Posted by Scott Ellis (216.87.95.64) on August 14, 2002 at 23:39:44:
In Reply to: keys in the ice box posted by Gill Simo on August 13, 2002 at 18:37:42:
Hi Gill,
Thanks so much for your post. What a great description of a phenomenon we all know only too well. Perhaps you're right, and there is much more staring us in the face than we realize.
Your idea is one of the most unique that I have seen. I think it is intriguing precisely because it is so hard to predict what it will do. As you know, I am working on a model, because I think it's the only way to really prove or disprove the idea. Have you built a model before? How did it go? Do you have any advice for those of us who are trying?
I agree that Bessler's solution was probably simple. Deceptively simple. The kind of simple that can outwit the brightest mind in the world. Truly great inventions are always quite simple in hindsight. We should remember that Bessler's achievements were limited by the technology of the day (1712). This was VERY rudimentary technology. But I do not rule out the possibility that Bessler stumbled upon a much more sophisticated principle ahead of his time, such as a Faraday disk.
As far as being deceptively simple and soundly rooted in Bessler's writings and drawings, your Jacob's Ladder idea certainly fits the bill.
As for how the weights could move in one direction and the wheel in another, I'm not sure I'm really getting that. Can you describe what you mean a little more? Would it involve some sort of gearing mechanism that converts say, clockwise torque into counter-clockwise torque? Would it be some sort of double axle?
Thanks again for your post, Gill, and for sharing your ideas with us. I hope others will chime in with their thoughts, ideas, and questions.
Best Regards,
Scott
: Greetings fellow sufferers. What happens when you cant find your door keys and you need to go out? You look for them of course usually until you find them. How long and awkward a task this is depends of course upon where you left them and some kind of inverse rationality seems to apply whereby the more obvious the place you left them so the longer and more difficult it is to find them.You end up so frustrated that you'll look in the icebox such is your desperation only to eventually find them in the door lock,the last godamn place you would have thought of, the last godamn place you did think of,after the icebox of course
: Wishing no disrespect to any of you's out there I've looked and listened for a good while now and all I see is the above "keys in the icebox" senario being played out to perfection.
: Now,after almost 300 years of searching for the keys we are devoid of all rationality finding it impossible to see the obvious insisting instead that it really might make rational sense to look in the icebox. The result of this is that we not only have to solve seemingly impossible clues we first have to decypher what is or isnt a seemingly impossible clue in the first place.Maybe its in his name ,his signature, its a Hebrew code,how long,another 300 years perhaps until its all got something to do with the sexual habits of John Collin's next door neighbour I wonder?
: Bessler stumbled as such upon something so stupidly obvious and yet quite unbelievably evasive. He tells us point blank that its so simple that he cant understand how nobody hadnt thought of it before and yet in the same breath almost he makes it clear that nor can he understand how he himself managed to make the leap,the connection,having no option other than to express it as Gods intervention. Bessler had no need to cloak his wheel in mystery in order to protect its workings from discovery,all he had to do was keep it covered and know that there was all but no chance of anyone else making that same connection.From his vantagepoint he could see that the obvious was already right ther in front of us all,utterly ellusive to us all.Bessler could quite blatently tell us and show us all but the actual secret itself,in action,safe in the knowledge that we would in all probability still just stare and see nothing and I firmly believe that he did just that.
: Clue one i
top only to fall and get stuck at the bottom but more an excess weight overall that gravity needs to act upon and the wheel cannot get shot of.Some pattern,some movement of the weights that traces out what Bessler calls the principle of perpetual movement.Well weights moving around an axle at a constant distance from that axle wouldnt trace out anything more remarkable than a circle and the wheel was too thin to enable any appreciable movement side to side so we are only left with movement in and out between axle and outer rim.Beyond these obviously important insights there is little else of worth. The crazy "for greed is an evil plant" verse is surely Bessler looking at the actions as his wheel spins and doing a bit of cryptic cloud-busting,its helpfull but only to help you know youre on the right lines.And of course there are many accounts as to how the wheel acted and sounded etc etc but the fact that he made one this size one that,that one goes one way another both ways is largely irrelevent when youre not able to even begin to comprehend how to design the thing.And its also very easy to overlook the many assumptions hidden away in these eye witness accounts.For instance "weights could clearly be HEARD falling on the descending side" Come again?
: Weights could clearly be HEARD on the descending side but heard FALLING.Maybe they where heard rising,maybe weights were falling on the other side connected to levers extending over to the descending side thus hitting against something as they rise.
: The only other inportant obvious clue that I can see is a page of childrens toys that Bessler tells us is a clue.
: Elsewhere on this site sits a design for Besslers wheel that I am responsible for but make no claims for. I am aware that it is hard to grasp afresh but I can assure you that the problem lies in trying to explain in diagrams and words.I built a mock up because I also found it hard to visualise the movement that I imagined on paper.Once I had done so it all became very simple yet elegant and everybody I showed it to from my 9 yr old daughter to my poor old mum understood perfectly.The point here however is not whether or not my design is a solution.The point is that from the few clues mentioned above I managed to create a crazy,magical wee device that fits those few clues.A constant excess weight swinging alternately in and out from the axle,based entirely around the 6 segment wheel design .IF it did spin,if it was the answer then the only explaination can be an excess weight that the device cant get shot of causing an overall centre of gravity that can never be achieved. The point is,I came op with something from virtually nothing .Instead of acting like a headless chicken I took a deep breath,ignored all the crazy places that the keys might be because they are in reality infinite and made some space to see the obvious, theyre in the door would you believe it!
: One last thing,sorry to go on so but I believe that the swinging triangles would indeed swing upwards on the wheels descending side ie the wheel moves in one direction whilst the weights move in the opposite direct,As we all know gravity would we a very usefull energy if only the earth didnt get in its way.Hold a brick out of an aeroplane and youve got a good deal of potential energy but unfortunately you cant get at it as the brick accelerates earthward at 32 feet/sec/sec,only when it thumps into the ground and then its gone.Take a look at the estimated sizes of Besslers wheels and there rpm. Do some simple calculations and you will see that the speed of the outer rim past any point works out at approx 32 feet per sec.So the smaller the wheel the faster it spins in order to keep this constant.Besslers wheel I believe and mine just perhaps managed to take the accelerating force of gravity, 32 feet/sec/sec and split it into a wheel going 32 feet/sec in one direction with weights going 32 feet/sec in the opposite direction.As far as gravity was concerned the wheel was falling like our brick,as far as we are concerned we then have two equal and