Besslers prime mover and its enabler.

[Robinhood46]

I take it you received the book Sam, and read it.

I read it many years ago and can't remember all the other subjects he wrote about, but the section on Bessler was basically a rant about how it obviously wasn't PM, because we know PM is impossible. I thought about rummaging around my junk to find it, so i could suggest sending it to you, but you obviously found a copy so i didn't need to.
I can't remember exactly what he wrote, but i certainly had the impression;

One thing is for sure; R.T. Gould is of no help to anyone----------------Sam

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi Robinhood!!
The book won't get here until the 12th. SHADOW posted a version of it, which I read or at least most of it. I didn't like it, but that's just me, I'm critical of critics. The book will be a lot better for me, I can go through it and underline things. Then read them over and over again. Also, a lot of his words I don't understand, so I have to look them up---Sam

[Roxaway59]

Hi Fletcher there is certainly a lot more to be said about these pendulums and what I am finding is that certain thoughts keep barging into my mind over them so the things I say may not be in the order I would prefer.

It seems to me that when Bessler said they were to slow the wheel down that was precisely correct. Because the wheel was always going to operate slower with them on and yes it would have taken longer to get the wheel up to speed as well.

There are two ways of looking at the regulation side of it. His way of thinking may have been as a limiter.

Here is an example of what I said earlier about maybe them working in conjunction with the mechanism on the wheel.

This wheel is a little more stable with the pendulums on than without them.

As the pendulum on the wheel (created by the two weights) starts to slow the wheel the external pendulums are trying to speed it up and vice versa.

Graham

[Sam Peppiatt]

Perhaps I should have said; R.T. Gould was of no help to me. I stand corrected---------------Sam

[Fletcher]

A pendulum will show jolts in the rotation, even if imperceptible, plus acceleration...??? ...

Hi thx4 ..

Yes ! ..

A pendulum is connected to the main wheel disk by an inflexible rod from the pendulum structure to a short crank-rod directly fixed to the wheel axle - these 2 rods are pivoted where they meet so that the axle crank-rod can rotate with the wheel while the longer rod from the pendulum structure moves up and down and sideways and back etc - somewhat similar to a linear motion converted to a rotational motion linkage, and back again, as one or other dominates in the repeating cycle - the short crank-rod is shown in the engravings as a curved rod but that is not a requirement to understand the mechanics - a short straight rod does the same job - however, a curved "C" shape crank-rod hints at some forgiveness/flexibility/springy nature to it might be beneficial at some point in the action i.e. when the pendulum is at its highest position of the swing ( when it stops its climb ) and the crank-rod has to "snap/squeeze" across the vertical line thru the axle to allow the pendulum to accelerate and descend .. that's the guts of it - add one each side if you want all forces exactly balanced ..

With this pendulum arrangement the wheel will continually micro-accelerate and micro-decelerate because the pendulum swings upwards in an arc, stops, reverses, and falls/is driven down again, to repeat - however gravity is attempting to slow it down as it climbs upwards until it is forced to stop its climb because it is constrained by the crank-rod length and position - because it must stop at the top of its climb before it reverses direction it micro-brakes the wheel RPM - when it reverses direction the crank-rod has passed the center vertical line ( is past the snap/squeeze point ) and the pendulum falling momentarily micro-accelerates the wheel RPM - see the graph plots of wheel RPM/angular velocity sine-wave shape ..

Constraints to the pendulum and linkage system ..

The length of the crank-rod and the angle of the pendulum rod connected to it dictate how far up the pendulum will be able to swing, and how far out to one side it will swing compared to the other side of the swing arc - this must be a precise angle to get close to balancing the swing arcs both side of the pendulum at 6 o'cl ( takes some calculation and/or experimentation ) - otherwise you can double-down and attach 2 opposing pendulums which cancels out any irregularities and the need for high technical accuracy in the build process ..

..............

[Fletcher]

Hi Fletcher there is certainly a lot more to be said about these pendulums and what I am finding is that certain thoughts keep barging into my mind over them so the things I say may not be in the order I would prefer.

No probs, understood ..

It seems to me that when Bessler said they were to slow the wheel down that was precisely correct. Because the wheel was always going to operate slower with them on and yes it would have taken longer to get the wheel up to speed as well.

Respectfully, that is not what he said - that is what your mind tells you he meant to say looking thru your lens, based on your cumulative knowledge and experience to date ..

He said in the DT engraving legends that ..

"8. Pendulums on each side to keep ( the ) machine running true."

"p. Pendulum for use when ( the ) machine is to be operated slowly."

He did not mention anything about their use to "slow the wheel down" - only that that they were made of 3 weights ( in a T-Pendulum configuration which rightly implies far greater inertia effect potentially important to period length which does theoretically reduce or limit top-end RPM ) [ it would also effect the "pump and dump effect" I am proposing as their real purpose - making it more extreme and sharp ] ..

ETA .. n.b. the fact that they were prominent in all his engravings strongly suggests to me that they have a very real functional importance and significance - but - everything must go around with the wheel in the interior, by his own words, and these clearly would not - therefore they are a symbolic representation of a function in his later public wheels - i.e. imo they were real for his first private prototype - but later were changed out for a hidden interior mechanism that went around within and with the wheel - this is the form of a MOI changing apparatus symbolically represented by the 2 opposing hammermen toys C & D of the Toy's Page, which also rapidly changed the wheels MOI properties, periodically speeding it up and then rapidly slowing it down, on prescriptive cue .. imo ..

- he does say they were to "keep the machine RUNNING TRUE" - and each of us interprets what that means for our contexts - literally it means keep the machine running sound/true ( i.e. a regulated/prescriptive motion within parameters ) - and then for when the machine is to be "operated slowly", which we know is a false statement because they were never seen and were not required for the water-screw lift test at 20 RPM working, or any earlier stamp mill tests, or any hoisting of boxes of bricks and weights tests via a rope around the axle etc - in these latter tests the RPM was said to be constant even under these load tests - so a little legerdemain imo to appease our logic and senses, and send us on our way ..

There are two ways of looking at the regulation side of it. His way of thinking may have been as a limiter.

If it was as a speed limiter then any sort of mechanical fly-ball governor, or friction brake system would have been entirely workable - he even talks in AP about letting people screw in and out a simple bolt to slow the wheel down i.e. friction brake - far simpler than 2 tri-weight pendulums attached to a wheel which were never seen - and if RPM "smoothing" was the aim then he strayed badly as any heavy radius weights would have increased the inertia and momentum/KE etc just like a standard fly-wheel attachment today, and were very familiar and in use back then so not novel by any stretch ..

Here is an example of what I said earlier about maybe them working in conjunction with the mechanism on the wheel.

This wheel is a little more stable with the pendulums on than without them.

As the pendulum on the wheel (created by the two weights) starts to slow the wheel the external pendulums are trying to speed it up and vice versa.

I do not doubt that at all - they are mechanically connected and both pendulum and wheel systems reinforce and negotiate the passage of the wheel RPM ..

[Roxaway59]

Fletcher another thought that I forgot to mention.

I don't really believe that Bessler put those pendulums in the engravings for any real useful purpose.

That may change.

The feeling I get is that he was making an engraving to advertise his invention.

He was left with an awkward choice.

Too make a picture of a wheel?

This wasn't in the days of video.

Who was going to be impressed by a picture of a wheel?

When you look at the engravings what catches your eye?

Is it the wheel or the other stuff?

He was trying to sell a product and the pendulums added interest to the picture.

Just a bit of devils advocate.

Graham

[Daniel.R]

I'm with you with this one Graham.

We can't forget that he had a tough time trying to sell his wheel.

I believe his wheel had some shortcomings, though. One issue may be that it was prone to knock itself out of balance and wobble.

It is said that the wheel stopped at one time while Bessler was demonstrated it. This may have been due to the wheel knocking itself out of balance and stopped as a consequence.
Creating such a huge wheel with an axle in the middle is like asking for a wobble. The wheel needs to be sitting dead level and straight in its bearings to eliminate wobble.
A bicycle wheel is said to be out-of-true when it is wobbling (not running straight). The wheel then needs truing by adjusting its spokes to run straight and true again. Although bicycles didn't exist in Besslers time, wheels did. The pendulums are there to keep the wheel running true, in Besslers own words. Well, you can see where I'm going with this.

Here is a line from AP p.293 which imo strengthens this theory:

"I'd be lucky, actually, if it did run that long, for with you near it,
even though it be the truest of all possible machines, there's
always the danger that a surreptitious shove would knock it out of
balance and bring it grinding to a halt."

--------------------------------

Thank you Fletcher for the Gould document! An interesting read.

/Daniel

[Fletcher]

You are welcome Daniel ..

From JC's Wagner Critiques and B's. AP ..

Below is Wagner's original critique comments and B's. direct rebuttal about the Merseburg supposedly stopping of its own accord - Christmas 1715 ..

Wagner Critique ..

XII. Additionally, I must refer to a case which happened shortly before the Christmas holidays of 1715. At that time a certain person was viewing the machine which had been proceeding constantly and rapidly for a while when it slowed down gradually until it finally came to a standstill. At this point the person asked: "What does this mean?" In his anxiety, Orffyreus could think of no reply other than: "The wheel rubbed against something." This was a barefaced lie, for not the slightest rubbing had been hitherto noted; rather, as soon as he gave the wheel a push, it was running again. No fragile part of the wheel had broken (Reason: he did not reach into the wheel to repair a defect.) Much less could it have rubbed against something, as he alleged (the wheel would have had to have been situated differently in the trunion seats), rather its movement had simply failed him. From this it is clearly shown that the great, alleged 70-pound force depends not on the internal motive principle or the superior force of the weights but on the movement of the wheel because although the wheel was complete, it was never powerful enough to bring its own bulk back to its previous speed.

N.B. mine .. this is contrary to other various witnesses, who said they fully recovered their RPM after being stopped and gently restarted ..more than one witness testified to this ..

XIII. The true cause of the interruption in the movement may well have been that at the time the cold had congealed and thickened the olive oil and grease, thus hindering and halting the internal workings which were otherwise strong enough to drive the wheel.

Bessler says in AP .. XII (b) Wagner says that just before Christmas 1715 my wheel stopped, and when a certain person saw this, I anxiously said "it’s starting itself again", and yet had to start it by hand

This is another of the sayings of Wagner, General of Lies. Just describe now, with your scratchy little nib, exactly who was supposed to be with me at that time, and saw the sequence of events you describe. It's time to ask whether Wagner is in his right mind, thinking up such scandals, and lying so impudently to the whole world. It's almost impossible to understand what's going on in Wagner's mind. Did some raging dragon come and give him these ideas?

XIII (b) The biting cold was the cause of my wheel's coming to a standstill

Wagner says that because there was such a hard frost the grease and oil I used thickened and hardened, and that as a result my wheel stopped of its own accord. Nonsense! As if we haven't by now had enough lies, he says not in passing, but as a matter of "absolute fact", that my wheel rotates only by imparted momentum. Well, Wagner is an "absolute liar" until he can demonstrate the truth of this lie.

................

Aren't you Daniel forgetting the most obvious fact ? - no pendulums were ever seen in existence, let alone seen attached to any wheel, either stationary or in rotation, for a short time, or a long time, whether doing a work load test or not doing work .. not free-running, not lifting stampers, not turning a water screw and lifting water, not hoisting boxes of bricks via a rope around the axle and thru a pulley ..

Ergo, they were not required to keep a wheel from wobbling or rubbing, either while under no load, or more importantly while undergoing various load ( work ) tests - not to mention the Kassel 54 days straight running test ..


ETA .. Borlach and Gartner saw the M. wheel in action - they wrote about it - Borlach even made and published an engraving of it - a wheel with support stands floor to ceiling in a room with railing around it - there were no pendulums, just a nude wheel .. Bessler even reproduced that engraving in DT with some changes to Borlachs original engraving - Bessler did not included "forgotten" pendulums, just added axle crank-rods which were absent from the Borlach engraving ..

[Daniel.R]

Aren't you Daniel forgetting the most obvious fact ? - no pendulums were ever seen in existence, let alone seen attached to any wheel, either stationary or in rotation, for a short time, or a long time, whether doing a work load test or not doing work .. not free-running, not lifting stampers, not turning a water screw and lifting water, not hoisting boxes of bricks via a rope around the axle and thru a pulley ..

Well, if the wheel only occasionally showed signs of knocking itself out of balance, creating a wobble and stopping as a consequence, Bessler might have devised the pendulums to try completely eliminate this issue. The pendulums would then accompany the final rendition of the wheel, making its motion more reliable under various situations and various loads.

However, if the wheel showed such issues, I would, if I where in Bessler's shoes, be very worried that it would stop during the 54-day test. This test was however conducted without any load. The perpendicular forces, which could cause unbalancing or wobbling, might have been stronger when the wheel was loaded (either by the load itself or the internal mechanism). According to Bessler, the pendulums were to be employed during slower RPM (load) and to also to run true (during load?).

When the wheel stopped on its own accord, do we know if it was under load or unloaded?

So many questions and all speculation of course.

/Daniel

[johannesbender]

I'm with you with this one Graham.

We can't forget that he had a tough time trying to sell his wheel.

I believe his wheel had some shortcomings, though. One issue may be that it was prone to knock itself out of balance and wobble.

It is said that the wheel stopped at one time while Bessler was demonstrated it. This may have been due to the wheel knocking itself out of balance and stopped as a consequence.
Creating such a huge wheel with an axle in the middle is like asking for a wobble. The wheel needs to be sitting dead level and straight in its bearings to eliminate wobble.
A bicycle wheel is said to be out-of-true when it is wobbling (not running straight). The wheel then needs truing by adjusting its spokes to run straight and true again. Although bicycles didn't exist in Besslers time, wheels did. The pendulums are there to keep the wheel running true, in Besslers own words. Well, you can see where I'm going with this.

Here is a line from AP p.293 which imo strengthens this theory:

"I'd be lucky, actually, if it did run that long, for with you near it,
even though it be the truest of all possible machines, there's
always the danger that a surreptitious shove would knock it out of
balance and bring it grinding to a halt."

--------------------------------

Thank you Fletcher for the Gould document! An interesting read.

/Daniel

"I'd be lucky, actually, if it did run that long, for with you near it,
even though it be the truest of all possible machines, there's
always the danger that a surreptitious shove would knock it out of
balance and bring it grinding to a halt."

This is just saying if Wagner was around the wheel he would likely out of spite shove or knock the wheel to bring it to a halt.

[Fletcher]

jb in the above post is right ! .. and there was only Wagner's 3rd person hearsay that the Merseburg wheel stopped - no one else reported that happening .. B. calls him out as a teller of big porkies ..

...........

Fletcher another thought that I forgot to mention. Just a bit of devils advocate.

I don't really believe that Bessler put those pendulums in the engravings for any real useful purpose.That may change.

>>

The feeling I get is that he was making an engraving to advertise his invention. He was left with an awkward choice.

Too make a picture of a wheel? This wasn't in the days of video.

Who was going to be impressed by a picture of a wheel? When you look at the engravings what catches your eye? Is it the wheel or the other stuff?

He was trying to sell a product and the pendulums added interest to the picture.

JC's AP ..

Page 282 .. Chapter XXXVI.

... Let everything I have achieved now be made known through engravings or printing! ...

... The truly wise man will know (and I know he knows!) what artifice, labour, cost, industry, all-night sittings, cogitation, meditation, drudgery, work with compass, calculation, patience and time is demanded by my project.

We all play devil's advocate from time to time Graham as we try to sort out which fork in the road to take - often it is a balance of probabilities, or weight of circumstantial evidence, that decides the direction or context we take - sometimes we end up reversing out of a dead-end - B. wanted to hide information in his works ( including his engravings imo ) to post-date his death should he not sell his mechanical secret to true PM ..

Let's take the gist of what you play advocate for - that the engravings in DT were primarily to sell his invention, therefore he needed to generate some serious interest in his machines utility i.e. how useful in industry it might be to be worthy of a large investment and the protecting of that investment going forward - classical capital-flow economics ..

So a boring circular wheel wouldn't cut it, and not show much imagination - light bulb moment - I need to include some working examples of it doing work that is useful ( and profitable ) - I need to really sell its ability to do work and get a payback to the owner - I'll include common examples of it doing work like running and lifting heavy stampers to crush rocks in a quarry ( tick ), hoisting heavy boxes up heights with a rope around the axle like a crane ( tick ), an Archimedean water screw run off the axle lifting water like trying to drain a mine ( tick ) - 2 pendulums swinging back and forth in opposition doing nothing of value ( tick ) ..

Next I'll make sure that all these work examples pop in my engravings so you can't miss them and must smile and get excited about them - I am such a mirthful fellow - I'll make these engravings in a close to real perspective but strangely my pendulums that don't show any work capability to help sell my wheels will be in the viewers face and pop more than anything else, unless you are blind .. yeah right .. FAIL .. shoulda added multiple wheels to one axle and really showed what they could lift and do to get a quick and willing buyer .. lol ..

..........

LOL .. it never hurts to explore all contexts ..

[Roxaway59]

Yes Fletcher exploring all the possibilities is a good thing.

You are exploring the possibility that the pendulums are related to how the wheel worked and you should follow that.

If I can think of anything I will certainly post it too.

Here's a question for you.

I've been thinking about the impacts on Besslers wheel.

Is there any advantage that you can think of in physics where an impact or sudden sharp shock can move a weight into position better than a prolonged gradual placement?

I know it isn't suppose to make any difference but I wondered if there had ever been anything advantageous said about it.

Graham

[Fletcher]

Yes Fletcher exploring all the possibilities is a good thing.

You are exploring the possibility that the pendulums are related to how the wheel worked and you should follow that.

If I can think of anything I will certainly post it too.

The logic line is fairly simple and linear Graham .. paraphrased, B. said his wheels were gravity and weight wheels ( .. all mass has inherent inertia .. ), that could not find a balance of forces position after being put into a position of initial imbalance - thus, once started they gained that position of imbalance, and thereafter accelerated the wheel, and this internal choreography of the weights was continuously reset to cause an enduring imbalance and directional torque i.e. reoccurring sustained imbalance ( conceptually simple right ? ) .. but only half the story ..

Feet-on-the-ground moment - thousands have tried, for thousands of years, with zero success - ergo, we have a very wrong perspective to solving the mechanical problem of initiating the reoccurring reset - we know we must manipulate internal geography ( that's a given ) - we scheme long and hard into the night about weight positions where things "passively" gravitate to where they are supposed to be, in the fullness of time, under their own steam ( it's not like no-one else has schemed just as hard, for as long ) - except, we like them, fail like champions because the imbalance is only temporary and it fades away to a wheel that is stationary and balanced ..

B. tells us he also employed a "prime mover" ( re the subject of your topic title ), which logically assisted the reorganization of the interior weights into that reoccurring imbalance regime - and by deduction, that "assist" was not a passive one, else we, someone, somewhere, would have discovered it eons ago .. passive is so yesterday, an aggressive masculine prime mover muscling the weights to where they need to be to auto-reset is in, imo ;7) ..

Here's a question for you.

I've been thinking about the impacts on Besslers wheel.

Is there any advantage that you can think of in physics where an impact or sudden sharp shock can move a weight into position better than a prolonged gradual placement?

I know it isn't suppose to make any difference but I wondered if there had ever been anything advantageous said about it.

Graham

Graham, in the context of your question .. all I can tell you is that over 20 odd years ( most of those with sim experiments to help ) I have never-ever-ever found any difference in either impact or impulse in solving the "free" reset conundrum we seek - B. even tells us in MT52 "no wheel is moved by heavy blows" which are more likely to destroy it .. we are handcuffed by the Conservation Laws - both energy and momentum at the classical physics and mechanics level - if you have an impact ( soft or hard, fast or slow ) then there is always a leakage of available energy from the system due to elasticity, deformation of surfaces in contact, heat, and sound etc - so no, there is nothing advantageous to be said about the "contacting" method of "passive" placement, imo - we do however seek a positive net torque, by whatever means 'possible' that doesn't deeply offend Newton and his Laws ..

Here's a thought experiment for you, but word-of-warning, there is no real contact/impact forces involved, but perhaps there is some analogy to a sharp sudden shock .. have you ever dangled a 4 or 6 inch bolt out in front of you - held lightly by two finger tips so it hangs down vertically at your mid-chest height - then you rapidly moved your hand horizontally across your chest to your arms full extent of travel ? - you try it slow and careful, and you repeat the thought experiment with a muscular hard and fast movement - in both cases your hand is accelerated and then decelerated with vastly different amounts of forcefulness - what do you think would happen to the bolt ?

..............

[SHADOW]

Bonjour Graham,
J'ai examiner votre dernière Sim Algdoo, provoquer un déséquilibbre par l'inermediaire du volant central déplace le problème.
Cela nous renvoi sur ce quoi nous butons toujours: mise en équilibre du système!
J'ai apprécié votre astuce pour symetiser l'ensemble.
J'ai fais des essais avec un système Roberval et avec les jouets forgerons mais pour l'instant c'est moi qui tourne Bourrique!

Hi Graham,
I have examined your latest Sim Algdoo, causing an imbalance by the inermediary of the central steering wheel moves the problem.
This brings us back to what we always stumble upon: balancing the system!
I appreciated your tip to symetize the whole.
I did some tests with a Roberval system and with the blacksmith toys but for the moment it is me who turns crazy!