How many principles did Bessler have?

[JHB]

Hi

I would like to ask how many 'Principles' Bessler eludes to.

I know of two:
1. Principle of access weight.
2. Principle of connectedness.

Of course he also spoke of the 'principles of perpetual motion', but that was probably a group reference for the above.

Were there any others?

Kind Regards

Jayson

PS: (Just in case) This is not a 'dig' at John Collins.

[Oystein]

I would emphasize Mechanical Perpetual Motion

Should also mention "Preponderance".

[John Collins]

PS: (Just in case) This is not a 'dig' at John Collins.

Not a ‘dig’, more a question I thought I was best placed to answer. 🙂

JC

[JHB]

I would emphasize Mechanical Perpetual Motion

Should also mention "Preponderance".

Thanks Oystein, but I think 'Mechanical PM' may also be a group name.

I think the two principals I mentions both comes from MT and he would say something to the effect of: "This thing will not work unless you use my principal of access weight".

Can you remember where you saw Mechanical PM mentioned as a principal? I need to do some more investigation on the matter.

Kind Regards

Jayson

[agor95]

Hi All

I have been thinking about a way forward to implement these principles.

I have looked at different methods to do the math modelling of the principles.

Another one to consider is AlphaGo AI method.

When modelling lost of components in a device equations get complex very quickly.

One method is design to optimize the action of the masses in the device with all it's connections.

However AlphaGo like AI optimize large number of components [variables].
In effect we get the computer to do the work.

Of cause a Bessler AI would need another project name 'GoAlpha' maybe.

Keep the faith

[jonnynet]

[...] I think the two principals I mentions both comes from MT and he would say something to the effect of: "This thing will not work unless you use my principal of access weight [...]"

Please forgive me to suddenly enter this thread but I noticed the word "access" and think it should be "excess" which is a huge difference in what it means. So we're talking about excess weight not access weight.

[agor95]

Hi jonnynet

I think there is no problem with your observation.

Have you an interpretation of the principle excess weight?

All the Best

[jonnynet]

Hello agor95,
I do not have an own interpretation but remember to read that phrase several times and as I checked, this seems to be a clue you can find in one or more of John's books, look here:
https://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index ... rtal:Clues
I guess it's all about weight distribution, saying that one half of the wheel is always heavier, which is caused by this principle.

[Fletcher]

I too somehow hadn't seen this topic and thread until now. Must have been away or something at the time it was started in 2019.

Anyways, over the next day or two I'll pull some info together that might give a better context to the various 'principles' meanings.

FWIW .. the only other time an actual physical PM principle is mentioned imo is in Karl's attestation in DT .. where he says, as translated by Mike Senior (old German, with Latin beside), that it runs from 'innate momentum'.

When I read the Latin version of "innate momentum" I get the essence of "motrice tamdiu motum" which too me says .. proper artificial "long motive force motion". And I can see how MS could arrive at "innate momentum" (perhaps the German is clearer) as a translation, as a result of a physical principle in play within the wheels. And that physical force is the 'cause' of the rotation 'effect' of a manifested acceleration and gaining of wheel momentum, as I understand it.

I'll flesh this out more later.

[Fletcher]

An excellent thread and discussion from yesteryear. I'll cheery pick a few posts that seem relevant. Something to ruminate on perhaps, until I come back with more !?

https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/view ... 9001#39001

Hi John

First of all, thanks for the copy of your MT book that you sent me. The translations in it are now much closer to my own than the ones I've previously seen (wiki). There are still a few areas that I can help with though, but for now I'll just try and explain NO.9.

Bear with me as this may be a bit long-winded, but I think it's important to understand it...

I'm afraid you had it right before you changed it to what you now have in your book! The translation of NO.9 is good except for the one part in question:

... woferne man nicht auß diesen meinen zusammen gehängten Principio agiret.


You're focusing on the word "agiret" as the part that was previously translated as "connected", but in fact the "connected" part is the words "zusammen gehängten" and the "agiret" is the verb in the sentence and is a German word meaning "to perform/to act" (modern forms: agiert/agierte). "Principio" is the dative case of the Latin noun meaning "principle" here. The two words "zusammen gehängten" literally mean "hung together", but usually these two words together are translated as "connected". In this instance the ending of the word "gehängten" and the fact that it precedes the noun "principio" indicates that it is an adjective of that noun, therefore it is talking about a "connected/connecting principle" or "principle of connecting". So looking at the whole sentence: the subject is "man" = "one"; the direct object is "diesen" = "these [weights]"; the indirect object is "Principio" = "principle". Word for word this translates as:

... as long as one not on these my connected/connecting principle performed.

or, in better English:

... as long as one did not perform my connected/connecting principle on these.

So what Bessler is saying in this whole block of text is that whenever he has seen weights used that are attached to the wheel such as in the current figure, they have not been connected together with straps or chains in the way he has shown in the figure. He mentions Jacob Leupold as an example of someone who has shown a weight principle that doesn't have connecting straps or chains (the attached image is of the engraving of Leupold's that Bessler is referring to). Bessler says that with designs such as this "nothing has been achieved, as long as one did not perform my connected/connecting principle" on the weights. This suggests that knowing his principle of connecting the weights is important. The question is, does he mean that the method of connection shown in figure 9 IS what he regards as his principle, or is it a different method of connection? He ends the paragraph by suggesting there is more to teach about this but that he doesn't want to for now.

I hope I've explained this well enough, but if not I'm happy to discuss it further. Perhaps, as this is such an important piece of text, you could ask Mike Senior to do a translation to see if he agrees with what I'm saying?

All the best,
Stewart

snip ... In the translation of No.9 in your book you have translated the following:

... diese Gewicht simpel und nicht den Riemen oder Ketten zusammen gehenckt gesehen.

as:

... these weights appear simple and are not connected together with belts or chains.

"zusammen gehenckt" has been translated correctly as "connected" and the sentence makes perfect sense.

...so later on when Bessler uses the same term (just in a slightly different form) "zusammen gehängten" as an adjective to "principle", it is not really any surprise and makes sense also. These words for "connected" are derived from the verb "zusammenhängen" which means "to be connected" or "to hang together".

So, this text coupled with the image he provides and knowing of the Leupold image really doesn't leave any room for doubt in my mind. The only other possibility I came up with for the line of text in question in the past was: "... as long as one did not act out of this my connected principle."; but I'm not as happy with that from a German grammar perspective. Either way he is still talking of a principle of connecting weights.

Stewart

https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/view ... 9045#39045

I'm still dubious about the 'handle' translation though. Can't remember where I read that it could have been something else.

Yes, that was me hinting at another possible translation for the word 'handle' because I didn't want to see people wasting their time trying to work out something that possibly didn't exist. I didn't have the time to explain myself when I posted...

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... ght=#37442

... but I see in the revised translations in John's MT book that he now confirms my own translation of that word as being 'grasp' (i.e. 'a grasp of something' = 'an understanding of something'). Here's the part in question which is in the text accompanying figure No.10:

"... und erst den rechten Griff und Construction zeigen und weisen werde."

Bessler says first that "the principle is good, however the figure is still not complete, until I portray it very differently in [its/the appropriate] place":

"... and will first show and indicate the right [grasp/handle] and construction."

'Griff' is the word in question, and I should point out that the version on the wiki says "the correct handle-construction" but as you can see there is the word 'und' (meaning 'and') between 'Griff' and 'Construction' and so it would actually be "the correct handle and construction".

It certainly is a strange choice of word to use and it doesn't appear again in MT anywhere. I would have have thought that if Bessler was referring to a certain object (i.e. handle) that it would have appeared again later in the text or the images. It makes more sense to me at the moment if the intended meaning was that Bessler wanted to first show a certain grasp/understanding/comprehension of something. However, you can make up your own mind. According to Jacob & Wilhelm Grimm's dictionary, here are some related Latin words for 'Griff': prehensio, tactus, pugillus, uncus.

[Tarsier79]

... as long as one not on these my connected/connecting principle performed.

or, in better English:

... as long as one did not perform my connected/connecting principle on these.

Is it possible bessler is not talking about the connection of weights, but connection to his principle? ie. "I see nothing connected to my principle here".

[Fletcher]

N.B. 1. From John Collins Publications re: Electronic downloadable versions (easy to search and recommended as research source).

N.B. 2. GB and AP contain much the same repeated information so are not repeated here where that occurs.

N.B. 3. MT notes on various Bessler devices mention different ‘principles’. Many are not shown here and refer to different types of mechanical operation and implementation, imo.

N.B. 4. IMO Bessler makes it clear that he is the sole and ONLY discoverer and inventor of HIS P.M. principle. This rules out an enhanced or variation on an earlier Drebbel like principle of Prime Mover device ! If he is to be believed in this regard !

DT

Page 182 (Page 1) It is known throughout the whole world that the Principle Of Perpetual Mechanical Motion has been sought for many centuries ..

Page 186 For they imagined that the spirit of Archimedes rested upon them alone; should the earth again be made to move from its place, then they alone were the people who would design and build the machines to do it. And this great faith that they had in themselves moved them to believe that, if the perpetual Motion principle did form a part of the scheme of nature, they would already have discovered it long ago. The fact that they hadn’t proved that it didn’t.

But it is a fact that I, poor unworthy man that I am, have been especially chosen by the Lord God, He Who alone is wise, and Whose workings are hidden from us, to be a tool in the discovery of this secret, so long desired and so long sought after. And now, in the name of God, I am determined to do what has long been my duty and is now a great necessity, namely to publish, or rather propound, to the good people of (page 11) this world, a work of description, proposition and education relating to this subject.

Page 188 It pleased the Almighty, in His impenetrable wisdom, to decree that the first discoverer of this so long sought-after Principle should be a man born in Saxon lands.

Page 190/191 For this concept, my ‘principle of excess weight’, is NOT just an external appendage, an ‘added-on device’ which is there in order to cause, through application of its weight, the continuation of the motion (the revolution) so long as the cords or chains, from which it depends, permit. NO, these weights are themselves the PM device, the ‘essential constituent parts’ which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the PM principle) indefinitely – so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity. To this end they are enclosed (page 21) in a structure or framework, and coordinated in such a way that not only are they prevented from attaining their desired equilibrium or ‘point of rest’, but they must for ever seek it, thereby developing an impressive velocity which is proportional to their mass and to the dimensions of their housing. This velocity is sufficient for the moving and raising of loads applied to the axis of rotation.

Page 210 bringing to light of, and refining of, a Mechanical Principle which will be to the benefit of everyone,

GB

Page 56 The causative principle of the movement, its ponderous impetus, is designed, after much ingenious speculation, to fulfill a certain requirement. (All this is being stated now in order to refute those who maintain that the machine is driven by a strong spring or suchlike device such as is employed by watchmakers.)

AP

Page 348 The wheel's own inner force must come into being without external momentum being applied by such devices. It must, simply put, just revolve, without being wound-up, through the principle of "excess weight", as I describe in Part I.

None better will ever be found upon this earth, for without the principle that I alone possess, there can be no real perpetual motion.

Page 351 It's well known that countless people throughout all ages have sought the secret of perpetual motion, but no-one (apart from myself !) has ever found it. What were they seeking? All the wise ones were looking for the same principle (of "excess weight") that I have described, and they sought it in things that were already familiar to them. They sought to bring a wheel into a state of motion, such that, without the need for winding, its innate virtue would keep it revolving as long as its materials might last.

Page 246 Therefore, my machine is the only one now in existence that accords to true physical principles.

Page 326 XI (b) Wagner's assumption as to the principle behind my
Device

Page 339 The two machines can easily be contrasted, as they worked on quite different principles. The former (Draschwitz) one turned in only one direction, but the latter (Merseburg ) one turned, as everyone could see, both ways. The former was provided with felt coverings, but the latter was as bare as a bald head. I have many other machines of various types - some, for instance, with weights, others without.

Page 348 The wheel's own inner force must come into being without external momentum being applied by such devices. It must, simply put, just revolve, without being wound-up, through the principle of "excess weight", as I describe in Part I.

Page 246 Therefore, my machine is the only one now in existence that accords to true physical principles.

MT

Page 4 2. Because balls have been the main principle of almost every mobilist,

Page 16 No. 9. Because experience shows us that the ball-driven wheels like those seen in the present figures and diagrams were of no avail, people speculated on another principle, namely: on weights.

Page 18 No. 11 This figure is doubled, as one can see, and the design does not look too complicated, but there is more in it than meets the eye, as will be seen when I pull back the curtain and disclose the correct principle at the appropriate place, as mentioned previously.

PMAAMS ?

Page 125 'If His Majesty the Czar would advance me 10,000 thalers for this tract, which would increase and promote the publication I could start work on it immediately; in two years he would have quite a large number of these treatises. It would include my perpetual motion machine revealed completely through all stages of its construction, which would eliminate any need for him to contribute anything else. N.B. Sufficient guarantees would be included. In the event that my perpetual motion machine was sold before my treatise was published, my project would still be finished and the treatise published. However, the machine that had been sold would not be included in the treatise, because I want to sell just one kind of machine, not all of them. I have many different kinds of machine all running on different principles. They can be moved by weights, balls, springs, internal gears, internal water, oil, alcohol and wind. I believe it is best that this information is known in advance. Certainly His Majesty the Czar will see the advantages with his enlightened mind more clearly than I could indicate. Please offer my most humble services to His Majesty the Czar.


IMO there is ONE true mechanical P.M. PRINCIPLE that Bessler found. He was the first and only according to him.

And there are many different types of wheel-genre mechanical implementations (principles) that he could employ USING his P.M. PRINCIPLE to provide the internal force which he refers to as excess weight, and preponderance, etc.

Ultimately his wheels turned from an excess torque. We are searching for the source of that excess torque.

However 'excess weight/impetus principle' also reminds me greatly of his ganged weights hung-together 'connected/connecting principle' .. IMO !

[Fletcher]

This morning I watched the final act in the Tokyo Olympics Athletics program - the men's marathon (fantastic games). I had a wry smile on my face as I thought of our own personal marathons - measured not in miles but in years.

AP Page 351 It's well known that countless people throughout all ages have sought the secret of perpetual motion, but no-one (apart from myself !) has ever found it. What were they seeking? All the wise ones were looking for the same principle (of "excess weight") that I have described, and they sought it in things that were already familiar to them. They sought to bring a wheel into a state of motion, such that, without the need for winding, its innate virtue would keep it revolving as long as its materials might last.

Bessler found a mechanical method to produce a surplus of torque. He wryly points out that before him, they/we searched in places familiar to them/us i.e. the OOB wheel concept in a conservative gravity field.

IMO .. ALL our OOB designs that rely on the shifting in and out of various weight designs are hugely energy inefficient. A weight, whether it be a ball type, or a lever-weight type etc, must be accelerated and then decelerated, usually against a stop, with resultant impact. This wastes inordinate amounts of energy within the wheel along with the usual suspects of frictional losses common to all wheels. This imo is the 'familiar places' we are perhaps warned to avoid !

Therefore I AIM to minimize internal energy wastage of translating component movements and harness those movements constructively into usable KE/Momentum, and torque; within a specific structure or framework fit for purpose ! As perhaps a less 'familiar' albeit myopic approach to traditional positional OOB techniques/principles. And somewhat generously on my behalf it could also be thought of as a P.M. PRINCIPLE prospect; one that does not rely solely on positional imbalance for continuous torque. At least in my mind !


For those interested I include as attachments the Karl Attestation quotes from DT of Mike Seniors translation of the old German for 'runs from innate momentum', mentioned in an earlier post today.

[John Collins]

Thank you fletch for reminding us of the excellent discussions we used to have here - all those years ago. I can’t believe it was back in 2007 that Stewart did all that valuable translation and elucidation.

It’s extremely helpful to see those corrections and to bring our thoughts back on track after so long. It seems to me conclusive evidence of the connectedness principle involving belts, cords or chains, and without their correct application no wheel will turn continuously.

AP there is a passage as follows,
“If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in the machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself at all, but, on the contrary, when I arrange several bars, pulleys and weights, the machine can revolve much faster, and throw Wagner's calculations clean out of the window!�

We’ve always concentrated on the “cross-bar� reference, but perhaps some have overlooked the other important part where B gives us the information that the mechanism includes “pulleys� as well as weights.

JC

[agor95]

Thank you all in enriching this thread.

I can see the act of translating is important.

I trust the proposed implementations can do the work justice.

Regards