The following is from:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index. ... rtal:Myths
In his 1956 article entitled "Bessler's Wonderful Wheel," Edwards wrote:

"When the oiled cloth was stripped away, said Count Karl, he found himself gazing upon a VERY SIMPLE ARRANGEMENT OF WEIGHTS AND LEVERS. Orffyreus explained that he had conceived a system whereby the WEIGHTS ON ONE SIDE OF THE WHEEL WERE FARTHER FROM THE AXLE THAN THE WEIGHTS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WHEEL, creating an imbalance which caused the wheel to move".

For what it's worth, The following is from:
http://orffyre.tripod.com/id41.html
dialogues at the castle of weissenstein

"HEAVY WEIGHTS IN MY MACHINE ENCIRCLE AROUND THE AXLE TO FORM AN ELLIPTICAL PATH, in the similar manner, as planets encircle around the sun. Whilst moving around axle, they recede and come closer to the center. They balance against each other and impart motion to the wheel."
- Bessler


Regardless who fabricated these clues they all point to the same practical design.

[evgwheel]

Arthur, The link you posted http://orffyre.tripod.com/id41.html is indeed very interesting and to me it does not matter if it is fiction or fact. The so called facts we work with, is also made up partly of fiction. Anything what makes us think is a bonus. Being a member of this forum we are by nature inquisitive but also sceptical. Any comment like it doesn't work, full stop. should not sway any of us to give up. EVG

[jim_mich]

Good morning Arthur,

The clues as you list them are more or less accurate. Bill (ovyyus) has highlighted some that are as he says, "pure speculation, incorrect translation, and/or 3rd party fabrication."

Some dispute the swinging translation as being more like moving. I consider this a minor discrepancy in that swinging and moving mean basically the same thing. Swing means moving on a pivot. The question then becomes whether the weights moved/swung on a pivot or not. If there were no pivotal attachment point upon which to swing then the weights would be free moving. If they were free moving then they would most likely be rolling. Rolling weights always make a distinctive sound, which would have been reported by the witnesses. For this reason and other reasons I'm very doubtful that the weights rolled. If they didn't roll then they must be attached in some way so that they can still move. This brings us back to most likely using levers. Weights moving on the end of levers would be considered swinging. And the original language that Bessler used can be interpreted as moving/swinging. Some people have pre-conceived ideas and then try to make Bessler's clues fit their ideas, so they try to make the translation say only moving so that it eliminated the swinging part. The fact is that it can mean either moving or swinging, so you may take your choice.

Weights are attached to movable or elastic arms on the periphery of the wheel.This clue is a statement by someone that observed the outside of the wheel but never saw the inside. So it is somewhat speculative. Arms would again be considered as levers. And Bessler said that springs were used. Springs are elastic. So you might say that this clue is a littler confused or speculative.

a simple arrangement of weights and levers. This is not Bessler's words. It is attributed to Count Karl, but there is no proof that Karl said these words. The author that quotes Karl used "poetic license" to embellish the story. There is no absolute evidence that this statement is true. On the other hand there is no evidence that it is a false statement. There is evidence (see swinging) that it is most likely true.

weights travel in an elliptical path around the axle closer to the axle on their way up. This is a fabricated statement attributed to Bessler on a website. But there is evidence that this fabricated statement might be true. Bessler plainly states that the weights move in and out as the wheel turns. This will produce an elliptical path for the weights. Bessler also states that his wheel is glorious as a peacock. A peacock is glorious because of its spread tail that has round eye shaped patterns around the edge. The pattern of these 'eyes' forms an elliptical path. I think the peacock is a very good clue.

One clue that many people seem to ignore is Bessler talked about weights being connected to other weights. He talks of pairs of weights in a number of places without using the 'pairs' word. But in one place he talks of pair of pairs of weights. Some people question the translation saying that it should be two and two, which to me means the same thing. I guess some think of pairs requiring a right and left, as in gloves or shoes. This is not the meaning of the pair of pairs statement. It only means two and two and not pairs in the sense of right and left hand.

This brings up another clue. Bessler mentions that his wheels need to be correct/right handed and not like the unworkable wheels that he was discussing. The German word has the same double meaning as the English word. It can mean the opposite of wrong or the opposite of left. I feel that Bessler used it in a context where both meanings applied. So in this case the translation is right and correct.

[Jon J Hutton]

Hey guys,

Lets try this to keep from getting to confused. I will copy and paste the clues into my post. If you think of other clues copy mine (if they are correct) and then put yours infront. We will have a large list through the posts.

1. a simple arrangement of weights and levers.
2. weights being connected to other weights
3. his wheels need to be correct/right handed
4. WEIGHTS GAINED FORCE FROM THEIR OWN SWINGING/movement

JJH

[rlortie]

Machine will bearably run with only one cross, but when I add more.....

Considered by me, not to be a clue, but rather a slip of the tongue!

Ralph

[jim_mich]

I assume all of us here know about the BesslerWiki Clues List? These are all the known clues, except for a few that I've deduced from MT that would be considered pure speculations. The Wiki list does not contain Bessler's peacocks tail statement. It also does not contain the visual clues contained in MT, for instance the correct/right handedness comment in MT-10 is in reference to what is visually shown in MT-9 thru MT-11 as is his 'connectedness principle' statement in MT-9.

Ralph likes to bring up the cross-bar as being a clue. I see little in this statement other than that if you duplicate a single internal mechanism that will barely run then the wheel has more power and can run better. This is just common sense, especially if it used CF in some way since more power from additional mechanisms will make it turn faster and turning faster will produce more CF. One builds on the other, thus turning a single mechanism that barely turns into a much more powerful wheel.

[rlortie]

jim,

Ralph likes to bring up the cross-bar as being a clue. I see little in this statement other than that if you duplicate a single internal mechanism that will barely run then the wheel has more power and can run better.

My point being that if it will run on just one cross then that should narrow the field as far as an OB wheel is concerned. It also narrows the probabilities of designs whether relying on CF or not.

Why waste time and material on building a trial and error wheel with multiple weight mechanisms, if you know that only one is required to substantiate it.

I do not bring it up as a clue but as a straight forward statement that is either fact, or a lie! In translation it has been referred to as a lever, beam, cross-bar and just plain "cross", considering the source I am inclined to go with cross and not cross-bar.

Has his exterior depicted pendulums been referred to as a Celtic cross, or is that a term I only imagined?

Ralph

[DrWhat]

One cross/beam may still be a complex stucture. Adding more beams may not be a duplication/replication of the single beam structure (with complex attachments). It may be an enhancement of the same main mechanism.

We also have the clue that Bessler says emphatically: "no weights hang from the axle". This clue can be a bit ambiguous. Maybe weights don't hand directly off the axle, but ultimately the weights do hang indirectly from the axle as the axle holds up the entire wheel (and hence the weights).

[ovyyus]

Some people have pre-conceived ideas and then try to make Bessler's clues fit their ideas...

Yes, ain't that the truth Jim. We all have our pet theories and we sometimes go about trying to manipulate the clues to best fit our preconceived notions. An example might be where you will look at the clues from your own CF energy source speculation point of view and naturally see things from a 'swinging' perspective in order to support your own case. Or, perhaps on the other hand I might see the clues from the perspective of a harnessed and applied external energy source, such as a thermal gradient, in an effort to consolidate my own point of view. I guess there's nothing wrong with that as long as the words written by Bessler aren't bent and twisted into something they were not intended to be.

If they didn't roll then they must be attached in some way so that they can still move. This brings us back to most likely using levers...

But they might have rolled. We just don't know, Jim. There are many possible means of attaching moveable weights within the wheel and to each other. Could be they rolled, could be they were attached to levers, maybe they were all hung in some special pattern on strings from pulleys? Who is to say because we just don't know - guessing aside.

If the historical evidence left to us is confused with "pure speculation, incorrect translation, and/or 3rd party fabrication", or "best guessing", then I for one think we are not better off.

1. a simple arrangement of weights and levers.

Bessler never said this. Karl never said this. The quote is actually attributed to 3rd party speculation/fabrication and is not supported by historical record. Also,

There is no absolute evidence that this statement is true. On the other hand there is no evidence that it is a false statement. There is evidence (see swinging) that it is most likely true.

IMO Jim, that is poor logic. If a statement, in this case a claimed quote attributed to Karl, remains unsupported by historical record then it is surely FALSE.

[jim_mich]

a simple arrangement of weights and levers. This is not Bessler's words. It is attributed to Count Karl, but there is no proof that Karl said these words. The author that quotes Karl used "poetic license" to embellish the story. There is no absolute evidence that this statement is true. On the other hand there is no evidence that it is a false statement. There is evidence (see swinging) that it is most likely true.

IMO Jim, that is poor logic. If a statement, in this case a claimed quote attributed to Karl, remains unsupported by historical record then it is surely FALSE.

Bill, are we talking here about if the statement is a true Bessler statement? Or are we talking about the possibility of there being levers used? I was talking about the possibility of levers being used. Even if there is no definite statement that levers were used that does not negate the use of levers. There is other evidence from Bessler's own handwriting to support the concept of levers being used. I would refer you to MT-9 thru MT-11 where Bessler talks about weights on the ends of levers. In MT-9 he talks of weights on the ends of levers needing to use his 'connectedness principle.' In MT-10 he talks of weights on the ends of levers being a good principle, but that this alone is not yet complete unless the 'correct handle-construction' is used. And again in MT-11 Bessler says there is more than what meets the eye, but it needs a 'correct principle' as mentioned previously. So here we have three example drawings of weights on levers where Bessler says they are good but not complete nor right in some way. This, to me, is a very clear indication that Bessler was saying his wheels used swinging weights. So, as I stated, there is no evidence that swinging weights were not used, while there is much (but not absolute) evidence that swinging weights were used.

This is like a court case where one must weigh the preponderance of the evidence for and against each piece of the puzzle until a whole overall picture develops. The overall evidence is very strong for swinging weights and very weak for any other method.