Question for John C.

[Jeff]

These questions are directed mainly to John Collins, and I would also like to hear from anyone with ideas or comments:

John,

Do you think Bessler developed the principle first and then applied that to a "wheel", or was he planning from the get-go to have a wheel-type device. His Poem has several lines and then "a wheel appears".

Do you think his "principle" would work if it was not in a rotating wheel-like configuration?

Jeff

[John Collins]

Do you think Bessler developed the principle first and then applied that to a "wheel", or was he planning from the get-go to have a wheel-type device. His Poem has several lines and then "a wheel appears".

Do you think his "principle" would work if it was not in a rotating wheel-like configuration?

Hi Jeff,

My impression is that he got there by trial and error, but that implies a lack of thought and that is the last think I'd accuse Bessler of. I think that he had an idea of how it might work but that rather than sticking to paper and pencil, he designed and built dozens, hundreds of prototypes to see what would and what wouldn't work. He learned from his work and began to see what was needed and eventually by refining his designs I think he got there.

He does mention that he had numerous ideas and suffered hundreds of failures but kept thinking of new configurations and says that he eventually discovered a new line of thought that finally led him to success.

I have always advocated the trial and error method myself and am a firm believer that the solution will not be found by using computer graphics but by hard graft and constant tinkering with prototypes - it's the best way to learn, in my opinion.

As to whether his wheel would work in a non-rotating wheel configuration - I don't know but I think not, although you can easily remove the "wheel" design and replace it with arms but in the end something has to rotate about a central point and I'm sure that that is a necessity.

John Collins

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Jeff,
I agree to John, Bessler had buildt many,many prototypes until he found the princible. When you have a look to machinen tractate, Bessler always tried to lift mass fast, and let then slow down. I showed on this board how you can mangage this. Everyone who try to get an unbalanced wheel with geometric order will fail. The unbalance is 'Generated' thru the fist fall, and can not be balanced any more. I said that again and again. The function in the wheel is a tilt oscillation with a trouble force.

I disagree with John, that this function is only possible in a wheel. It is easyier to have two seperate wheels. One is the breaking wheel, the other the wheel with the swinging mass. I made an example how you can lift 3 kg with 2 kg on Georg's ideas. Constant force against oscillation force. The swinging of mass is an essential construction element.

You can use also a falling forward technic, showed on http://www.kuenstler-energie.de and then COG page. It is the princible and works also without springs.

The future has begun

Best regards

Georg

[Jonathan]

Well Georg, I must have misunderstood how that device was supposed to work, because I completely modeled it and the 3kg weight falls, not rises.
As to Jeff's question, I agree with John Collins.
I also I have a question myself: What do you think is meant by "...it is really a wheel, for it does not have a normal rim."?

[TommyK]

Johnathan,

I forgot who said it, but someone suggested that Bessler may have been referring to the moon when he said that.
I do forget who said that, but credit to whomever it was.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Jonathan,
in the model are 3 weights, one of 2 kg and 2 with 1,5 kg. If you put 1,5 + 1,5 together in one point, then it falls, you are right. But if you leave 1,5 opposite of the other as shown, then you have an oscillation, pulsating force on the right.
Then it can roll up.

For better explanation. If you had a stick with 2 weights, one up, one down, in which direction the stick will fall ? Left or right ? uphill or downhill ?

Best regards

Georg

[John Collins]

What do you think is meant by "...it is really a wheel, for it does not have a normal rim."?

I've pondered this for years Jonathan, but all I can come up with is this:- Bessler's "wheel" rotated about an axis but it did not bear weight on its rim as in, for instance, a wagon. Perhaps he meant that it was a wheel because it rotated and was wheel-shaped, but it was not like other wheels which had rims and were designed to roll along the ground.

John Collins

[John Lindsay]

You could think of what a peacock looks like with less feathers. John

[Jonathan]

I just did a translation, and got a completely different version of the same two verses:

One sees a wheel and also no wheel,
Because it has rims and also none.

[VergingOnDone]

You could think of what a peacock looks like with less feathers. John

It looks like a peacock's TAIL only while in "motion" and inversely at that, also I'll connect the dots here, ask me about the three small white sections in the black circle and it may have to do with "motion" too.

Just me and my "opinions" but from my hindsight, the statement: "wheel no wheel" is because it looks like a wheel on the outside but the innards aren't like anything else around, and "rim and none" because the outside again looks like a complete rim but it needs to be round to encompass the workings inside to hide them, so it is just cosmetic in nature.

So far the most important info comes from Count Karl and Bessler, the eyewitness reports only have minimal bearing on the wheel, especially their "thoughts on how it works".

[WaltzCee]

These questions are directed mainly to John Collins, and I would also like to hear from anyone with ideas or comments:

John,

Do you think Bessler developed the principle first and then applied that to a "wheel", or was he planning from the get-go to have a wheel-type device. His Poem has several lines and then "a wheel appears".

Do you think his "principle" would work if it was not in a rotating wheel-like configuration?

Jeff

[John Collins]

Jeff wrote: ↑Mon Feb 16, 2004 1:49 pm
These questions are directed mainly to John Collins, and I would also like to hear from anyone with ideas or comments:

John,

Do you think Bessler developed the principle first and then applied that to a "wheel", or was he planning from the get-go to have a wheel-type device. His Poem has several lines and then "a wheel appears".

Do you think his "principle" would work if it was not in a rotating wheel-like configuration?

Jeff

Hi,

The second option and no it wouldn’t work if it wasn’t in a rotating wheel-like configuration.

JC

[Tarsier79]

nd no it wouldn’t work if it wasn’t in a rotating wheel-like configuration.

I strongly disagree. Any principle of operation that would make a wheel rotate could operate on a see-saw IMO. (And that amounts to lifting weight in a gravity environment.)

A rotating output is the easiest to use, and can be converted to nearly anything we would require.

[WaltzCee]

.
.
I hate to act all agreeable & such, yet I think

I strongly disagree. Any principle of operation that would make a wheel rotate could operate on a see-saw IMO. (And that amounts to lifting weight in a gravity environment.)

K. makes an excellent point.

An irrefutable one, actually.

ETA
a good question might be

if it wasn’t in a rotating wheel-like configuration.

can the arcs a seesaw describe be considered part of a wheel? It's driving force has RKE.

[John Collins]

I’m sure you’re both correct. I just can’t think of a way to apply it to a see-saw configuration.

JC