Bessler's axle?

[rmd3]

dawxc, who said anything about the mechanism being independent of the wheel? The axle? yes. The wheel? no.

[Fletcher]

Randall .. It could have been completely irrelevant to the operation of his wheels other than perhaps as a point of attachment for the mechanisms etc - holes & compartments could easily have meant holes & notches & bits missing - the point is that he also said at a later date that once the principle was known that an ounce here or there made not a jot of difference to the wheels operation - in other words, the wheel didn't have to have complete symmetry & all weights & components be exactly the same in size & weight - this leaves plenty of scope for a gnarly reused axle/hub that had holes & bits missing & because it was so close the the Center of Rotation that any mass distribution irregularities in the axle would have very little effect on the torque produced to one side of the wheel produced from displaced weights via the PM principle that shifted them.

[rmd3]

Fletcher,
I don't think the option of having the mechanism attached to the axle is acceptable according to Bessler. If I recall correctly, didn't Bessler say that nothing was attached to the axle?

Another thing... just to be a bit more clear and state the obvious, I didn't mention that the axle could serve as a point of leverage for the mechanism because I think that is true no matter if it serves the function of guiding the mechanism(s) or even if is totally irrelevant to the mechanism(s)'s function. ...just in case anyone tried to call me on that or thought they discovered that "secret". Ha HA ha HA HAA ha he ho.... he...hehe... ho-hum

So what other purposes could the axle serve? A guide?, no purpose?, or what?

-Randall

[Fletcher]

Paraphrased, I believe he said that everything must by necessity go around with the wheel.

EDIT : Thankyou to Stewart for providing this translation !

DrWhat wrote:

Just a followup from an earlier comment I made about Bessler's true claim that "no weights hang from the axle". I have been looking at AP and in the correct context it is obvious that his comment by Bessler relates once again to hanging weights and a cord used to pull the wheel into rotation using gravity. Ie a non "perpetual" wheel.

That isn't the correct context. Bessler is talking about how Wagner keeps comparing Bessler's wheel to his own. Wagner's wheel was a spring-driven spit-jack that hung from the wheel's axle and turned the wheel via a crankshaft. Bessler says:

Es muß im Rad Perpetuum
Alles zusammen geh'n herum;
Es läss't sich gar nichts darein mengen/ NB
Das stets bleibt an der Welle hängen;

In the perpetual wheel
everything together must go around;
nothing at all may be involved in it, NB
that always hangs/is_caught on the axle;

As you can see he is directly refuting that his wheel is anything like Wagner's, having nothing in it that always hangs from the axle. I'll leave you to decide for yourself whether you think this text allows you to rule anything out - but in my opinion I think this text would rule out the use of a pendulum that swings back and forth from the axle, or one that was used to simply provide a fixed point.

Stewart

[daxwc]

Thanks for the opinion men. I am looking towards a design that matches his description. The inner axle (mechanism) I want to totally revolve too, but not attached to the outside wheel. It will not be hanging, but at times be at a different speed then the outside. Would this violate any thing bessler said about his axle?

[Fletcher]

If it goes around with the external wheel then I'd say you were quids in !

[AB Hammer]

daxwc

Would this violate any thing bessler said about his axle?

I would say no. due to the studying, and possible sounds this effect may make.

It sounds like you are starting to use some of the same roads I am going down with this idea. I also should finish the first test parts in a couple of weeks but not the wheel yet. but this is all I can disclose at this time.

PS thanks to fletcher and Ralph for there help with the information of Bessler's axel. the information gave me a plausible idea.

On this string. http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2257

[Stewart]

The axles of Bessler's wheel were described by witnesses as being hollow. There is a possibility that a six foot long hollow cylinder could house a mechanism. As an example, take a look at MT41. If you wanted to use long, horizontally mounted scissor-mechanisms as shown in MT41, but you wanted to keep the wheel thin to avoid suspicion of there being a person or animal walking around in there, then you could mount the scissor-mechanisms in the hollow axle and then reduce the thickness of the wheel which would now only house the overbalancing weights. This has been discussed on the forum before, but I though it was worth mentioning again and bearing in mind.

Stewart

[DrWhat]

I'm adding this to an older line of posts.

My thoughts were regarding proponents of the "empty" axle idea, or rather the non-existence of the axle through the main part of the wheel so that the wheel is empty as Patrick states.

Now considering the weight of Bessler's larger wheels, I believe that an axle with only two support points at the bearings, and two surface coupling areas against the face of each side of the wheel would not work.

The amount of strain on the latter connecting points would cause the wheel to collapse.

I think that the axle must have gone through the wheel.

[DrWhat]

Otherwise you'd need the supports really close to the wheel, or else two supports apart from each other on each side of the wheel with the bearing structures locking the supports to the axle.

[Ben]

"Ask any of those who have groped inside my Wheel and grasped its axle" - "Rather, it has many compartments, and is pierced all over with various holes." - pg 336

This is a quote from wikipedia. The word "it" could refer either to the axle or the wheel itself. I don't think the axle had holes at all. I think Bessler's axles were thick because the later models were heavy to increase power, and if the axles were full of holes, so much for the axle's strength. It seems to be a general consensus here that the axle was full of holes, but I really think you're all wrong about that. But, we don't know. That's just my opinion.

I just think it's awesome that we're all here discussing this. Even, or, especially, you, Ralph :) You act like a grouch sometimes, but I bet you'd be a kick to hang out with. Especially after reading your recipe for holiday cheer!

[rlortie]

Well, thank you Ben!

I just think it's awesome that we're all here discussing this. Even, or, especially, you, Ralph :) You act like a grouch sometimes, but I bet you'd be a kick to hang out with. Especially after reading your recipe for holiday cheer!

In reality I am a reincarnated stand up comic!

I have not posted on this thread since last February, but after seeing DocWhat's;

Wheel would collapse without axle passing through.

Docwhat, I disagree, with an 8" coopered hollow axle and structures like the famous Bastille Bridge design all ready in existence a split axle could hold up the wheel. The force is distributed throughout the rim.

IMO I will say the although it is possible, I believe that the description of being a though axle with holes and compartments is more likely the proper answer.

Ralph

[path_finder]

Dear all,
Let me precise some comments on my point-of-view about the 'axis':

1. For basic reasons of simple physic, it's obvious that the weights cannot be attached to the central axis.
As soon as you apply a force attachment point to this axis, you will reduce the torque (any attachment to the axis translate the COG to the center of the wheel).
I do not remember exactly where, by it seems to me that Bessler indirectly confirmed this point.
Every part contributing to the motion mechanism (and not only the weights) must be attached on the outer side of the rim.

2. Nevertheless the axis is needed because it is the only external reference (if you except the vertical direction given by each weight) in view to fix a point in the space.
How can you move any mechanism to counter-react the falling movement if you don't know where you are?
The axis therefore has no mechanical direct action on the mechanism, it's just a needed reference point.

3. If you think about the thickness of this axis, one first good reason can be the lack of technology at that time (no SKF bearings).
We can imagine that Bessler was obliged to build himself a kind of bearing (in fact a 'roller bearing').
This reason can be a mask for a second reason in relation with the point #2 here above: a way to allow some rods to pass-through this axis.
This could be confirmed by two citations of Bessler:
- the story of the sun and the planets, running on an ellipse where the sun is located at one pole
- 'der Kreuz' (translated as 'cross-bar') wich is needed when you want create an ellipse
The 'reciprocator' mechanism (and all it's various avatars) needs two points moving with an orthogonal translation.
You can use some pieces of wood or metal, sliding inside a gorge (see the picture below)
But another way, much more efficient is to use a rod (where you attach some other links) at the condition to shift this rod across the center of the wheel.
Therefore the metal bars, parallel to the main axis, could have been used for the both works: improve the rotation of the wheel and allow some rods to pass-through the axis.
For that purpose the rods are rolling between FOUR metallic bars acting as guides for the correct translation.
If you look at the MT135 it's impossible to define if there are holes or just some stalls.
But if there are holes, Bessler can pass some rods through the axis.
This idea is confirmed by the fact that these holes are shifted (spaced) in view to avoid any contention.

Nota Bene: the diameter of the rods must be less than the diameter of the holes, in view to avoid any friction between the rods and the holes. But the space between to opposed bars must be equal to the diameter of the rod.
Somewhere Bessler said "Just one crossbar was not sufficient, I was obliged to put another to improve the torque" (something like that). The number of the used crossbar determines the number of the rolling bars inside the axis. This could be the reason why the thickness of the last wheels was greater (the number of weights could be twelwe instead of eight like previously).

[ruggerodk]

Dear Path_Finder,

Isn't that a variation on the Parson Epicyclic Engine?

Brilliant...absolutely brilliant idea of a construction. ;-)

If your artwork are Flash I would just love to play a little with the original .flw file...is it possible you could provide me with a copy?

Thanks and a Happy New Year

ruggero ;-)

[rlortie]

Its an ellipsograph or reciprocater.

Patrick, started a thread regarding this and a number of members including myself got involved, it was simmulated in WM2D more than once. IIRC Steve has a very good sim on it.

http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/Ellip ... iprocator/

http://kmoddl.library.cornell.edu/model.php?m=256

I posted plans for building one, I also call it a 'persisterfier' and bull shit grinder.

Ralph