Thursday, 31 May 2012

Bessler's pendulums are not just pendulums.

Only 5 days to go  -  6th Clue. It seems that my suggestion that the pendulums are more than mere decorations is considered highly doubtful, so I shall have to try to convince the sceptics with some more clues.  I would like to convince most people that the secret lies in "taking various illustrations together and combining them with a discerning mind, it will indeed be possible to look for a movement and, finally to find one in them," - Bessler's words, but I couldn't have put it better myself.  

He published the Merseberg drawing in its original state in 1715, in Grundlicher Bericht, and the MT was not completed with the Toys page until about 1723 and yet in Apologia Poetica, also published in 1715, he had already hinted in quite strong terms that he had left a number of clues behind in case he died before the secret was out.

I'm surprised that I'm having to say this but perhaps I should point out here that the pendulums, as shown in his illustrations, are not to be taken literally, in other words they are not what they appear to be.- that would have been far too obvious  For instance, it's no good calculating their period of swing.  They weren't there as speed limiters or modifiers, but they were inside the wheel, but not in their current form.  If you think about it for a moment you realise that it would have been crazy for Bessler to put anything which was easily read and understood correctly as a clue; it had to be opaque, even to the serious researcher. 

I am not going to add any drawings here, but if you are interested, take a look at the Merseberg wheel illustration in Das Triumphirende.  Two hints here, firstly you all know the main wheel includes a pentagon aligned on the rope that passes behind the wheel, the sloping hatch marks are to help fill in the missing parts for one of the pentagons, of which there are two.  Why is the pentagon important?

The second hint is that there is clear evidence that the wheel facing you should be drawn larger than it is shown. Check out the tops of the two right hand pendulum pillars numbered 12, they're higher than the others for a reason, but the two wheels in the picture are the same height. The enlarged circle includes the outer end of the left side of the horizontal weight and also coincides with the right edge of the picture. I leave it to you to decide how one might make use of this.

More clues in other drawings to follow.

JC

86 comments:

  1. Very, very interesting John. I'm not at all surprised the pendulums should be internal - its after all typical for Bessler to turn things around and make them opaque. And they should be in a different form, that's not surprising either. Again, it's all quite fascinating.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I remember i was walking through a forest , there were birds flying above , i imagined if one of their wings were turned around 180 degrees , what would happen , the bird would start falling but also would go into a spin , when i realised that i invented a windmill .
    - Ealadha

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You suggest Bessler used aerodynamics as well?

      Delete
    2. Not aerodynamics but gravity-dynamics !
      - Ealadha

      Delete
    3. Gravity dynamics has been used for several years on windmills. How would Bessler use this on his first wheel wich was 10cm thick?

      Delete
    4. Which wheel was besslers first , there were earlier ones , but the one shown publicly on the 6th of june 1712 , that would be leverage .

      Delete
  3. @ JC

    I'm finding it VERY difficult to remain "receptive" with these latest "clues" you are releasing!

    You wrote:

    "I'm surprised that I'm having to say this but perhaps I should point out here that the pendulums, as shown in his illustrations, are not to be taken literally, in other words they are not what they appear to be.- that would have been far too obvious For instance, it's no good calculating their period of swing. They weren't there as speed limiters or modifiers, but they were inside the wheel, but not in their current form."

    It sounds to me like you're saying that there were no EXTERNAL pendula, despite external pendula being shown operated by both the Merseburg and Weissenstein wheels! Yet, in DT, Bessler distinctly states on page 190:

    "...the arrangement has been designed in such a way that the rotational movement of the entire vertically suspended wheel can be slightly modified by the application on each side of small weights"

    It certainly sounds like he is describing EXTERNAL pendula in this passage. They are described as located on the SIDES of the vertically suspended wheel. The wheel itself was "suspended" by two strong vertical wooden uprights which had the pendula on their "sides". Each pendula could not have been on the side of an upright that was occupied by the axle, therefore, the pendula had to be on the other sides of the uprights...just as shown in the illustrations! Are you suggesting that the Master was LYING in DT?! I have to consider this HIGHLY unlikely!

    Then you wrote:

    "The second hint is that there is clear evidence that the [Merseburg] wheel facing you should be drawn larger than it is shown. Check out the tops of the two right hand pendulum pillars numbered 12, they're higher than the others for a reason, but the two wheels in the picture are the same height."

    Yes, the two wheels in the illustration are the same diameter. They SHOULD be because the point of view of the reader with respect to EACH view of the wheel is supposed to be located at the SAME distance from the CENTER of the wheel. This then REQUIRES that the pendulum uprights labeled "12" have DIFFERENT heights in order for them to obey the laws of perspective which, being an artist, Bessler would have been familiar with AND using.

    Quite frankly, John, it looks to me like you are, as they say, "grasping at straws" in your interpretation of these "clues". Wish I could be more enthusiastic about what you're offering up here, but I just don't see its relevance.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I understand your scepticism tg, but when I publish the results I hope you will change your views.

    Bessler had to explain the presence of the pendulums in his drawings so he was bound to describe them in DT. Not a single witness ever mentioned the pendulums so they obviously weren't on the wheel on any public occasion, so what was the point of them?

    But perhaps I'm wrong and I am indeed grasping at straws - but I don't tthin so.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  5. I think you're wrong about the perspective, they should all be the same height. Central pillars numbered 4 also differ in height.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Since the centers of the drums on both sides of the Merseburg illustration are the SAME distance from the viewer, that means that the two vertical pendulum supports, "12", for the full face wheel in the right side of the illustration are CLOSER to the viewer than they are, on average, in the left side of the illustration. According to the laws of perspective, those right side pendulum supports MUST be made a bit larger and that is exactly how Bessler depicts them. I don't think any artist, then or now, would have drawn these two views of the Merseburg wheel's pendulum supports differently.

      Perhaps you are interpreting the two views of the wheel as equivalent to the "orthographic" views used in engineering blueprints which would make the heights and widths of objects the same regardless of their distance from the viewer. However, Bessler's Merseburg illustration is clearly NOT intended to be a blueprint of his wheel since he also applies the laws of ARTISTIC perspective to OTHER objects in the illustration.

      Delete
  6. John,..The pendulums had to be limiters because when ever the wheel was coupled up to do work, he left the pendulums out.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Guys... could anyone please explain to me why don´t John Wortons perfected armatures work? I am no way near of being educated in math or physics, so I would be very gratefull if someone could tell me why they don't work. Thanks

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually with some modifications (to make extending/contracting easier) I think they can work quite well.

      Delete
    2. So how come nobody builds the thing ASAP. it's so easy and not that expensive. All those who believe they'll work just built it already and end these riddlles and stupid assumptions... if this... if that... just show some results already. John says that those are the levers to make it work and all he does is one of them?????????????? why not make the 8 or 12 or 5 or whatever and prove it, instead of making a photo montage of the process... am i alone thinking like this?

      Delete
    3. "... could anyone please explain to me why don´t John Wortons perfected armatures work?"

      Extended arm type OB wheels always look workable...on paper, that is. The problem is that the mobilist is so focused on getting the CoM of the smaller extended weights out onto the descending side of his wheel, that he forgets about what is happening to the CoM of his ALWAYS more massive weights that are doing the extending. Their CoM will be located much closer to the axle and ALWAYS on the ASCENDING side of the wheel. When one combines these two CoM's for ALL of the weights in the wheel, both small and large, the resulting COMPOSITE CoM will ALWAYS be DIRECTLY under the axle. ANY design that allows the CoM of ALL of its weights to sink to the "punctum quietus" or "point of stillness" below its axle will do just that: remain still because at that location the CoM of the weights will produce no torque to drive the wheel.

      Such mechanisms were NOT used in Bessler's wheels.

      Delete
  8. I've been painting oils for about 10 years.
    When you draw perspective in a painting, things closer to the viewer in the drawing are taller and grow progressively shorter the futher away they are supposed to appear to the viewer. Unless the objects further from the viewer are *supposed* to be taller; in that case, they would be drawn the same height as the objects in the foreground, to give the perspective they are taller than those objects.
    In the Meresburg drawing the two pendulum columns on the left hand side of the drawing show the foreground column taller than the background column. This indicates the two columns are meant to be the same height. Notice the board joining the base is also drawn at an angle to show the perspective front to back.

    The difference between the #4 main columns on the left hand side is due to the discrepancy between the two blocks drawn on top of the columns; they give the illusion one is shorter than the other, but the two columns are actually the same height.

    The same applies to the two right hand pendulum columns. They are closer to the foreground than the main column, by about 3 feet, if the left hand drawing shows the correct scale.

    If you want to find something askew about the perspective in the drawing, it's the way the pendulums are drawn on the left hand side. If he had drawn them properly, then they would have been shown edge on, like the rest of that side of the drawing.

    I've already given my opinion about the possibility of the pendulums being internal on the last blog. There would be no way to mount them on the axle as shown; if you made them smaller than the radius of the wheel so they would fit, and mounted 5 or 8 of them to the center of each radial beam, then that would be possible. But they wouldn't function the same way as they would if they were attached to the axle; they wouldn't regulate the rotation. Not to mention the complexity that such would add to the design. And would there be room in the 12" width for the pendulums and the weights and levers?
    Finally, if you changed their current form, as John suggests, what form would they take? They would still have to retain a pendulum like form, or they wouldn't be pendulums.
    Now some might think "the pendulums are the weights that he was referring to, and when the wheel turned, the pendulums' weights were gravitating toward the center and changing places, etc.". All I can say is, you can try mounting 5 or 8 pendulums, just like the drawing, on an axle and see for yourself if that works.

    Armatures normally refer to electric motor windings. The things you're referring to as armatures are linkages. Scissor linkages, specifically.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I also am a painter, but i wouldn't need to be to realise the yes, perspective changes the apparent size of things, being nearer or further. And yes, the pendulums on the left aro miles from being drawm correctly perspective wise. Maybe he was a poor designer(drawing) and even perhaps if they were perspectively accordant with the whole wheel on the left, we wouldn't be able to realize what their movement was at tha point because we would be seeing them sideways.

      Delete
    2. As a avid photographer myself, I agree with your observations about perspective. As for the "armature" (a term mr. Worton originally coined, and I used it too) I agree that an armature (at least in electrical engineering) are rotor windings. It has many other meanings too, such as in art (supporting, hidden framework) or in biology, an organ for offense or defense. There's many meanings. I like your scissor linkages - that's closer to what it is, acting as a lever when extended.

      Delete
    3. Poor JC!

      Here we are with only 5 days to go until the Tricentennial and his latest "clues" are being shot down faster than Germany's Messersmidts and Stuka's during the blitz on London!

      However, I remain hopeful that he still has some "secret weapon" type clues yet to be revealed that will surprise us all in the end.

      Delete
    4. Well, not so fast, TG. I do think that John is right that the wheel should be bigger, and I think pendulums (-ish) were definitely used inside the wheel. There are some (deliberate, I think) oddities in the drawings (one thing, not discussed, is the fact that the underside of the wheel seems to be thicker as the top) and some other things and clues. Clever fox Bessler loved to make such "mistakes", John certainly has a point there.

      Delete
    5. @ Andre

      I've gone over that Merseburg illustration many times and, admittedly, there are some distorted perspectives in it, notably on the left side wheel. However, my measurements of the thickness of the left side wheel's drum, labled "2", shows it to be the SAME thickness at the top and bottom. It may seem wider at the bottom, but I think this is an optical illusion caused by the proximity of the sound box portion of the stamping mill to the left of the drum.

      Bessler obviously PURPOSELY distorted some the perspectives on the left side structures a bit so that we could see the details of how they were arranged. Most notable is the distorted perspective of the pendula so that the reader can observe the unique method he used to brace the two vertical pendulum rods so as to minimize their flexing in TWO dimensions. This 2-dimensional bracing was necessary to relieve the shearing stress on a horizontal pendula pivot rods, not labled in the illustration, when the pendula bob weights were at their maximum amplitude and also to prevent the rods from undergoing stray oscillations that might move them inward toward the axle and cause them to snag on their particular cranks on the ends of the axle. If that was allowed to happen, it would destroy the pendula!

      I simply can NOT imagine that Bessler would have gone to the trouble of putting all of these interesting structural details into his illustrations IF those external pendula had never existed!

      Delete
    6. I agree. But since Bessler liked to turn things on their head, so to speak, it might very well be that the *external* pendulums were only used with a unloaded wheel - just to prevent overspeed (self-destruction) and/or to prevent excessive wear and tear on internal parts. Kind of a "dummy load". But the internal pendulums were of course always there, as the "essential constituent parts".

      Delete
  9. For my part here is the result of the concept John , I hope you don't mind the distraction :
    http://www.overunity.com/12399/my-handiwork-with-some-of-besslers-drawings/dlattach/attach/111100/

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dang, my Adobe Flash Player doesn't show it properly; it's almost completely black. Is there any other way to show it? I'd love to see it.

      Delete
    2. Use intenet explorer and allow blocked content on the inf bar at the top of the window ...

      Delete
    3. Thanks Chris, I've been able to have a look, luckily without using Internet Exploder. It is a interesting concept - what really grabs me that this is typically something I can see a clockmaker come up with. It reminds me of an escapement. Maybe the use of colors could make it more visually clear. It uses parametric oscillation prominently, which is -as we know now, also per Milkovic- is indeed quite powerful and this drives the reciprocating movement of the vertical beam, which in turn impacts at 2 and 8 o'clock with the wheel framework. I can imagine some coil springs at those impact points. All of that IMHO corresponds with a number of drawings and clues.

      The more I watch the animation, the more I like it. It's elegant and simple. Whether its Besslers design, I have no idea, but it is smart. Maybe somebody can do a simulation on it?

      Delete
    4. One sidenote: this would be unidirectional, no? What it doesn't do, as far as I can see, is protect/prevent against overspeed - self-destruct as a result of a descending load (which would speed up the wheel). Unless the reciprocating beam also impacts at 12 o'clock upon return?

      Delete
    5. One more comment about this and then I will keep my mouth shut - but what I would add to this design is overbalancing on the reciprocating beam. Half-moon shaped weights, mounted on round plates, one at the opposite ends of the beam, each switching 180 degrees upon impact so as to keep it overbalanced. Immediately after transferring the torque this would also aid in easier return (aided by gravity) to the 12 o'clock position, as well as more impact at 2 o'clock (also aided by gravity).

      Delete
    6. I did my best to "see" a movement in the illustrations I put together from the MT . Thanks for your interest . I also gave a description of how I think it could be constructed and how I think it might work at BW . And to answer your question , yes , unidirectional . You cannot necessarily tell from the animation and drawings but the levers are of slightly different lengths and their attachment points are shorter/longer to the hoops .The upper one is shorter and the lower one is longer . Also the lower weight/sphere is larger and the lower pendulum has more liquid in it than the upper one .

      Delete
    7. Yes, all that makes a lot of sense in my eyes. I certainly would add overbalancing to the reciprocating beam, for the same reasons you provide for slightly different lengths and attachment points, as well as pendulum liquid/weight - that is, use "gravity packets" as much as possible for both the downward as well as the upward movement. With a relatively small modification its even possible to drive a "armature/scissor linkage" mechanism with this instead of a rigid beam, as to both implement overbalancing as well as transferring torque to the main wheel structure. This would optimize the overbalancing aspect even more, which is important IMO.

      What is interesting here, in my view, is that we use both parametric oscillation -which is important because its powerful- as well as overbalancing, which optimizes the energy budget. Also there is good torque transfer, especially with coil springs at the impact points. Personally I would prefer to use powerful (repelling) permanent magnets at those torque transfer points. That would not only minimize noise (which is lost energy in the form of heat and sound waves) but also at the same time optimize torque transfer without the wear and tear of coil springs.

      Delete
  10. It's a nice animation Chris - I wish I could produce something like that. It would make my argument easier to understand.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes, animations are nice to watch and even fun to make. BUT, at the end of the day, they are still ONLY animations and NOT SIMULATIONS. Many people do not understand the important difference between these two ways of representing the motions of a device's various parts. Animations do NOT have to obey the laws of physics while simulations MUST obey those laws. An animation can be used to illustrate what MIGHT happen IF a device is build. A simulation is used to show what WILL happen IF a device is built (well, at least 99% of the time!).

      I have not been able to download Chris' animation, but it sounds like the design uses fluid filled containers in some way. Consequently, trying to model the mechanism on most of the sim programs freely available on the web will be difficult to impossible (depends, of course, if the modeler can find a suitable substitute to provide the various forces provided by the fluid). There are sim programs that can handle motions involving buoyancy and sloshing fluids, but they are expensive.

      Delete
    2. Captain obvious strikes again . LOL . My nephew used to call me that .

      Delete
    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    4. AFAICS it doesn't need fluids although it certainly can be done that way, maybe to minimize friction.

      Delete
  11. Send me your info and I'll make one .

    ReplyDelete
  12. John you realize that the only thing added to the animation is the capped fluid in the pendulum ? Of course the chords which tug on the device alternately are not drawn in the animation because of difficulty of drawing fluid/non-solid items .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How did you get un-banned from the Bessler wheel forum ?

      Delete
    2. Yea I am unbanned .

      Delete
    3. How did you get unbanned .

      Delete
  13. John , which wheel are you building , is it the 6th of june 1712 wheel or a later wheel ?
    - Ealadha

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thanks Chris. Ealadha, just the one-way one.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  15. TG wrote, "Poor JC!

    Here we are with only 5 days to go until the Tricentennial and his latest "clues" are being shot down faster than Germany's Messersmidts and Stuka's during the blitz on London!

    However, I remain hopeful that he still has some "secret weapon" type clues yet to be revealed that will surprise us all in the end."

    I think perhaps I shall have the last laugh, TG. I applaud your self-confidence in the face what will surely be a devastating blow to your self-esteem, when you get the whole picture. I have to disagree with your opinion about the perpective in this picture. As you point out, some of the picture is wrong from a perpspective point of view, so how can you assume that the rest of it is accurate?

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  16. "I applaud your self-confidence in the face what will surely be a devastating blow to your self-esteem, when you get the whole picture."

    EXACTLY the way I feel about the hoards of "wrong track" mobilists out there in PMland on the day that the "right track" design is finally released in ALL of its amazing details. Almost as important as that design will be the MANY subtle clues in the Bessler literature which point to it. Any one clue, by itself, might not seem that important, but, when added together, they INEVITABLY lead the pure Bessler mobilist toward only ONE design. I believe that I now have 98% of the details of THAT design. Could I be wrong? Possibly, but HIGHLY improbably, IMO. As with all things, time will tell.

    "I have to disagree with your opinion about the perpective in this picture. As you point out, some of the picture is wrong from a perpspective point of view, so how can you assume that the rest of it is accurate?"

    Yes, SOME of the perspectives ARE off, BUT it's obvious to me that those errors were INTENTIONAL for illustrative purposes. The larger heights of the vertical pendulum supports in the right side view are NOT really errors in perspective but, indeed, are REQUIRED by the laws of perspective. The other artistic posters here have already verified that detail. You, however, are apparently maintaining their heights to be in error because you NEED to use that to justify increasing the diameter of the right side drum for purposes which, I am sure, will eventually be made known to us.

    John, you may have fallen into a trap that ensnares many a dedicated researcher. They become so eager for results that, often unconsciously, they begin making the FACTS, via subtle distortions, start to fit their theories, rather than, as they should, making the THEORIES fit their facts! I saw some evidence of this when you began suggesting that there NEVER were any EXTERNAL pendula on Bessler's wheels just because we don't happen to CURRENTLY have any written mention of them. I'm sure that you would be the first to admit that we only have a SMALL percentage of all of the words that were devoted to Bessler's wheels during his lifetime. (Hmmm...come to think of it, wasn't there a scientific article published in 1715 about Bessler's wheels in Acta Eridutorum? I've never read an English translation of it, but maybe there is mention of the pendula there.)

    ReplyDelete
  17. I agree that it's possible TG, that there were pendulums, but I'm not convinced. There were many letters most of which I included in my book, which describe the wheel in detail (externally) and I'm sure that there would have been some mention of them if they had been used. But anyway the mere fact that two judges described the wheel as having a very regular rotation would appear to negate any necessity for their presence.

    But I would be the first to change my view if someone could come up with convincing evidence to the contrary.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  18. l'asse principale della ruota deve essere fatto in 3 pezzi......per ragioni che non voglio spiegare...ma non e' l'unica soluzione...questo sicuramente ha fatto bessler per come è stata descritta la funzionalità lo ha fatto in questo modo perche' il sistema possa essere difficile da capire, in gamba! nell'altro modo sarebbe stato troppo semplice da capire......la ruota ha un rapporto tra larghezza e diametro che puo' essere variabile in funzione di una forza in natura che non e' la gravità che viene utilizzata per ottenere una trasformazione di una "costante" e tramite il sistema trasformarla in una "coppia di forze"...
    il cadere dei pesi è solo figurativo in quanto la discesa equivale alla caduta....e le immagini da tenere insieme....non vuol dire accostarle una sopra l'altra ma significa dedurre il principio tramite esse....evitare di avere una massa molto alta negli azionamenti per ottenere il risultato...eppure ricordate...fate come i bambini....i bambini come si comportano.....come agiscono e come pensano.....in maniera semplice! quella è la strada....sono italiano....sono un progettista....la ruota mi appassiona dall'infanzia...e in 1 mese ho costruito la ruota in legno con .....la cosa straordinaria è che se questo dottore bessler ha fatto come me....doveva avere una grandissima pazienza in quanto lui non poteva usare il taglio laser per ottenere le dime...
    sono diventato un progettista per passione e per risolvere questo cubo di rubik!...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. the main axis of the wheel must be done in 3 pieces ...... for reasons I do not want to explain ... but not 'the only solution ... this definitely has to Bessler has been described as a function he did so because 'the system can be difficult to understand, very good! the other way would be too simple to understand ...... the wheel has a ratio between width and diameter that can 'be variable in function of a force in nature which is not' the gravity that is used to obtain a transformation a "constant" and turn it into the system via a "force couples" ...
      the fall of the weights is only illustrative in that the descent is equivalent to the fall .... and the images to hold together .... does not mean push them up against one above the other but it means to deduce the principle through them .... avoid have a very high mass in the drive to get the result ... but remember ... do as the children .... the children how to behave and how they act like ..... ..... simply ! that is the way .... I'm Italian .... I am a designer .... the wheel ... and I'm passionate about childhood in 1 month I built a wooden wheel with the extraordinary thing ..... Bessler is that if this doctor did like me .... had to have a great patience as he could not use laser cutting to get the dime ...
      I became a designer and a passion to solve this Rubik's cube! ...

      Delete
  19. ps. il pendolo bisogna osservarlo...bene...non è in scala guardate solo le distanza.....il mio e' diverso di sistema ma le distanze (rapporto tra esse) e' straordinariamente lo stesso....e viene fuori da un calcolo....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ps. the pendulum must watch ... well ... is not to scale ..... just look away and my 'system but different distances (the ratio between them) and' extraordinarily .... and the same is out of a calculation ....

      Delete
  20. The pendulums when used were only there to limit the speed of the wheel.
    Not to even out the rotation.
    Its enormous inertia took care of that.
    If it was allowed to run away it would easily destroy itself!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "If it was allowed to run away it would easily destroy itself!"

      In the "right track" design I am pursuing, this can NEVER happen.

      I've mentioned many times before that the reason an unloaded wheel would reach a certain maximum terminal rotation rate was because, as the rotation rate increased toward that limit, CF would begin to work on the active sub wheel's weights moving between the 6:00 and 9:00 positions of a CW turning drum and cause a DELAY in the time it took for them to swing CCW around their lever pivots and inward toward the drum's axle. That delay was necessary in order for a lever pivot to rotate CW to a higher elevation (relative to the floor beneath the drum) so that the gravitational force then acting on a lever's weight would be strong enough to overcome the CF acting on it and then cause the lever to begin rotating inward toward the axle. To finally begin moving a weight toward the axle, this delay would have to get lengthier as drum rotation rate increased and the CF acting on a lower quadrant ascending side weight increased. The total effect of this delay was to cause the CoM of ALL of the drum's 8 ACTIVE sub wheel's weights to then swing CW and down toward the punctum quietus point below the axle and, in the process, REDUCE the driving torque acting on the drum.

      From this, its obvious that for any wheel, there will ALWAYS be a maximum terminal rotation rate beyond which the wheel can not accelerate. In fact, a the wheel becomes larger and larger and uses more massive weights mounted on longer levers, its maximum terminal rotation rate will actually get smaller and smaller. It was necessary, of course, that ANY wheel Bessler build be able to withstand the CF that would be present when it was unloaded and turning at its maximum terminal rotation rate otherwise it would be torn apart by that CF. Bessler would have made sure that the radial support members of his wheels were more than sufficient to withstand the CF acting on them and that they were very securely attached to a SOLID wooden axle. Even somewhat thin radial support members would have been sufficient for the largest of wheels as long as they were securely attached to the axle.

      Delete
  21. Anon,..Would you mind putting that in English!

    ReplyDelete
  22. John ,
    All I have to say is that if you are right about all you think then GOOD . But if you are wrong oh! what a long way around to being . I think that we can learn , in our frustration to find some joy in the art delaying the inevitable and attaching ego to any particular idea and then at last failing . Drama drama drama . What an advantage (it would be) to gain some knowledge dealing with the problem DIRECTLY of how to lift more weight with less instead of worrying about the positions of the weights while the wheel is turning .

    ReplyDelete
  23. Caro Wilson chris rammenta.... I pendoli non esistono qui....blesser a mio parere ne mise solo uno e fu necessario per il funzionamento della ruota.....ma lo mise per far si che da fuori non si capisse il funzionamento principale!....la ruota gira.... Il perpetum mobile esiste!!! Pensa che il segreto di tutto questo ogni persona lo usa ormai spesso nella vita quotidiana quando non sapere dove andare.........!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dear Chris Wilson reminds .... Pendulums do not exist here .... Blesser in my opinion, it only took one and it was necessary for the operation of the wheel ..... but placed it to you that you do not understand the off-road operation! .... the wheel turns .... The perpetum moving there! Do you think that secret of all this now everyone uses it often in everyday life when you do not know where to go .........!!

      Delete
  24. Scrivere in italiano per allontanare chi non comprende bravo ancora chris!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Non ho padronanza sicuri di ciò che sulla terra e il cielo si sta dicendo.

      Delete
  25. Like I said,can you talk logical plain English.
    John,..Please explain to me why this blog is so paranoid about security,can nothing be done.

    ReplyDelete
  26. What do you mean Trevor? This blog isn't paranoid about security. Explain please.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry John ,..I'm talking about the ridiculous passwords we've got to try and decipher and copy.
      It's not as though we are doing a risky financial transaction like the banks.
      We just want an open blog,easy to access.
      It's no you,it's Blogger.How does one contact them to lay an objection?

      Delete
    2. Sorry John, I did reply but somebody deleted it.
      I was referring to those ridiculous passwords that we have try and decipher and copy.
      It's not as though we are doing a risky bank transaction.
      We just want an open blog,easy to access.
      It's not you ,it's the blogger.How how does one contact them to lay an objection?

      Delete
    3. I agree with Trevor, John. Those passwords are often difficult to read even on a high resolution monitor. I understand they are intended to prevent "robots" from posting spam on every blogspot blog, but it would be nice if they could be turned off at the discretion of the blog author. If that causes a problem, then they could always be turned on again.

      It would also be nice if you could enable the HTML on these blog comments so that we could put clickable links into the comments and even post a sketch every once in awhile.

      Delete
  27. Io parlo italiano molto bene, l'ho imparato in un libro.
    - Ealadha

    ReplyDelete
  28. I don't have any problem with reading the images and my posts never get deleted except by John himself .

    ReplyDelete
  29. John ,
    Don't take this wrong but I now believe that Bessler was mocking people who search for P.M. without breaking the problem down into solvable criteria :
    "God would feed me even if a thousand artists, through their learning, should discover the secret of my work. But should they fail, please don't let them blame me! And they have all failed, despite much hard work - that much is true! Every single one of them has had something in his favour - plenty of grit or plenty of mathematical subtlety - but I'll spare you those details! It still goes on - they chisel away at it till the day they drop down dead!"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wouldn't say that Bessler was actually mocking his fellow "wrong track" mobilists in that quote. Rather, he was just emphasizing how ultimately futile their efforts would be. As a "right track" Bessler mobilist, I occasionally do the same thing myself! I'm not trying to mock my fellow mobilists by doing so, just trying to "motivate" them to finally get on the "right track" with me and STAY THERE!

      The problem with the "right track" approach design that Bessler found is that, while it looks childishly simple when given a quick visual inspection, it is actually EXTREMELY COMPLEX because it requires weighted levers that are specially shaped and interconnected with each other in a certain way IF a wheel is to achieve PM. In addition, the design is CRITICALLY dependent upon the use of spring tension. It took me YEARS of effort to finally find the design he used in his 8 weighed lever wheels and I STILL do not have ALL of the details of the design! Finding that design is about as easy as trying to find a needle in a haystack the size of Mount Everest! One must proceed slowly and steadily while trying EVERY possible interpretation of EVERY possible clue Bessler gave and then constantly building to determine which interpretations are incorrect and which are correct.

      IF it was not for JC's English translations of Bessler's works and simulation software, I would only be a FRACTION of the way down the "right track" then I am now. Unlike the other "wrong track" mobilists of the past 300 years, I intend to find the solution BEFORE "the day I drop down dead"!

      Delete
    2. My point being : Bessler implied chiseling away like "considerably reducing but not to the extent that is required "

      Delete
    3. You're probably right about the metaphor he uses. He did state that he believed he was successful in achieving PM because he tried more things than others did, thus he would have done more "chiseling away" at the problem than they did.

      Delete
  30. " To prevent anyone accidentally seeing the internal structure of the machine, he covered it. Whilst he did this, he did not disguise the fact that the mechanism is moved by weights. Several such weights, wrapped in his handkerchief, he let us weigh in our hands to estimate their weight."

    My guess is several means two and I have a good idea what the handkerchief was good for .

    ReplyDelete
  31. King James 2000 Bible (©2003)
    Luke 19:20
    And another came, saying, Lord, behold, here is your pound, which I have kept laid up in a napkin:

    ReplyDelete
  32. Come again? Why are you guys always talking in code.
    You might think it is clever but it is not.
    We are not impressed.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Wow John ,what did you do?
    My post went straight on,no hassle.
    What a pleasure!

    ReplyDelete
  34. Trevor, I've removed the need for a password (I think!) and we'll see how it goes. Let me know if it is easier or just the same.

    If I'm overwhelmed with spam I'll have to reinstate it.

    TG, unfortunately there doesn't seem to be a facility to enable HTML on comments.

    Sometimes replies seem to get lost and then turn up later, sometimes out of order, and sometimes they don't turn up at all. I guess this is something we all have to live with.

    Interesting find Chris. I wonder if that passage was in his mind when he wrapped the weights in a handkerchief.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks, John, I immediately noticed it's much easier and, more importantly, QUICKER to make a comment now. Too bad about NOT being able to enable HTML. I guess one can always just put an image onto a free online image host like photobucket.com and then provide a hyper link to it in any comment he makes. Those who want to see it will have to copy and paste the URL into their "GO TO" field and hit the button next to it. A bit of a pain, but a sacrifice we'll have to make.

      Delete
    2. Yes,John if I have learned anything I truly believe that Bessler felt that God had provided a way for everything and that his job was to embody said principle into a machine . In my view Bessler must have troubled himself , not out of vanity as he spoke against but to show what God had enabled by his gifts ( being both feast and famine , flood and drought ).

      Delete
    3. Thanks, John. I'm finding it easier and faster to post comments now.

      Too bad about not being able to use HTML in our comments. I guess we'll just have to be content with copy and pasting URL's into our browser's GO TO box.

      Delete
    4. TG,
      in order to respond to John's comment you must click "reply" below JC . This reply is still in my reply box .

      Delete
    5. Or maybe not .

      Delete
  35. You do understand that to us innocent guys without hidden a genders this cloak and dagger stuff is just a hindrance.
    I guess we have our hands full just trying to solve the wheel!

    ReplyDelete
  36. Thank you for listening!

    ReplyDelete
  37. John ,
    I have just been informed that MT142 is actually the back of MT135 . I thought they were separate . Even so I think I have made great use of it . The thing I have to keep telling myself and the part I also think that no one else understands either is that the motion sustains ITSELF and therefore thinking about concepts such as what makes it move are just setbacks and nonsensical . ITS THE MOTION THAT CONTINUES ! OH , ITS THE MOTION CAUSING IT TO MOVE ! OH , I SEE , IT'S THE MOTION !!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I can see a faint reversed image of MT 143 on MT 136 which indicates that MT 143 was written on the back of MT 136.

      Delete
  38. I don't think there ever was an MT142, Chris. I didn't inlude it in my MT book because it wasn't numbered by Bessler. As far as I'm concerned MT finishes with the 'Toys' page, 138/9/0/141.

    But that doen't mean that there is no useful information to be found there. For me the wheels are always off-balance and therefore will begin to spin spontaneously as soon as the brake is released.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  39. Then who drew 142 and 143?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Good question. To me, the "style" of the drawing in MT 142 and MT 143 is that of Bessler and I accept them as his drawings.

      Delete
  40. Bessler hand-drew them whereas the others are printed of wood block he carved.

    JC

    ReplyDelete

If You Won Would You Be Willing to Share with Other Claimants?

I noted an observation on the Besslerwheel forum, which I thought worth commenting on.   Mr Tim, I think it was, suggested that “   I'm ...