If I remember correctly and according to Scott's clues page, Bessler said that springs were employed, but not as detractors suggested. Where does this clue come from?
It is clear that Besssler said his wheel did not use wind-up springs. And it was reported that one time when putting the weights into the wheel after relocating it, something inside the wheel slipped and witnesses heard what sounded like a spring being let go. (Twang?)
It seems Bessler' never said if springs MUST be used. I don't know the basis for the clue about the usage of springs, is this a combination of the spring noise being heard and wind-up springs being denied? I think Bessler may have tried to keep the fact that he used springs a secret until someone heard the spring twang.
If the wheel works in the way that I believe that it does, then I have a strong opinion that the springs were very necessary. In my opinion it would be very difficult, maybe impossible, for the wheel to work without the springs.
Could springs have been used to hold or force an ballast weight to maintain off centre position?
I first thought of this last year when I tried to fathom all the possible uses Bessler's pendulum could provide.
The obvious one is a speed controller which I eventually settled on.
But another use for this pendulum is to hold a weight to one side. Held in position by the influence of the rotation and springs.
Take a look at the Bessler's original drawings and it looks as though the pendulum is connected to a crank which makes it swing as the crank rotates.
But perhaps the crank didn't rotate fully. Perhaps it just rotated half a turn to the left or right to hold the weight (the pendulum) to one side.
That way, the weights in the wheel could have rotated uniformly with no obvious out of balance asymmetry but there influence, coupled with an elastic acting device like a spring, kept the external pendulum out out balance causing a mass bias.
I have tried a few experiments utilising springs and this use of the pendulum and have come up with some beneficial results.
Kas
“We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.�
Quote By Max Planck father of Quantum physics 1858 - 1947
I took a quick look thru John Collins AP - found two supporting quotes - there are others IIRC.
P 334 Bessler "Meanwhile I will pledge my blood, my life, my head, that my wheel does not require winding up, as Wagner claims it does"
P 361 Bessler - rebuttal to Wagner "Springs and weights of the kind he describes are not to be found in my machine !"
IMO wherever Bessler talks about springs he deflects & downplays the comment as much as he can without being overly obvious - he makes it plain that springs were not used as Wagner protests i.e. wind up springs - but he also does a clever thing to talk it down - he ties the comment together about springs & weights & says they are not to found in his wheels in the manner of a turnspit or clock so de-emphasizing springs.
But Bessler never rules them out as unnecessary or ancillary - in fact he sort of makes a deliberate off-handed comment "not of the kind he [Wagner] describes" - while this particular quote doesn't conclusively rule other types of spring uses in [in another role & form] it strongly suggests to me that they were a necessary part of his wheels, otherwise he would not have added the qualifier "of the kind he describes", that would have been unnecessary.
N.B. There is also the possibility that springs were part of the weight latching/releasing mech & this was what was heard but it seems a violent sound for just a catch & release operation !
One of the first (and if I may I must say 'beautiful') wheels that I built involved a pendulum and crank (nearly exactly like Bessler's).
Something interesting happened. If you attach one to the other then as the wheel speeds up the pendulum swings harder and enormous strain impinges on the crank. In fact the crank forcefully restricts the movement of the pendulum and the system goes haywire.
The crank has to be enormously strong, but also it nearly seems impossible to me that the cranks were coupled to the axle in a 1:1 ratio.
The only option is that the cranks and pendulums in the images were never used in real demonstrations (which is my opinion), or they rotated somewhat independently of the main wheel rotation (impossible due to the axle descriptions etc).
If you have doubts, build the pendulum and crank yourselves. A pendulum increases its swing displacement as the wheel speeds up. The crank won't allow a change in swing displacement unless the pendulum is very flexible (and then we still encounter problems).
Something interesting happened. If you attach one to the other then as the wheel speeds up the pendulum swings harder and enormous strain impinges on the crank. In fact the crank forcefully restricts the movement of the pendulum and the system goes haywire.
Shortly after joining this forum I started a thread titled;
Pendulum connecting rod and Journal copy and paste this into the search engine and you will find a total of 10 threads that cover pendulums and connecting rods.
I can relate to your quote, a pendulum is an intrinsic piece of craftsmanship. Its speed is controlled by the length of the rod. Try as you will to change that speed and you find yourself in a bind. I have been there and done that!
Note how Bessler depicts the crank, If is not straight but makes an almost "U" or "C" shape. It is my opinion that he built it that way so that he could bend it in minute increments to achieve the radius that would be synchronous to the pendulum.
Another thing that one can do is note how the connecting rod appears to extend past the horizontal bar and is connected to the extended diagonal brace. This also changes the "Throw" radius and is often referred to as lever type #3
Cut a slot in this diagonal brace and let the connecting rod attachment point slide. It will make contact on either the up stroke or down, but not both. This gives the pendulum some latitude to stay within it physical seeking amplitude and speed. As for speed use an extra long rod that you can adjust the length of the bob. With some tweaking you can find the sweet spot to match your rpm.
I still think that the crank was used to hold an internal driver (assisted by springs) in an offset position.
I think it possible that an internal vertically attached spring only allowed the crank to rotate half a turn between the 9 and 3 o'clock positions.
It makes perfect sense. The internal mechanisms (attached to the driver) would then maintain an out of balance position depending on the direction.
IMO, Any counter torque would then be absorbed by the spring(s) and the subsequent pendulum giving the internal system total flexibility.
From physical tests that I have carried out with offset drivers, without this flexibility, the rotation would be too rigid resulting in a stall.
In addition, it would only require a small modification to the design to ensure that the pendulum, and consequently the driver switches sides according to the direction of the rotational push.
Kas
“We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.�
Quote By Max Planck father of Quantum physics 1858 - 1947
I read Bessler's statement that springs were used (but not in the way his detractors thought)...but where are you getting the part that they actually were required at all?
The use of springs ( I also rely on bungee straps) is going to depend upon the design and how far out your innovation can push the envelope!
I have worked on some designs that are not only non-functional but dead weight without springs. A well thought out concept of the driver and the driven will eliminate the need of springs in the same design.
I do not put a whole lot of credence in the eyewitness report that he heard Bessler let a spring slip from his grasp. It could have been a lever he was lifting to attach the weight and let it fall upon a spring or cushion used to absorb the impact. Of all present only one party described the incident as he imagined. There were a number of other dignitary's there at the time, but I do not recall any of them making note of any such imaginary or l fact!
jim_mich wrote:If I remember correctly and according to Scott's clues page, Bessler said that springs were employed, but not as detractors suggested. Where does this clue come from?
It is clear that Besssler said his wheel did not use wind-up springs. And it was reported that one time when putting the weights into the wheel after relocating it, something inside the wheel slipped and witnesses heard what sounded like a spring being let go. (Twang?)
It seems Bessler' never said if springs MUST be used. I don't know the basis for the clue about the usage of springs, is this a combination of the spring noise being heard and wind-up springs being denied? I think Bessler may have tried to keep the fact that he used springs a secret until someone heard the spring twang.
If the wheel works in the way that I believe that it does, then I have a strong opinion that the springs were very necessary. In my opinion it would be very difficult, maybe impossible, for the wheel to work without the springs.
A string can also be made to twang if it is suddenly made taut, and not just pulled on and released as with the bow and arrow analogy.
The use of springs ( I also rely on bungee straps) is going to depend upon the design and how far out your innovation can push the envelope!
I have worked on some designs that are not only non-functional but dead weight without springs. A well thought out concept of the driver and the driven will eliminate the need of springs in the same design.
I do not put a whole lot of credence in the eyewitness report that he heard Bessler let a spring slip from his grasp. It could have been a lever he was lifting to attach the weight and let it fall upon a spring or cushion used to absorb the impact. Of all present only one party described the incident as he imagined. There were a number of other dignitary's there at the time, but I do not recall any of them making note of any such imaginary or l fact!
Ralph
I do agree with this, we really don't know the events that caused the sound to take place. I believe this sound was mentioned later when Wolff was asked about it...maybe around 1721 when the Czar was interested in him coming to Russia with the wheel. During the actual witnessing, I do not recall him mentioning anything about a spring type sound.
Maybe he just didn't want to go to Russia!
Steve
Finding the right solution...is usually a function of asking the right questions. -A. Einstein
Many people wanted to seem clever indicating that they had an idea of how the wheel worked. So it's like me being a witness at his demonstrations and bragging: "oh yeah, I know how it works, I heard him push down on a spring which twanged so I have a good idea of how it works".
Several (if not more) intellectually elite (scientists etc) were threatened by Bessler. This is one of the reasons why he was ridiculed. How could a "nobody" be smarter than them. Their livelihoods hinged upon them being perceived smarter than the rest of the population.
So it is conceivable that some odd exaggerations of eyewitness accounts occurred.
I would be very surprised if springs weren't used and as we know Bessler admits they were used. Any wheel I'd make would have a spring somewhere. My belief is still that the twang was a bit of theatrics that Bessler used. And if the set up was so simple, why not have a couple of useless wires in the wheel that could be twanged? Ideal to keep the masses guessing! I know I'd do it!
