Gartner & Borlach inspected, called 'hoax'

[MrVibrating]

Concerning the "Wrong end of the stick" ... when you ponder Bessler's words, why don't you go back and translate the original to see what Bessler actually said???

John Collin's AP, part one, chapter 38...

Let's for the moment assume that Gartner had genuinely got hold of the wrong end of the stick. Well, his ...

Original German AP, part one, chapter XXXVIII...

Gesetzt, daß Gärtner sich gefaßt Ein falsh [falsch] Concept, wohlan so ...

Word for word translation of AP, part one, chapter 38/XXXVIII...

Suppose, that Gärtner himself composed a false Concept, well_then so ...

There is no mention of a "wrong end of the stick". That seems to be some sort of phrase injected by John Collin's translator.

Just to be clear, I'm not knocking JC's translations. For the most part they are rather good. But sometimes they contain errors that makes me say "Huh?"

Then you guys ruminate on them, without understanding or knowing the original wording.

I only used the term in an absent-minded paraphrasing kind of way - it's tangential to the issue i'm questioning, which is simply that Gartner and crew were able to inspect the machine to their satisfaction behind Bessler's back.

Precisely what we'd all like to do, if we had a time machine.

The point is that Gartner's subsequent allegations, as portrayed in Borlach's print, are not merely speculative.

It was precisely because Gartner et al had made their debunking public that Bessler was forced to address it in AP. He simply couldn't just ignore it, if he wished to continue.

Gartner had twisted his arm behind his back, forcing him to corroborate his claim to have freely inspected the machine without hindrance. And thus, in so doing he seems to tacitly admit Gartner's findings.

Transliteration accuracy is quite beside the point.. Sure, Bessler may be retorting that Gartner has pulled the accusations out of his heiny, but he cannot deny - he fully admits - that Gartner did have unhindered access to the machine upon which to base his assessment.

So we're left with the question of why Gartner would deliberately wrongfoot his reporting of what he found?

Why not just plagiarize, improving upon and belittling Bessler's design, if it was real? Why, upon validating a working mechanism, would he go on to claim it was driven manually via a hollowed-out post...? And never try to capitalize on the true IP?

This question is left staring back at us. It's either this, or; why Gartner was unable to validate a simple working mechanism? Logically, the most likely answer is that he saw no working mechanism, just a hollowed-out post concealing a transmission to the axle. As he duly reported.

[MrVibrating]

very interesting topic , does anyone know if this
was after or before wagner's criticism ,those he wrote which , eventually lead to a back and forth between himself and bessler ?

jb

Before - i think this was at his house in Gera, before he moved to Kassel.

Obviously, this issue can't speak directly to how the Kassel wheels were able to pass muster.

It still looks to me that these later wheels were genuine.

However, if Gartner is indeed being truthful, then he caught Bessler red-handed being deceitful, which can only cast doubts on the integrity of his later work, too. I've no idea how he could've pulled off such a trick, but establishing his honesty in Gera seems like a worthwhile start, since he claimed throughout his life that the inspiration first came in 1712, and all subsequent works were based upon that initial breakthrough. If his claimed 'Eureka!' moment can no longer be trusted, the whole house of cards starts to look shaky..

[Dunesbury]

But later wheels were viewed on open bearings, and moved to another set of supports for good measure. If there was transmission, it would have been noticed, wouldn't it?

[jim_mich]

MrVibrating, you seem to think that Gartner saw HOW Bessler wheel worked.

The point is that Gartner's subsequent allegations, as portrayed in Borlach's print, are not merely speculative.

But Gartner's allegations were indeed merely speculations, because he never saw inside the wheel.

Wagner, Gartner, et al. saw the same thing as all other witnesses (except Karl a few years later). They saw a wheel with its mechanism hidden inside. They could neither validate nor invalidate whether or not it was a true perpetual motion machine as Bessler claimed.

It was precisely because Gartner et al had made their debunking public that Bessler was forced to address it in AP. He simply couldn't just ignore it, if he wished to continue.

Gartner et al wrote things that (according to Bessler) were false and untrue.

- he fully admits - that Gartner did have unhindered access to the machine upon which to base his assessment.

Yes, they got to look at the machine. But it was far from "unhindered" access.

So we're left with the question of why Gartner would deliberately wrongfoot his reporting of what he found?

They were of the scientific opinion that a gravity PM wheel was impossible. Thus they were of the opinion that Bessler's wheel MUST be a fraud. The engraving of the wheel turned thru the hollow post was Gartner's and Wagner's attempt at explaining a possible fraud method.

Why not just plagiarize, improving upon and belittling Bessler's design, if it was real? Why, upon validating a working mechanism, would he go on to claim it was driven manually via a hollowed-out post...? And never try to capitalize on the true IP?

Because they never saw the mechanism that actually turned Bessler's wheel.

Logically, the most likely answer is that he saw no working mechanism,

Exactly!! Wagner and Gartner were never allowed to see the guts inside Bessler's wheel.

And thus Wagner and Gartner were left to speculate as to how Bessler's wheel was rotated. And since they were of the belief that PM was impossible, they speculated the wheel was a fraud.

[johannesbender]

But later wheels were viewed on open bearings, and moved to another set of supports for good measure. If there was transmission, it would have been noticed, wouldn't it?

exactly what I thought ,because the drawings I know ,he used broken columns to support the axles ,was this a newer approach because of what wagner and co came away with after the first .

strangely wagner admitted that whatever drove the
wheel were inside ,and he went so far as to show
a design he thought could also be contained on the
inside of a wheel , so did wagner now thought bessler
came up with a new method of fraud after the hollow column incident they claimed to be the source of fraud ,strange that
I did not see him mention the hollow column thing
in his critique .

even stranger that bessler would allow his "assistant" to make decisions as to who may inspect his wheel ,I get the feeling bessler knew who was coming that day
and pretended to be unavailable so that the inspection could happen without his presence (if it really did even happen that way )

jb

[Stewart]

Hi MrVibrating

I'm afraid it's you who have got "the wrong end of the stick"! You've come up with quite an elaborate plot there, but the reality is this:

1) The wheel that was visited was Bessler's third wheel, located in the "Green Court" at Merseburg. The wheel was completed shortly before the Whitsun holiday in 1715 (9th June) and was open to visitors either then or shortly after.

2) Bessler resided there also. You seem to be under the impression that there's a different wheel to the one he demonstrated that he kept at his home, when in fact he lived at the court and there is only the one wheel.

3) Bessler would usually preside over the visitors who came to view his wheel in action. They were prevented from getting too close to the wheel by a railing that surrounded the wheel. Bessler was ill following a head injury and his brother was therefore left to deal with visitors to see the wheel.

4) On the 22nd July 1715, while Bessler's brother was in charge, Gärtner, Borlach and another defamer (Wagner is not mentioned by name or in code in AP, so it was perhaps someone Wagner sent on his behalf) came to see the wheel. They pretended to be strangers and would perhaps not have been admitted by Bessler's brother if he knew who they were.

5) They had no special access to the wheel and saw what everyone else did from behind the railings. Believing from the outset that the wheel was a fraud, they studied the setup of the room and made observations of the wheel construction, and invented a method of how the wheel might have been turned from another room. This is their exact observations and claims that they published along with an image of a man pulling the wheel from another room:

"The great wonder of the perpetual motion machine, so long sought in vain by the curious world, and now invented by Mister Orffyre, made known through the 'Leipziger Gazetten' in the 4th article of the 36 week of 1715, of which it was observed on the 22nd July 1715, that a spot was patched/marked in the post at A and that same post lifted up in half a turn of the wheel, and with the other half a turn fell down again, which was seen because the post was coated/painted, and at B the uncoated/unpainted place always came out. Borlach."

6) If you're looking for a reason why they behaved in this way, then consider this: Andreas Gärtner was a renowned master craftsman who produced many amazing models (as seen in some of the links posted in this topic). It's likely his ego would not have allowed him to believe anyone other than himself was capable of such an engineering feat if it were indeed possible. It's a simple case of jealously. Although you can't blame them for wanting to find out whether it was indeed possible that the wheel was being turned from another room and wanting the wheel to be tested more thoroughly. As Bessler points out, it was the underhanded way they went about it that upset him and they clearly wanted to discredit him at all costs.

7) As a result of Gärtner's and Borlach's publications, Bessler devised the translocation demonstration and allowed the support posts to be inspected as well as the surrounding rooms. This test took place on 31st October 1715 in front of several high-ranking witnesses, proving that Gärtner's and Borlach's claims were wrong. The motive principle of the wheel was proved to be within the wheel itself, although whether the wheel was in fact worthy of the name "perpetual" could clearly not be proved beyond all doubt without the internal mechanism being revealed.


I hope this clears things up a bit!

All the best
Stewart

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Deleted Wrong V,

[johannesbender]

"the post lifted in half a turn of the wheel" .

so that is what their accusations were based on ,
do any of you find it strange that in the engravings
of his wheels ,there were a post to support the weight
but there were also a post to keep the axle from bouncing up (from what I assume) ?

what would cause an axle to bounce up ?

if that post lifted ,and I assume they ment the top
post because the bottom one could not have lifted in
my opinion , what the heck caused the wheel along
with the axle to completely lift its weight off the bottom posts so much that the top post had to keep
it in place ?

I mean to me that was the function of the broken
columns ,not only to support weight in the downward
direction but keep the whole wheel and axle in position because of an upward force !?

if i had to try and think of a cause ,could it have been because the weight bend/curved the axle slightly downward ,imparting energy like a spring ,if the axle were long enough I could see it
jumping like a spring , but how the heck would it have
had done that in the first place ..

that axle itself could have been the "springs" he referred to .

edit : the same type of oscillation happens in music with stringed instruments except here the axle could
have been the "string"

if a sound wave/vibration moved through the room or the building itself , could the axle have vibrated and
amplified it such that the wheel used it as part of
its function ?!

jb

[daxwc]

Did anybody else notice the wheel is not in the middle of the axle?

[johannesbender]

the same is present on one of bessler's drawings of his wheel , did you also notice that the cranks on
the ends weren't ever depicted as a power output except for those pendulums. the axles were used for
doing the main work , makes sense that the cranks were thin in the drawings .

jb

[Fletcher]

I think dax that was to show the room to attach pulley ropes like a windless etc - there might have been a more sinister reason in that the wheel axle required a sufficient internal volume & that would follow Bill's logic but doesn't explain why it was located at one end of the axle.



jb .. IIRC the support lifted for a brief time - they saw this at the base of the support at B (as marked) - they saw a horizontal gap appear which showed a colour change in the support colour there.

I too always wondered why he had to have supports all the way up to the roof - it would seem the wheel would 'hop' otherwise.

It also made me wonder about the later translocation tests of the dual wheel - it too must have had supports all the way to the roof, that were notched to receive the brass axle nub ?

Whatever caused the upwards force it must have been strong to lift the entire wheel - N.B. the wheel lifted at B on the long side of the axle with better leverage to show it.

I can conclude that there was a either a great upwards acceleration of mass OR there was a mass given much KE (impact) - that spring mentioned comes to mind.

Whatever, somehow he circumvented the Newton Law of equal & opposite reactions which in turn generated torque, IMO.

[jim_mich]

I've discussed this subject before.

I can conclude that there was a either a great upwards acceleration of mass OR there was a mass given much KE (impact) - that spring mentioned comes to mind.

There is no need for either a "great upwards acceleration" or for "much KE (impact)". All that was required for a crack to open and close while the wheel rotated was for the floorboards to be "springy" just enough so that a slight out-of-balance of wheel mass flexed the floorboard down and up. The flex of the floorboard acts like a spring. The wood of the wheel is never a constant density. Any wooden wheel will be unbalanced unless someone takes the time and effort to add/subtract weight so at to bring it into balance. The out-of-balance of the wheel itself (not the rotating mechanisms) would create an unbalanced force (i.e., greater centrifugal force at the heavier side and less at the lighter side) which force caused the floorboard to flex, which caused the crack to open and close once each time the wheel rotated. Obviously I can't prove that this was the case. But I feel it was the more logical cause of the crack opening and closing as the wheel rotated.

In such a case, an OOB wheel of only a pound or so could cause a crack to open and close. I'm very sure I could duplicate such a crack opening and closing due to an empty out-of-balance rotating wheel. I say empty wheel because I doubt that the rise and fall was caused by the working of the mechanisms, because then the crack would have opened four or eight times each rotation, rather than just once each rotation as was observed.

Hey, just my opinion. No need to speculate about some sort of acceleration of heavy mass causing the crack to open and close.

[daxwc]

Fletcher:

I think dax that was to show the room to attach pulley ropes like a windless etc

Agreed, and most logical but there is just something strange with having the pillars go to the roof. That and the crack gapping at only 28 rpm; it would have to be a lot more than 1 pound out of balance.

Whatever caused the upwards force it must have been strong to lift the entire wheel - N.B. the wheel lifted at B on the long side of the axle with better leverage to show it.

My previous thoughts too like the axle contained a lever the whole length (see picture).

No. 36. The intention of this figure is clearly shown. A and A, show
the 2 long, connected and weighted levers, which swing another
weighted lever D, from below up to E, b means of a chain over 2
pulleys at B and B. The additional drawing shows a distant view of
the device. One may gather much from this one.

[johannesbender]

double post.

[johannesbender]

the rigidity of the supports must have been important
because this design is seen throughout the wheel depictions , so I also think there must have been some serious shaking or mis alignment/jumping somewhere if the axles weren't properly braced .

very interesting that he designed it so cleverly to use
the rigidity of the building to brace against ..

it also makes sense that it's the simplest manner to support the wheel and keep the axle true ,in the least amount of space .

the only problem I have with this theory of mine now ,is if they were split in the middle to accompany the axle and axle journals ,it kind of defeats the point.