What was Bessler’s most powerful machine design?

[rocky]

Bessler said regarding the machine he was trying to sell that “None better will ever be found�. This quote is from Bessler’s Apologia Poetica (AP) written in 1716. He exhibited four machines in different cities: Gera in 1712, Draschwitz in 1713, Merseburgh in 1715, and Kassel in 1717. So when he claims none better will ever be found he must be talking about his Merseburgh design. It appears to be his most powerful as witnesses say it did not slow under load like his later Kassel machine did. Bessler wrote Das Triumphirende in 1719 which talks about the Kassel design.

In 1712 when Bessler exhibited his first machine at Gera, Thomas Newcomen invented the atmospheric steam engine and exhibited its power by draining water from a mine. When AP was written 4 years later, Newcomen’s steam engine had launched the Industrial Revolution across Europe and so Bessler would want to sell his most powerful version of his machine. Witnesses report different speeds and work done by each machine. Bessler created bi-directional machines to show that his invention did not run by a wound up clockwork spring. Many believe these wider two direction wheels contained back-to-back uni-directional machines.

Bessler would want to sell his most powerful design. Which exhibited machine do you think that was?

When you succeed in making a physical working gravity engine, how will you know if your design is the best that it can be? The most powerful? By its speed? By the load it will run? Which exhibited machine will you compare it to?

There are only three people in history where witnesses over months reported observing a weight driven running perpetual motion machine: Johann Bessler, Asa Jackson, and Doc’s grandfather with his Buzzsaw shaped wheel.

Bessler’s first device could barely turn itself, just like the relatives described Asa Jackson’s PM machine. Bessler said he made his device more powerful by adding crossbars and other parts; a photo of Jackson’s machine shows it has only one crossbar which is why it ran slow like Bessler’s first device. The attached photo shows Jackson’s machine has ratchet gears. Isn’t it interesting that in all of Bessler published books he never mentions the word “ratchet� or the words “prime mover�. Bessler wanted to published a history of PM machines and show the development of his working machine in a book called Maschinen Tractate (MT). He never sold his machine and he never published that book. John Collins published MT from photos of drawings for the book found in Bessler’s home after his death. The words “ratchet� and “prime mover� are found together in Bessler’s comments about MT drawing number 15; his only comment anywhere about the prime mover. This is a special clue drawing because it is one of three with counterclockwise movement; all the other machines are drawn to move clockwise.

It is interesting that Doc’s Buzzsaw wheel looks like a ratchet with the angle of its slots. When Bessler died, a list of things found at his home were made and were listed on another forum post: Bessler’s “Inventory after Death…�. Item #32 on the list is “38 iron gears�. Does anyone know if any of those gears were ratchet gears?

Bessler wrote:
“My Wheel is the true device. None better will ever be found upon this earth.� AP 348

“I want to sell just one kind of machine, not all of them. I have many different kinds of machines all running on different principles.� PM 122

"If I were to place, next to a 12-Ell wheel, one of 6-Ells, then, if I wanted to, I could cause the smaller one to revolve with more force and useful power than the large one. I make my machines in such a way that, big or small, I can make the resulting power small or big as I choose.� AP 340

“It later came about that Orffyreus moved to Draschwitz. The machine could drive several presses of considerable weight, or raise a weight of some 40 lbs or more several yards high and, if the circumstances of the place had allowed it, could have actually doubled this performance. It revolved with so much velocity that in one minute it completed more than 50 revolutions (thus almost marking the seconds).� GB 55

Witnesses wrote:
“In Merseburg .. He set it in motion. Within a minute it had rotated 40 and more times. He attached a rope to the axle – the other end was attached to a chest full of bricks - about 70 lb weight in all – and this load was raised and lowered several times by the machine. The most noteworthy detail was that the wheel, while under this considerable load, continued to rotate at exactly the same rate as when it was running “empty�.� GB 68 (witness Johann Weise)

“This [Kassel] wheel turns making twenty-six turns in a minute, when the axle works unrestricted. Having tied a cord to the axle, to turn an Archimedean screw for raising water, the wheel then made twenty turns a minute.� PM 95 (witness Joseph Fischer)

John Collins wrote:
“I have always believed that the two-way wheels contained mirror image mechanism, each designed to turn the wheel in a particular direction. I tested this hypothesis with a Savonius windmill, mounting two of them on a single axis. When separated each turned in its correct direction. But when the two separate windmills were connected to each other, the whole thing remained stationary. However a gentle push resulted in a slow movement in the direction of the push at about half the speed of the disconnected mills. This worked for both directions. That is why Bessler's wheel could turn in either direction, in my opinion.� JC on forum

I agreed with John. The bi-directional wheels are wider in proportion compared to the uni-directional wheels. Having a second mechanism would explain it. Also the Kassel wheel ran at 26 rpm, half speed to John’s theory so full speed would be double of 52 rpm, the same as the Draschwitz uni-directional wheel. So if the Merseburgh wheel was half speed at 40 rpm, then pulling out one of the duplicated mechanisms and letting it run by itself its speed would be twice as much at 80 rpm – in my opinion. What is your opinion?

GB – Grundlicher Bericht (Thorough Report), Bessler, Germany 1715, J. Collins/translated by Mike Senior 2005
AP – Apologia Poetica (Formal Poetic Defense), Bessler, Germany 1716, John Collins/translated by Mike Senior 2005
DT – Das Triumphirende (The Triumphant Orffryrean Perpetual Motion), Bessler, Germany 1719, J. Collins/Mike Senior 2005
MT – Maschinen Tractate (Treatise on Machines), Bessler, Germany 1722, J. Collins/translated by Andrew Witter, 2005
PM - Perpetual Motion: An Ancient Mystery Solved?, John Collins, England 1999

[ovyyus]

That's one confusing list of questions. Bessler said the Kassel wheel was his biggest and most powerful.

[daxwc]

Wagner’s critiques 1


XXXIII.

On page 21, line 4 seq., the defender indicates the proportion by which the force would be multiplied if the diameter of the wheel were increased. He obtains this proportion from the three different wheels which Orffyreus has made, namely, the first wheel, in Gera, which measured two and a half Leipzig ells in diameter and raised several pounds; the second, in Draschwitz which measured 5 Leipzig ells in diameter and drew 40 pounds; at the last, in Merseburg, which measured 6 Leipzig ells and drove 70 to 80 pounds into the air. From these it is concluded that if the diameter of the wheel is increased by approximately one ell, the force of the wheel increases by 40 pounds, and thus the difference increases by 40 in an arithmetic proportion. If the diameter of the current Merseburg wheel were made twice its size namely 12 ells, then the wheel could not raise more than 320 pounds according to this rule. Nevertheless, in the Leipzig newspaper of 3 November 1714 it is expressly stated that if the diameter of the wheel were thus increased, the force would square itself, according to which rule the said 12-ell wheel would raise 6400 pounds, a frightful blunder of about 6080 pounds which should rightly humiliate Orffyreus, who lets himself be called a famous and experienced mathematician and mechanic

tks

[daxwc]

Bessler Quote:

Wagner seems almost to have run out of fancies. He says nothing
can be achieved with "mechanical implements", the gist being that
my Mobile must be impossible because I designed it to be driven by
some "mechanical power". But did I not, in Part One, devote more
than one line to a discussion of the type of "excess impetus" that
people should look for in my devices? Once more I will humbly extol
the virtues of this passage to my next worthy reader. 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? What if I
331
were to teach the proper method of mechanical application? Then
people would say: "Now I understand!� AP pg 335

Those that think Bessler only used gravity should take heed to his own words.

http://www.free-energy.co.uk/



tks

[John Collins]

I assume that's for me daxwc? But as you will see, those words you've quoted actually confirm to me that gravity is the energy used. The working wheel will produce "excess impetus", as indeed it would have to to keep turning, and all due to gravity.

JC

[Fletcher]

Wagner seems almost to have run out of fancies. He says nothing can be achieved with "mechanical implements", the gist being that my Mobile must be impossible because I designed it to be driven by some "mechanical power". But did I not, in Part One, devote more than one line to a discussion of the type of "excess impetus" that people should look for in my devices? Once more I will humbly extol the virtues of this passage to my next worthy reader. 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? What if I were to teach the proper method of mechanical application? Then people would say: "Now I understand!� AP pg 335

Those that think Bessler only used gravity should take heed to his own words.

I assume that's for me daxwc? But as you will see, those words you've quoted actually confirm to me that gravity is the energy used. The working wheel will produce "excess impetus", as indeed it would have to to keep turning, and all due to gravity.

.......................................................

Look closely at Bessler's words & context ! Stewart may have a slightly different translation of certain words but I don't expect it to change the meaning in the context significantly


Wagner seems almost to have run out of fancies.


He says nothing can be achieved with "mechanical implements", ...


"mechanical implements = mechanical levers i.e. mechanical arrangements, Newton physicality & Kinematics


... the gist being that my Mobile must be impossible because I designed it to be driven by some "mechanical power".


Bessler is saying Wagner portrays that it must run by some "mechanical power" because mechanical arrangements [& gravity] can not self sustain therefore Wagner suggests some imported/introduced power source.


But did I not, in Part One, devote more than one line to a discussion of the type of "excess impetus" that people should look for in my devices ?


TYPE of "excess impetus" - there is a certain type - one that gives more velocity & momentum to the wheel.


This means there is a asymmetry in forces inside the wheel - one side has an extra force [above conservative gravity's acceleration] that allows impetus to be accumulated on one side of the wheel.


Once more I will humbly extol the virtues of this passage to my next worthy reader.


Even Wagner, wherever he is now, will have heard that one pound can cause the raising of more than one pound.


Here he is teasing Wagner - this is the 'Laws of Leverage' [N.B. the aren't actually any Laws of Leverage, just convention of experience & wisdom].


One pound can cause more than one pound to be raised up but not by the same distance i.e. work done = f x d ... therefore ... f1 x d1 = f2 x d2 [fulcrum position dependent] - but the force x distance relationship is a stalemate in pure mechanical arrangements balanced at the pivot/fulcrum, when only gravity is acting - i.e. turning moments are equal, this is because they are based solely on Newton's Laws & there are no free lunches.


The only way that more than one pound can raise higher than the prescriptive f x d relationship dictates is if another force is applied one side of the fulcrum [besides gravity] - so a force must be introduced to do this !


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 ?


Bessler admits that Wagner is right & no one has found a leverage principle to lift a heavier mass vertically higher than the lighter mass moved down.


Then Bessler says that it can be done & can anyone see why ? - see note above i.e. "The only way that more than one pound can raise higher than the prescriptive f x d relationship dictates is if another force is applied one side of the fulcrum [besides gravity] - so a force must be introduced to do this."


What if I were to teach the proper method of mechanical application ? Then people would say: "Now I understand!�


'Proper method of application' - not an ordinary mechanical arrangement that fits the f1 x d1 = f2 x d2 conservative gravity prescriptive relationship - but one that adds a force to one side of the fulcrum to allow that equitable stalemate to be broken ! - that would be the proper method of application !

[Tarsier79]

Nice work Fletcher, my thoughts exactly.

He's right! So am I

This says to me there is something other than "mechanical arrangement" that causes the "excess impetus" to raise the weights, which would power any number of OB mechanisms.

[daxwc]

Thanks Fletcher for portraying the gist of my thoughts on the quote better obviously then I could convey.

JC quote:

I assume that's for me daxwc?

No not really JC; it actually was for me as I included keep going back to gravity driven ideas.



JC quote:

The working wheel will produce "excess impetus", as indeed it would have to to keep turning, and all due to gravity.

Does he say the wheel will produce energy due to excess impetus from gravity?
No; he actually says look for of the type of "excess impetus� that turns the wheel.
Gravity is the transfer force; just as a train does not make energy to move people. The train transfers energy from fuel to move the people and do work. If Bessler didn’t think the work output of the wheel squared with size I would never be looking in gravity's direction.


tks

[John Collins]

Thanks Fletch for an excellent dissection, I shall read it again and digest it!

JC

[Tarsier79]

But did I not, in Part One, devote more than one line to a discussion of the type of "excess impetus" that people should look for in my devices?

So, does anyone have any Ideas on this part. Any specific lines in AP1 where it points to the type of "excess impetus"?

[Fletcher]

I don't know about specifics in AP [see wiki clues] but in Wagner's critique he says that Bessler said that it could be seen by children playing in the street, or words to that effect.

Bessler also said that the force went up by the square [as dax just said] & I don't believe that was an error in reporting in GB - the words were something like the force goes up fourfold or some such.

Jim_mich IIRC was the first to make the connection to Cf's having 4 times the force at 6 o'cl from a 12 o'cl drop, but this may not be the only fourfold or squared connection.

Back to children demonstrating the force in the street - this has been discussed here many times & many feel it is reference to the stick & hoop tapping game i.e. children run beside a rolling hoop tapping it with a stick - obviously the stick gives the hoop more velocity & momentum - it also makes a noise on one side of the wheel - but it may not be the only children's game in the frame & that takes us back to the toy page.

This trail would seem to indicate that impact had some part to play in his earlier wheels IMO - N.B. for example, for an impact hammer wheel to work the weighted levers must fall in succession with great force i.e. break the equal turning moments conundrum of masses, levers, fulcrums & gravity - that means a force must accelerate the hammers to a higher velocity & Ke level beyond what gravity can muster to create excess impetus.

[jim_mich]

From Webster's 1913 Dictionary:

\Im"pe*tus\, n. [L., fr. impetere to rush upon, attack;
pref. im- in + petere to fall upon, seek. See {Petition}.]
1. A property possessed by a moving body in virtue of its
weight and its motion; the force with which any body is
driven or impelled; momentum.

Note: Momentum is the technical term, impetus its popular
equivalent, yet differing from it as applied commonly
to bodies moving or moved suddenly or violently, and
indicating the origin and intensity of the motion,
rather than its quantity or effectiveness.

Impetus is a force that moves something along.
Impetus is momentum, or more precisely, the original impulse that causes momentum.

CF is simple an artifact of momentum. CF is the word that we use to describe a subset of momentum that involves rotation.

[ovyyus]

...in Wagner's critique he says that Bessler said that it could be seen by children playing in the street...

Back to children demonstrating the force in the street...

Bessler said that it could be seen by children playing in the street, not demonstrated by children playing in the street. IMO, Bessler is simply saying that it is easily recognised and understood, even by children. The comment appears to conform with other statements by Bessler and Karl that it is immediately recognised and understood by anyone looking inside the wheel.

[Fletcher]

I partially agree with that Bill - 'seen' is a degree removed from 'demonstrated', where I took a liberty, not actually said by Bessler.

So your reasoning that it was easily & immediately recognised & understood by anyone, even children, would seem a sound interpretation of events.

Another is that it was actually seen in operation in the streets, by children, IMO - and still be easily recognisable & understood by everyone.

[ovyyus]

Either way, it would appear that it can be easily recongnised and understood by anyone. The fundamental it was said to be immediately obvious. I wonder how this statement might apply to an it that is a complex spinning mechanism or an obscure/mysterious thermodynamic effect?