Gartner & Borlach inspected, called 'hoax'

[Fletcher]

I never thought of a springy floorboard jim_mich - it might be that simple.

[rlortie]

If the supporting columns were sitting in or on plinth blocks as portrayed, then gravity could be relied on for the floor mount.

The ceiling mount however would have to be attached, a springy floor does not cause the column to lift from the plinth, If it did we would be in business! but a springy ceiling carrying variable mass such as an unbalanced wheel would!

Such as a pendulum at amplitude comes to a stop and is momentarily weightless, this would relieve stress on the ceiling allowing for what Frank would call a moment joint! The ceiling would raise from its compressed state lifting the column, exposing the unpainted lower portion.

To believe it was the floor packing enough force to throw the column up would surely be noticed by the witnesses.

Structural Beam Deflection and Stress Formula and Calculation: The follow web pages contain engineering design calculators will determine the amount of deflection a beam of know cross section geometry will deflect under the specified load and distribution. Please note that SOME of these calculators use the section modulus of the geometry cross section of the beam. You will need to determine the moment of inertia of the cross section and the distance from the neutral axis to the edge of your geometry.

Who is to say; maybe this property had something to do with the overall function of the wheel?

Just my engineering opinion!

Ralph

[MrVibrating]

Hadn't realised this thread was still rolling...



@Stewart


Thanks for taking the time to clarify my wrong presumptions - not having checked, i'd presumed this episode occurred at his "home" in Gera.

However you've only served to pique my curiosity further with your translation - particularly the final sentence describing the base of the post "always coming out" every half turn... "out", not "up".

If the wheel was turned through the post as they assumed, then it would most practically have been pushed via a con-rod, or pulled via a rope (as depicted by Borlach). Given the added awkwardness of the pushrod option, a rope would seem the best bet. However this would also be consistent with the outward motion at the base of the post - momentarily relieving the weight on the base, but perhaps also applying a lateral force via the action of the concealed crank.

I'm not suggesting they're right of course, nor, again, drawing any correlation between this demonstration and later wheels. However one cannot deny their guess is consistent with their claimed observations.

Doubtless Gartner would have good reason for envy if he thought there were any chance Bessler's claim was genuine - and equally, contempt in the more likely belief that he was perpetrating a base fraud.



@Dax & johannesbender

This asymmetric positioning of the wheel upon the axle is reminiscent to me of a similar ratio present in the Kassel illustrations, specifically in the upper horizontal beams of the pendulums (particularly the one featuring the waterscrew, as well as its main axle). I'd previously been tentatively associating this ratio with the scissorjack principle, where it is applied as a linear lever. Might the axle contain a scissorjack, or similar mechanism? This rocking motion might be consistent with a lateral application of the jacks, as alluded to in MT 41 - this could conceivably be pushing the base of the post outwards during the moment of lifting an unbalanced mass.



@Fletch

Yes, an unbalanced mass being hoisted up and over would also seem consistent. Perhaps also with his repeated references to a 4:1 leverage ratio as being the causative principle.



@jim_mich

...your suggestion might be sufficient if indeed the motion was vertical - but Stewart's translation indicates both vertical motion of the whole post, as well as lateral flexing at its base. While this may still be attributable to a moving floorboard, it also leaves open other possibilities as discussed above..



@rlortie

Also a fair point re. a pendulum.


@Stewart (& all) - one more thing i'm uncertain of: this was a one-directional model, is that correct? Are there any other references to this lateral asymmetry of the wheel upon the axle? The two similar Kassel illustrations seem symmetrical, but not the water-screw version - are all three bi-directional? Obviously, i'm wondering if there's any meaningful connection between these features - perhaps the axle asymmetry relates to the original uni-directional principal?

[daxwc]

Fletcher:

I never thought of a springy floorboard jim_mich - it might be that simple.

Then it wasn't attached to the roof very good.

[Stewart]

However you've only served to pique my curiosity further with your translation - particularly the final sentence describing the base of the post "always coming out" every half turn... "out", not "up".

By "out" it means that the vertical support beam rises up and partially out of the hole in the rectangular block that is fixed to the floor to secure it in place. Borlach claims he could tell this was happening because the block and beam were painted/varnished and exposed the unpainted area of the beam inside the hole as it lifted. If you zoom in on the image you can see he has depicted this. This tells us that if the beam could rise then it wasn't screwed to the blocks and it was slightly less than the exact height from floor to ceiling.

If the wheel was turned through the post as they assumed, then it would most practically have been pushed via a con-rod, or pulled via a rope (as depicted by Borlach).

It was proved beyond any doubt that the wheel was not pulled by a man in another room.

one more thing i'm uncertain of: this was a one-directional model, is that correct?

No, it was the first bi-directional wheel he demonstrated.

Stewart

[Blitzbrain]

I personally think, that it is no use on speculating about the theories that Gartner Bolach etc... had. There is other evidence, that Besslers' wheel was functional aside from Besslers' and Karls' claims or documents.

There was a man called Jacob Leupold who wrote a very interesting series of books aboutmechaincal issues in Besslers' time. The book was published before 1723 and is a very interesting testimony about the mecahnical gems of that time.
It was called 'theatrum nachinarium generale' and cann be read at google books:

http://books.google.com/books?id=sNMUAA ... milarbooks

There is a passage in the books about PM machines. with several samples he tries to show evidence on PM machines that do not work. Then he fugures out, that one should not try to do this without mechanical knowledge and that there were many people who claim to be able to invent a PM machine, oif they had enough money and time...

He clearly states, that these people are only braggers and that is nearly impossible to invent such a thing. A nd here comes the clou: He then states that one should not give up, because one person called Orffyreus had already succeded and that his wheel was inspected by the landgrave Carl from Ksssel, who himself was trained whithin the mechanics.

This is a clear testimony of a not involved person of that time, that the wheel of Bessler was regarded as a PM machine.

Itry to add the screenshot of that passage later, because I have it on a different computer

[Stewart]

Hi Blitz,

I've talked about that passage in Jacob Leupold's "Theatrum Machinarum Generale" before on the forum, and I thought I'd posted my translation but can't seem to find it, so it might have been on my old private forum which I deleted. I'll look for it on my computer and post it again.

It's interesting that Jacob talks about PM in general but also mentions Bessler's wheel, and then Bessler refers back to Jacob's book in his notes in MT and complains that those trying to prove the impossibility always seem to use the same simplistic examples "as if one could not put forward any better figures for such proof".

Several years ago I put a link to Theatrum Machinarum Generale on the documents page on this forum's wiki with a link to the passage about Bessler (see here: http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index. ... uments#TMG ), but I've noticed the links no longer work. It seems Cornell Uni have removed online access to their copy, so I will update the links to point to the Bodleian Library version instead when I get a minute.

I consider TMG to be essential reading (or at least peruse the pictures if you can't read the German text) for anyone researching Bessler's wheel as it depicts the mechanics and technology of the time period beautifully.

All the best
Stewart

[Blitzbrain]

Hello Stewart,

I found the file. Here it is.
Sorry, but the first file was too big for the upload...

I suggest everyone also have a look on this book.
It is a marvellous gem showing the mechanics, that were known to Bessler at his time. The printed tables of the mechanics are cool.

[Blitzbrain]

Ok.. another Try

Sorry to the admin for the first try with a too big file...

[Stewart]

That's interesting as in your copy the passage is on page 27, and in mine it's on page 33 (see attachment).

Stewart

[Blitzbrain]

That's interesting as in your copy the passage is on page 27, and in mine it's on page 33 (see attachment).

Stewart

There seem to be several copies of the book around. There is another one at the University of Goettingen, which I had my image from I guess...

I like this book very much. The Tables in the back are extraordinary. They show even the tools and Machines that Bessler probably knew. This guy Leupold was a genius too. Many tables show Measuring tools form 's Gravesande who later inspected Besslers' wheel before he destroyed it by himself...

But Leupold is not only showing 's Gravesandes measuring machines. He also shows the ones, that he invented ... and those are very interesting and sophisticated.

Unfortunately Leupold already died in 1723, so that he could not finish all of his book plans...

But in General he showed that essential skills an knowledge of mechanical principles were completely known in that age of time.

[Nobody]

Hello Blitzbrain and Stewart,

I have the same opinion that this man Jacob Leupold was a mechanical genius too.

The very objective and unique way how Bessler and Leupold refer to each other in their publications, is to me one of the most
encouraging thing (beside the plenty of other evidence that Bessler`s wheel really worked) searching for the Besslerwheel.

With best regards,
Nobody

[Nobody]

Dear all,

here seems to be a well working link from the Cornell University to the book "Theatrum Machinarum Generale".

http://digital.library.cornell.edu/cgi/ ... no=kmod022

As far as I can remember the link was posted by path_finder in another topic, unfortunately I can´t remember
the exact name of the topic.

With best regards,
Nobody

[MrVibrating]

@Stewart - thanks for the further clarificaations!

[MrVibrating]

There's one thing that does spring to mind here, which is the apparently conflicting descriptions Bessler gives of his weight distributions, particularly:

- the pairs alternating between inner and outer positions

- on one side it's heavy and full, on the other empty and light

Resolving these can only mean that either both of each pair are on the same side of the wheel (this despite its rotation!), or else the 'empty vs full' sides are divided axially, rather than radially as would most readilly be envisioned in a typical overbalancing scheme.

If the heavy side was at the back, towards the longer side of the axle, this might be consistent with the asymmetric axle being a means to counter the axial imbalance? Tenuous isn't it, still it would kill two birds with one stone there, explaining the weight distribution paradox and the funny axle proportions..