Bessler's Wheel

[Bird is a Word]

Around the firmly placed horizontal axis is a rotating disc (low or narrow cylinder) which resembles a grindstone. This disc can be called the principle piece of my machine. Accordingly, this wheel consists of an external wheel (or drum) for raising weights which is covered with stretched linen.
And
The upper weight is not attached to an external mechanism, nor does it rely on external moving bodies by means of whose weight revolutions continue as long as the cords or chains on which they hang permit. As long as it remains outside the center of gravity, this upper weight incessantly exercises universal motion from which the essential constituent parts of the machine receive power and push.

https://besslerwheel.com/writings/das_triumphans.html

After this, it is a simple matter of leverage. The 2 weights being lifted are 2 while the 3 weights
rotating the wheel = 1.9. Using the peacock at a ratio of 1:2 then 1.9 to 2 becomes 1.9 to 3.8. The peacock (drum)
is external and rotates because the wheel rotates it using leverage.
Bessler also said that as 1 weight moves away from the axle another weight moves towards it. Many of his drawings
shows both the top and bottom weight being lifted at the same time. And he most likely used the storks bill for much
of his structural support. It would be both light weight and strong. That is in Mt 138.
Interestingly enough, the "wheel" covered with linen was just a covering and was not needed for the wheel to work.
Seeing through a gap at the outside of his wheel would not have revealed any details that people would understand.
As his drawing showing it lifting a pallet, the axle of the wheel acted as a hoist. That is extremely
low gearing. It would take hundreds of rotations and much time to lift the pallet.

The 4th drawing is what I am building using 8 weights. I believe 3 weights can rotate the weight passing top center while
rotating the wheel. And then the wheel will rotate for about 20º powered by 4 overbalanced weights. I'll be using a highly
modified peacock's tail to leverage the weight passing top center into its overbalanced position.

[Bird is a Word]

I've started on it. It most likely will be finished next year, possibly in January.
I think this shows where understanding math helps. Then things like

1 - cos^2
------------- = x can be considered. This allows for Q1 thru Q4 as in the unit circle. Then by using
tan^2

algebra, it can be factored as analytical trigonometry. An example is
Q2 = a cos 45º- (-x, 0) + Q3 = (-x, -y) * mass (of 1 weight).
Then when subtracted from Q1 + Q4 = net torque. See how easy it is?

For reference, Q2 would be -sqrt2/2 as would Q3. Q2 is recognized as (-x, y) while Q3 is recognized
as (-x, -y). And when adding, the y and -y would not be factored, only the "x" value. The "y" value does
not determine torque.

[WaltzCee]

For reference, Q2 would be -sqrt2/2 as would Q3. Q2 is recognized as (-x, y) while Q3 is recognized
as (-x, -y). And when adding, the y and -y would not be factored, only the "x" value. The "y" value does
not determine torque.

is you a professional cipher?

[Tarsier79]

Changing your name doesn't hide who you are.

I thought you already had a working design. What happened to that one? You already had "proof" that it worked.

[neuberlintourist1]

nice pictures, and explanaition, like it!
would love to see an animated video simulation!

[justsomeone]

Looks like ABhammers design!!! Lol

[Tarsier79]

You did copy AB's design!

Exactly the same as this twat:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GrBBR4Zv4t0

He won't mind. It doesn't work anyway.

[Bird is a Word]

nice pictures, and explanaition, like it!
would love to see an animated video simulation!

I am actually pursuing a show at Utrecht University in the Netherlands. I have been in contact with a Dr. Jaski who has an original
Bessler book written about 300 years ago. With the build I showed is in progress, I am on my way to get some items I need to test
tapered roller bearings I have bought for this build. I'll know how much energy is lost due to resistance.
They should work better than other bearings I have used because the taper allows for the rollers in the bearing to be seated on both
surfaces of a bearing. I already tested the nylon bushings I'll use for the weighted levers. They'll require 10% more energy than what
it requires to rotate the weight. Basically if the weight is 450 grams then it takes 500 grams of force to rotate it.
And if all works well, after I have surgery or while pursuing it (am 100% disabled) then I can switch my previous build to tapered roller
bearings as well. With just the axle, it might work. What this will show is where understanding math is necessary for something like this.
And with whatever people post about me and my pursuit, with a show in the Netherlands, I am 1/2 Norwegian and Bessler was 1/2 Polish.
I think people would see the obvious parallel and recognize hate for what it is. With the attached image, that is the ab hammer they
support. He has also posted that perpetual motion is impossible. And yet he is respected. And with a show in Utrecht, posts like that could
be shown to show what Bessler went through. This forum has given me lots of material to work with.

[Bird is a Word]

Maybe I should give my work to ab (Alan Bauldree) hammer because of what he has to suffer. How can I expect him to work with me when I'm only 100% handicapped when he can't eat because of a broken gas line? And now I know what having problems is about.

https://www.ksla. com/story/37863650/an-arklatex-man-endures-a-series-of-unfortunate-events/

remove the gap between. and com. That is ab hammer.

And this is his work on YouTube; https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=1LeYYidRXlk

And everyone who attacks or has attacked me have something in common, Germans are pure German while ab hammer
and his friends are "pure" English speakers.

And here ab hammer says that wheels don't roll over., ie., perpetual motion is impossible.
https://besslerwheel. com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2724&p=54637&hilit=weebles+wobble#p54637

And yet I am expected to give him credit for my work? This is sad because when I asked John Collins for help, he attacked me as well.
https://besslerwheel. com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=8168&p=168683&hilit=why+would+I+care+if+you+ignore+me#p168683

He might get his wish. Then he can tell everyone that he is John Collins and that you guys are his friends. As he said, because I am
the person doing the work, he'd have no interest in visiting a show where Bessler's Wheel and his book are displayed. Not to ask an
obviously stupid question but why did he write the book and start this forum for? Is it about him being "John Collins"? That does seem
to be about the only explanation. And since his granddaughter is handicapped https://www.dailymail. co. uk/femail/article-9887353/Father-teacher-27-suicide-disease-says-joining-TikTok-given-sense-purpose.html and John Collins is even in one of the pictures.
And I'm attacked for working through a serious medical condition? Seriously?

[Tarsier79]

Sorry, your math is wrong. Your wheel will not rotate. All your efforts are in vain.

If it is any consolation, neither will mine.

[Bird is a Word]

And when Mr. Tim said "Keel effect", he is right while Bessler is wrong. It will remain to be seen if what I am building is my invention.
Yet it is sad the way people attack me for being handicapped and 1/2 Norwegian. Yet they'll say it's me when it's them. That's how
to recognize fascism. I can discuss math but "pure" English speakers can't.
I'll be able to have my day in the Netherlands and John Collins' post and picture can be shown as who provided the "right" kind of
leadership. And then anyone who writes a book about Bessler will say that I had many Wagners. That's because someone who is
not an ethnically pure English speaker like themselves can't realize Bessler's work by working at it. And then John Collins, Ralph Lortie,
Alan Bauldree and their friends will live in in infamy. After all, does MT 67 support Mr. Tim's "keel effect"?

[Bird is a Word]

Sorry, your math is wrong. Your wheel will not rotate. All your efforts are in vain.

If it is any consolation, neither will mine.

And you're a white supremacist. You never showed where my math is wrong. You just
said it is. You proved my point. It is sad when "pure" English speakers can't understand basic math that can be
done with a pencil and a piece of paper.
It's easy enough to calculate sqrt3/2, sqrt2/2 and 1/2. Those values are associated with π/6, π/4 and π/3. Those
are well known and yet you can't show where as an example
((2(20 * sqrt3/2)) + (2(20 * sqrt2/2)) + ((220 * 1/2)) + 20 < (2(25 * sqrt3/2)) + (2(25 * sqrt2/2)) + (2(25 * 1/2)) + 25
is wrong.

I find it sad that to defend "pure" Jeg snakk Engleske, you won't bother to show where the math is wrong. That's
what π is mostly about in math. It's used to teach how to graph sine waves which then leads into f(x) = ∫ Δy/Δx.
You don't understand what I'm saying do you because you only snakk Engleske, right? Math is also a language.

p.s., and you'll say the math also does not support Mt 67. Bessler said that "HIS" top weight moved to a position of overbalance.
The upper weight is not attached to an external mechanism, nor does it rely on external moving bodies by means of whose weight revolutions continue as long as the cords or chains on which they hang permit. As long as it remains outside the center of gravity, this upper weight incessantly exercises universal motion from which the essential constituent parts of the machine receive power and push.
https://besslerwheel. com/writings/das_triumphans.html

It is funny how you guys disagree with Bessler's own writings. And yet he was 1/2 Polish. I do see a trend (what f(x) = Δy/Δx) with what math is used to show. With the math, it's about rate of change and between 1712 and today, there is no change. That's 310 years of no change.
And in a couple of days I'll have some plywood that I ordered. Then I might have everything I need to finish my build and all you and your
friends can say is what you guys said in the first few posts. I just showed work while you guys attacked me for showing work. That kind of shows
that's all some of you guys know. You couldn't even discuss how a peacock's tail could lift both the top and bottom weight which would agree
with Bessler's clues. I have to believe that anyone who hates me is a Wagner supporter and that Bessler's work is a joke.
If anyone cares to disagree with Bessler's Mt 67, show the math. If you disagree that Bessler said that as 1 weight moves away from the axle, another
will move towards the axle, show where Bessler never said it.
Yet many in here will say "keel effect". Those 2 words ignores Bessler's work in its entirety.
Something a Peacock's Tail can do. He even gave a 4:1 ratio.
1.a "A great craftsman would be that man who can 'lightly' cause a heavy weight to fly upwards! Who can make a pound weight rise as
4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall. If he can sort that out, the motion will perpetuate itself.� AP 291

This last part is something math clearly shows. And it seems that no one is familiar with that language. With my previous build, I could replace the retraction disc with a peacock's tail but would be attacked for it. And with 8 weights, there'd be a lot more torque. But I will work privately from
now on like rlortie and ab hammer.

[Bird is a Word]

Basically, when Bessler said
Description
“On one side it is heavy and full; on the other [side] empty and light, just as it should be.
https://besslerwheel.c om/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=5312&hilit=bessler%27s+clues+300+years

If a peacock's tail has 4:1 leverage, it can't lift the top and bottom weight at the same time? Are you
guys serious? Maybe someone can explain the "keel effect" to me? I have crossed 3 oceans on a freighter
and an aircraft carrier. I'm ignorant when it comes to boats. You know how Norwegians tend to be.

p.s., with water, it would require the inverse motion so it is siphoned by the bellow on top expanding.
With weights, think the "peacock's tail" lifted the top and bottom weight. The bellows simply are pictograms
that represent over and under balance.

[Bird is a Word]

I just couldn't resist this one. And with f(x) = ∫ Δy/Δx, ∫ has limits which are placed at the bottom right and top right of the ∫.
Then the º of rotation can be used to calculate work. If Bessler used 8 weights then cos 22.5º in quadrants 1 and 4 of the unit circle
would be factored. Quadrants 2 and 3 would be - cos 22.5º. I did make a nice large drawing so it will be clear.
This might also help to explain why Bessler' Wheels were about 12 feet in diameter. I would explain how Bessler might've estimated
a trigonometric table which would've been very helpful to him. Even in calculus they'll factor a radius as a straight line between 2 radians
or º. This would've allow Bessler to use the Pythagorean Theorem to estimate (x, y) values to factor net force/torque.

[Tarsier79]

((2(20 * sqrt3/2)) + (2(20 * sqrt2/2)) + ((220 * 1/2)) + 20 < (2(25 * sqrt3/2)) + (2(25 * sqrt2/2)) + (2(25 * 1/2)) + 25

is not a proof of a torque in a rotating wheel.

f(x) = ∫ Δy/Δx

Again, meaningless without an actual function.

Then the º of rotation can be used to calculate work. If Bessler used 8 weights then cos 22.5º in quadrants 1 and 4 of the unit circle
would be factored. Quadrants 2 and 3 would be - cos 22.5º. I did make a nice large drawing so it will be clear.

Please do. where did we pull 22.5 degrees from? 180/8. Still meaningless as each weight has to operate through 360 degrees.

This might also help to explain why Bessler' Wheels were about 12 feet in diameter. I would explain how Bessler might've estimated

More nonsense. Nothing you have said explains a 12 foot wheel, especially as the early ones were 3 and 4 foot.

There is a difference between white supremacist and someone who doesn't tolerate idiocy. I am the second. You are the source of the idiocy.