Bessler said, [paraphrased here] that he could make his machines in such a way that, big or small, he could make the resulting power small or big as he chose. He could get the power to a perfectly calculated degree, multiplied up even as much as fourfold. I was thinking about that and I guess the obvious ways to increase speed and/or power would include using more mechanisms within one wheel, or increasing the size of the wheel, and using more wheels on the same axle. But I wonder what effect increasing the size of each weight would have?
Would it increase the wheel's speed or would it just provide more power or torque at the same speed? More speed doesn't necessarily lead to more torque but more weight should increase it.
How would you increase speed without increasing the size of the weights? Adding another wheel would effectively increase the size of the weights, but if you halved their size and used two wheels on one axle I wonder what if anything, the resultant change in speed might be? Having double the number of mechanisms should have an effect on speed.
Increasing the size of the wheels but using the same weights suggests that the distances travelled by the weights within the wheel might generate more speed but would it produce more torque? In theory yes, because the weights might be applying their mass at a greater distance from the axis. On the other hand although more speed might be possible would the greater distances travelled by the weights actually have a slowing effect when compared to a smaller version?
I realize we need to know what the design of the mechanisms were in order to know what the answers to the questions would be, but sometimes asking questions helps us make progress in discovering something about the nature of the mechanisms.
JC
10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.
A blog about Johann Bessler and the Orffyreus Code and my efforts to decipher it. I'll comment on things connected with it and anything I think might be of interest to anyone else.
The ‘Bessler’s Books’ button at the top of the right side panel, will take you to a page giving access to all Bessler’s books. Simply click ‘home’ to come back to my blog.
Note the copyright notice.
Monday, 16 July 2012
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
There are a number of images taken from Johann Bessler’s books which appear to support my previous post on Bessler’s Wheel Revealed. I shal...
-
So the end of the year approaches and I’m still building my Bessler-Collins wheel. I’m trying to finish it before New Years Eve, but if I do...
-
It still surprises me that some people dismiss the possibility of gravity being the chief originator of movement in Johann Bessler’s wheel. ...
Hi John,..Your present post is very interesting and relevant.Yes,size difinitely does matter.
ReplyDeleteThroughout my six year journey into the physics of the wheel Ive learned many subtle things I did not know before.
The first is that if you double the size of the wheel you get eight times the power out.
The second is if you increase the size,the rev/min becomes slower in order to maintain the periferal velocity,which is constant.
Thirdly,the wheel has a constant speed because there is a low resonant frequency which maintains itself in time with the revolution.
There are two weight configurations one can use but the one is more efficient that the other,simply because it keeps the weights always on one side of the wheel,making full use of the paired weights for torque.
I hope this info is of help to you.
The heavier the weights the more power you can get from it but the springs would have to be stonger .
ReplyDeletesorry i forgot , i was not going to post here anymore , i just answered without thinking .
Delete@ JC
ReplyDeleteYou have posed many questions in this blog entry. Let me tell you what I've learned from the "right track" design approach to solving the Bessler wheel mystery.
First, the terminal rotation rates of one of Bessler's wheels were ultimately determined by what its STARTING torque was since this was always the MAXIMUM torque its axle could have (for a two-directional wheel, this was the torque its axle had shortly after being push started). Thereafter, due to the effects of CF acting on the ascending side active weighted levers, the torque would constantly diminish with increasing drum rotation rate. The higher that the starting torque was, the faster either an "unloaded" drum could turn before the counter torques of air and bearing drag equaled whatever diminished torque it had at its terminal rotation rate. Also, the faster would be the rotation rate of the drum for a given load attached to the drum's axle before the counter torque of the attached load equaled whatever torque the the axle had at its diminished terminal rotation rate.
So, one is really ultimately interested in what factors determine the magnitude of a drum axle's STARTING torque. There are several factors to consider.
Obviously, putting several identical drums next to each other on the same axle will multiply the single drum starting torque of the axle by the number of drums.
Multiplying the masses of ALL of the 8 identical active weights used within a drum will also similarly multiply the axle's starting torque.
Increasing the lever length (the distance between a lever's mounted end weight and the lever's pivot) for all of the 8 active levers within a drum will similarly increase the starting torque of the axle (for the Merseburg wheel this distance was 14 inches and its axle's starting torque, according to my recent calculations, was 27.264 lb-in). If, for example, the length of each lever is increased by a factor of 1.5, then this will also increase the axle's starting torque by a factor of 1.5.
Interestingly, just increasing the radius of a drum (while keeping the masses of its active weights the same) will NOT also increase its axle's starting torque UNLESS the lengths of the weighted levers are also increased. One could, in theory, actually double the radius of a drum, yet, if its lever lengths are not ALSO doubled, then it will continue to have the SAME axle starting torque as it had BEFORE its radius was doubled!
I hope this information is of help to you.
I forgot to mention above that there is one ADDITIONAL way to increase the starting axle torque of a ONE-directional wheel or two-directional wheel's sub wheel.
DeleteOne can simply increase the NUMBER of weighed levers inside of the drum. For example, if one increases the weighed lever count from 8 to 12, then he increases the starting torque by 50%.
This option, however, like that of increasing lever length, risks having the levers colliding with each other with increasing weighted lever count as they swing about on a drum's ascending side and eventually requires one to increase drum radius to avoid this issue.
To summarize, the FOUR main ways to increase the STARTING axle torque of a Bessler type, OB PM gravity wheel are to:
1.) Put more individual wheels on an axle.
2.) Increase the mass of the weights attached to each of its levers.
3.) Increase the lengths of the weighted levers.
4.) Increase the NUMBER of weighted levers.
Newton's laws were verified by experiment and observation for over 200 years, and they are excellent approximations at the scales and speeds of everyday life. Newton's laws of motion, together with his law of universal gravitation and the mathematical techniques of calculus, provided for the first time a unified quantitative explanation for a wide range of physical phenomena.
ReplyDeleteThese three laws hold to a good approximation for macroscopic objects under everyday conditions. However, Newton's laws (combined with universal gravitation and classical electrodynamics) are inappropriate for use in certain circumstances, most notably at very small scales, very high speeds (in special relativity, the Lorentz factor must be included in the expression for momentum along with rest mass and velocity) or very strong gravitational fields. Therefore, the laws cannot be used to explain phenomena such as conduction of electricity in a semiconductor, optical properties of substances, errors in non-relativistically corrected GPS systems and superconductivity. Explanation of these phenomena requires more sophisticated physical theories, including general relativity and quantum field theory.
In quantum mechanics concepts such as force, momentum, and position are defined by linear operators that operate on the quantum state; at speeds that are much lower than the speed of light, Newton's laws are just as exact for these operators as they are for classical objects. At speeds comparable to the speed of light, the second law holds in the original form F = dpdt, which says that the force is the derivative of the momentum of the object with respect to time, but some of the newer versions of the second law (such as the constant mass approximation above) do not hold at relativistic velocities.
In modern physics, the laws of conservation of momentum, energy, and angular momentum are of more general validity than Newton's laws, since they apply to both light and matter, and to both classical and non-classical physics.
This can be stated simply, "Momentum, energy and angular momentum cannot be created or destroyed."
Because force is the time derivative of momentum, the concept of force is redundant and subordinate to the conservation of momentum, and is not used in fundamental theories (e.g., quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, general relativity, etc.). The standard model explains in detail how the three fundamental forces known as gauge forces originate out of exchange by virtual particles. Other forces such as gravity and fermionic degeneracy pressure also arise from the momentum conservation. Indeed, the conservation of 4-momentum in inertial motion via curved space-time results in what we call gravitational force in general relativity theory. Application of space derivative (which is a momentum operator in quantum mechanics) to overlapping wave functions of pair of fermions (particles with half-integer spin) results in shifts of maxima of compound wavefunction away from each other, which is observable as "repulsion" of fermions.
Newton stated the third law within a world-view that assumed instantaneous action at a distance between material particles. However, he was prepared for philosophical criticism of this action at a distance, and it was in this context that he stated the famous phrase "I feign no hypotheses". In modern physics, action at a distance has been completely eliminated, except for subtle effects involving quantum entanglement. However in modern engineering in all practical applications involving the motion of vehicles and satellites, the concept of action at a distance is used extensively.
Conservation of energy was discovered nearly two centuries after Newton's lifetime, the long delay occurring because of the difficulty in understanding the role of microscopic and invisible forms of energy such as heat and infra-red light.
Regardless as to when these laws were intituted,the fact remains that Newton remarked regarding Bessler's perpetual motion wheel,that you can't get something for nothing.We are dealing with everyday physics of mechanical weights and gravitation,nothing to do with atomic physics.
DeleteWhy don't you respond to my statements directly?The only thing that is going to solve this wheel is down to earth logical thought.
@ Trevor
DeleteNewton was right. One can not get something for nothing and any energy / mass that Bessler's wheels outputted had to come from SOMETHING. That "something" was the lead weights inside of a wheel's drum and, indeed, Bessler emphatically states this FACT. There's really nothing that mysterious about it. If, however, Bessler had claimed that his wheels derived their outputted energy / mass from nothing, then he SURELY would have been a fraud and his wheels hoaxes and I would not be wasting a single nanosecond with him or his inventions.
@ Doug
Congratulations. It looks like you're mastering the art of copying and pasting text pieces of wiki articles. Hopefully, this one was written by someone who had his facts straight!
Regardless of what the weights were guys Bessler still used the force of gravity,which is an innert force to produce an output of power.
DeleteThat is energy for nothing.
Bessler himself could not understand it.That is why he remarked that this could be the reason why perpetual motion in the heavens maintains itself.
Trevor you just went over the edge in your assumption "Bessler himself could not understand it " . I'm sure he fumbled around and found the device ! Ridiculous .
DeleteI hate to offer a correction to what appears to be an established fact, but there is no confirming record that Newton ever said, "One can not get something for nothing", or anything like it. I'm afraid we must lay the blame for that particular aphorism at the door of a man who has already been proven guilty of other doubtful facts of poetic licence relating to the legend of Bessler' wheel, Frank Edwards in his book,which included a chpater on Bessler, "Strangest of All", New York: Lyle Stuart, 1956.
ReplyDeleteJC
Okay John, whoever it was does not really matter,you have to agree that the scientific world as a whole is enclined to go along with the law of thermodynamics.
DeleteThey are subject to popular consensus.
If someone builds something that works then we have something to talk about , until then we don't . Increasing the "mechanisms" as you put it John will only make your wheel heavier . I suggest you get it all worked out in your head BEFORE you built it ...get it turning , then maybe you will be able to answer questions like the above .
ReplyDeleteThe size doesn't matter, because the output was tiny in comparison.
ReplyDeleteIt's a lever. A very big, heavy, lever with a relatively small mechanical advantage.
Hero of Alexandria identified the wheel and axle as one of five simple machines used to lift weights.[2] This is thought to have been in the form of the windlass which consists of crank or pulley connected to a cylindrical barrel that provides mechanical advantage to wind up a rope and lift a load such as a bucket from a well.[3]
This system is a version of the lever with loads applied tangentially to the perimeters of the wheel and axle, respectively, that are balanced around the hinge, which is the fulcrum. The mechanical advantage of the wheel and axle is the ratio of the distances from the fulcrum to the applied loads, or what is the same thing the ratio of the radial dimensions of the wheel and axle.[4]
The simple machine called a wheel and axle refers to the assembly formed by two disks, or cylinders, of different diameters mounted so they rotate together around the same axis. Forces applied to the edges of the two disks, or cylinders, provide mechanical advantage. When used as the wheel of a cart the smaller cylinder is the axle of the wheel, but when used in a windlass, winch, and other similar applications (see medieval mining lift to left) the smaller cylinder may be separate from the axle mounted in the bearings.[7][8]
Assuming the wheel and axle does not dissipate or store energy, the power generated by forces applied to the wheel must equal the power out at the axle. As the wheel and axle system rotates around its bearings, points on the circumference, or edge, of the wheel move faster than points on the circumference, or edge, of the axle. Therefore a force applied to the edge of the wheel must be less than the force applied to the edge of the axle, because power is the product of force and velocity.[9]
Let a and b be the distances from the center of the bearing to the edges of the wheel A and the axle B. If the input force FA is applied to the edge of the wheel A and the force FB at the edge of the axle B is the output, then the ratio of the velocities of points A and B is given by a/b, so the ratio of the output force to the input force, or mechanical advantage, is given by
The mechanical advantage of a simple machine like the wheel and axle is computed as the ratio of the resistance to the effort. The larger the ratio the greater the multiplication of force (torque) created or distance achieved. By varying the radii of the axle and/or wheel, any amount of mechanical advantage may be gained.[4] In this manner, the size of the wheel may be increased to an inconvenient extent. In this case a system or combination of wheels (often toothed, that is, gears) are used. As a wheel and axle is a type of lever, a system of wheels and axles is like a compound lever.[10]
Doug,..When we talk of size that means everything bigger,even the weight.We don't have to get all technical to understand this.
DeleteDoug,
ReplyDeleteCould we get a little past common sense ? I think we all know what a wheel is . I think we all know how a wheel and axle can be used as a lever ... and how a bigger wheel (given that the force is applied at the edge of the wheel) will give more leverage . That's not what John was referring to . Bessler said in effect that a smaller wheel could be made more powerful that a larger one ...or using your description , that a short lever can be made more powerful than a longer one . It doesn't seem to make sense , but knowing how Bessler's device worked might clarify things a little , huh?
Yes, that's what he said; a smaller one could be made more powerful than a larger one, but that's not what he did.
ReplyDeleteGera radius 2.325 ft.
power 5.68 W
Drascwhitz radius 4.65 ft.
power 15 W
Meresburg radius 5.575 ft.
power 21 W
Kassel radius 6 ft.
power 25 W
He had to make them bigger to make them more powerful.
The only way to make a short lever (or a smaller wheel) more powerful than a long lever (or a bigger wheel) is to increase the force on the end of the lever. He didn't do that! We can only assume he wasn't able to increase the mass in the smaller wheels for reasons we can only guess. Limitations of material, limitations of space owing to the design, and the relative weakness of the energy source are the most likely ones.
I have to agree with you Doug, his builds do not match his words - why build a 12ft wheel when you could build a slightly thicker 4ft or 6ft wheel. Maybe his comments on size and speed were meant to mislead.
DeleteSpeed was also a consideration since he said that a slow wheel wouldn't be worth much .And it wouldn't have been so wondrous to behold .
ReplyDeleteYou're ignoring the drama factor, he needed to impess with a giant wheel and twelve foot was the biggest one he could fit in the room.
ReplyDeleteJC
excuse me guys,a slower wheel at far greater leverage is no less powerfull.Look at the wind turbines,how slow they turn,and they put out megawatts of power.
Deletecentrifugal acceleration = v^2/r = rw^2
DeleteAssuming CF is a requirement in some way, and the time it takes to reset the shifting weights is also a consideration, then it makes sense to have a larger wheel as the same CF can be generated with a slower turning wheel.
Just a thought ...
Correct Sir!
DeleteWell then, here's a logical question:
ReplyDeleteWere all the weights applying leverage continuously? Or just the weights that were on the descending side?
Neither , keep guessing...
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Wi8Fv0AJA4
ReplyDeleteThere are no weights on the ascending side,only weights at the balance point,so they free wheel.
ReplyDeleteTrevor, I'm not sure I understand your comment so maybe what I am envisioning as the wheel is incorrect. In the simplest case, assume a single crossbar with two equal weights. The ascending weight is at 4' radius and the descending weight at 5' radius. This would produce an OB condition causing rotation. The weight on the ascending side (or more correctly torque) deducts from the torque of the weight on the descending side. The net gain would be a weight with a 1' radius.
DeleteI didn't understand it either.
DeleteIs this answer related to Bessler saying "one side heavy and full, the other empty and light"?
So you think then that, all the weights apply leverage at the axle all the time, a continuous 32 lbs. force ?
Every time I hear "one side heavy and full, the other side empty and light", it makes me think of the Keenie wheel. The inner wheel on the descending side is empty and outer wheel on the ascending side is empty. The inner and out wheels could be considered sides of the wheel (the inner side and outer side). Sorry for any confusion this may cause for those not familiar with the Keenie wheel. It's maker was a descendent of Bessler and I can't help but think it must have something in common with Bessler's wheel.
DeleteDoug, are you assuming that those wheel power figures are conclusively indicative of the maximum power output? As I stated in a previous post [see: Any other applications for Bessler's wheel? - 9 July 15:57], the power level of each wheel may well have been set by Bessler to that which was just enough to accomplish the goals of the particular demonstration, to avoid excessive wear and stresses, and various other factors. And possibly to confound inquisitive minds.
ReplyDelete------------------
John, you bring up some excellent points in this Blog post.
I think that the overbalance [OB] weights provide a dual function. They provide the leverage necessary for the wheel/axle to perform excess work and they also give the wheel most of it's momentum. The relative size/weight/number of the masses [i.e. the total leverage of the descending side vs. the ascending side] has little effect on the wheel's rotational speed as they are more or less locked to the impetus given to them by gravity, the effect on the wheel of changing the total mass would be that of modifying the output power.
I also think that the OB weight system is comprised of two connected sub structures. The OB weights and their levers, and the mechanism required to force the change the OB weight radius. Much like you have shown in your builds, John. I think that there are a couple of factors involved in getting the most efficiency from them. One is in ensuring the appropriate timing to cancel out latency. The other is to make sure that the shift mechanism has the overwhelming force necessary to dominantly drive the OB weight mechanism and not the reverse. Any energy flow in the wrong direction will suck that much life out of the system. And yes, I believe that this can be accomplished with a gravity driven lever.
Now, as to the mysterious Prime Mover mechanism. That wonderful device that has the magic to reset a pendular wheel, to close the loop and get it back over the top. The magic to impress upon the axle [not the OB mechanism directly] the additional momentum required to drive the wheel further into the part of the performance curve that is excess work, well beyond mere continuous rotation. A device so supernatural that it has the ability to draw off a meager portion of a turning wheel's excess power and absorb that energy into itself and impulse it back into the wheel in synergistic amplification.
I'm hoping, John, that this might be the ace up your sleeve.
- Mark [BW Forum]
I'm sure you already figured this out, but that mistake should read: ...the mechanism required to force the change of the OB weight radius.
Delete- Mark
"A device so supernatural that it has the ability to draw off a meager portion of a turning wheel's excess power and absorb that energy into itself and impulse it back into the wheel in synergistic amplification."
DeleteI agree with your assumption that the wheel consists of two components: a weight wheel and prime mover that shifts the weights in the wheel to their extended/reset positions. The prime mover is a PM device in itself but is only capable of providing energy pulses. Those pulses are able to be applied to the weight wheel, lifting the weights to their extended/reset positions. The prime mover and weight wheel work together to produce a smooth rotational movement. I don't think the primer takes energy from the wheel however (if I understand part of your comment above). Based on your comments, I believe you have discovered the prime mover and you are waiting for John to confirm.
Oops, primer? Prime Mover
DeleteMark, the power of the wheels as tested is all we have to go on. Was it the maximium? Probably. One of the earliest criticisms was the weak power. Subsequent versions were more powerful, but weak for their size. If he could have made them more powerful, and demonstrated that power in the tests to silence his critics and sell the thing, he would have. But he didn't. We are left to assume he couldn't scale up the technology he discovered.
DeleteSo, the question: Does size matter? Yes, because the wheeland axle is a lever. And no, because the force is too weak.
Torque = force times radius
I get a little perturbed when anyone refers to Bessler's device as "weak" . How much power do you suppose a self moving device extracting energy from apparently nowhere should make ?
DeleteApparently nowhere is the problem.
DeleteIf they were extracting energy from their environment, which is the only genuine explanation for their power, then that weak extraction is all I suppose they should make. It's not an insult; just a measuring stick.
Well then add the aspect of Genius to your measuring stick .
DeleteHow is the build of your solution coming along, Genius?
DeleteIt's going great actually . Thanks for asking !
DeleteDon't criticize what you cannot do yourself .
DeleteBessler: " Let the envious soul first describe to us what he thinks a true Mobile should be, what sort of device one should give that name to, and what he would be prepared to give for one - or let him actually produce one - and then we can judge the matter. In the meantime my machine will be called the PRIMUM, and it will also be called Perpetuum. The enemy in his madness can call it what he likes - my machine is the selfsame device that my enemies were unable to achieve." JC AP pg.351
DeleteYou're welcome. Good luck, maybe this time will be the charm.
DeleteFood for thought ...
ReplyDeleteAnyone ever look inside a watch and notice how the jerky movement of the prime mechanism is translated into smooth rotation of the watch hands.
Bessler built his wheels larger because that allowed him to use larger and more massive weights in them and also allowed him to use longer levers. These are the two main factors that determine a one-directional wheel's starting torque and its maximum power output. While it IS possible to increase weight mass and lever length WITHOUT also increasing the drum radius, this option has its limits because, as the levers get longer, they will eventually begin to hit against each other as they swing about on the drum's ascending side. Increasing the drum radius prevents this problem from occurring.
ReplyDeleteI suspect that, regardless of how many wheels Bessler might have made, their radii would not have exceeded 6 feet. A 6 foot piece of wood used for an axle or radial drum support is about the maximum size that a man working by himself to construct something would want to use, IMO. Also, he had to cover the open sides of the drum's with cloth and that might only have come on rolls that were a maximum of 6 feet wide.
Yes, the wheels had a reasonable maximum diameter limiting their power. The mass of the weights had to be matched to the diameter.
ReplyDeleteThe power was limited by both.
So, to put it another way, the size of the wheels matters if you're concerned about power. If you want to increase the power to a scale that could compete with modern power - after you've found the Secret Principle - you'll need materials that haven't been invented yet.
Even if Bessler admitted that the wheels he would personally construct would not exceed a six foot radius, he would have said that, once he had been paid and the design revealed, a construction crew could then make the wheel as large as they wished.
DeleteToday there are Ferris wheels (referred to as "observation wheels") that easily exceed 50 feet in radius! Such a wheel, using greater than 8 weighted levers EACH of which could weigh TONS, might be able to put out some "serious" power like several TENS of thousands of watts. With high efficiency "all electric" homes, it might then be possible to have ONE such giant wheel provide all of the electrical power for a single block of homes. But, people are already complaining about those unsightly wind turbines that are popping up all over the landscape. Soon, they would be complaining about all of giant Bessler / Ferris wheels as well!
I don't think we'd have to invent any new materials to construct such monstrosities. We already have adequate materials for the 50+ foot radius Ferris wheels and they seem to hold up well enough. At least well enough for people to risk their lives riding on one.
Ah, yes, the "Secret Principle" [my name for it]. It is TRULY the "heart and soul" of the Bessler wheel mystery. By careful positioning of the springs, Bessler discovered a way to store energy / mass within each stretched spring and then release it later when it was needed to help maintain the stability of a wheel's OB array of weighted levers. I'm still working on finding it and have recently found a promising direction to head in. The problem with the clues that describe this principle is that there are TOO MANY of them and all, save ONE, are FALSE or what I call "decoy" clues. Bessler made sure that whoever found this LAST critical principle would have to really, REALLY work HARD for it!
Those would be some seriously large secret principle springs.
DeleteHow much power would a 50 ft. wheel have?
If a 12 ft. wheel had 25 watts, 5 times as much as a 5 foot wheel ( roughly) would a 50 ft. wheel have, say, 10 times as much as a 12 ft. wheel? 100? To get to TENS of thousands of watts, the multiple has to be 1000. There's no indication from the power of successive wheels Bessler built that the multiple can be 1000.
If we are generous with the power estimates on BW.com, and use the highest figure for the Kassel wheel, 137.8 watts, and if you achieve a decent multiple of power, then a 50 ft. wheel *might* be worth the danger involved in having one, and the huge expense to construct the foundation, erect the weights and other parts, and put it all together.
"How much power would a 50 ft. wheel have?"
DeleteHere's a rough "guessimate" based on the parameters of the Merseburg wheel:
Assuming the proportions are maintained, the levers inside of the 50 ft wheel would be 50 ft / 6 ft = 8.333 times longer and that will increase the maximum starting torque and power output at any of its rotation rates by a factor of 8.333. If giant wheel contains 12 weighted levers instead of 8, that increases the maximum starting torque and power output at any rotation rate by another factor of 1.5. Finally, let's assume that each weight is a cylinder of lead that weighs one "short" ton or 2,000 lbs. That would increase the maximum starting torque and power output at any rotation rate by a factor of 2,000 lbs / 4 lbs = 500.
I think it was previously calculated that the Merseburg wheel could output about 20 watts, but it might have been able to output more at lower rotation rates. That means our giant Bessler / Ferris wheel could output at least: 20 watts x 8.333 x 1.5 x 500 = 124,995 watts.
This wheel could then continuously run an AC generator which would be able to fully power 20 high efficiency homes as long as none of them used more than a maximum of 6,249.75 watts.
Yes, it definitely sounds doable. But, would people stand to look out of their windows and see those 100 ft diameter wheels slowly turning day and night?!
125000 ? divided by 20 is a multiple of 6250.
DeleteGee, I wonder why Bessler wasn't able to get such a power multiple in any of his wheels? Hmmm, something doesn't add up here. Oh well, I guess it doesn't matter. No one makes springs that big anyway.
To Doug,
DeleteAgain, the device cannot be compared fairly to combustion...which in itself has been proven to be only 85% efficient at the most with the highest engineering possible . How do measure efficiency of something that once assembled , produces usable power from it's structure alone ?
Fletcher @ BW forum used to have the same kind of argument that other means of producing power and such were "superior" to Bessler's device...without considering the "classification" of the device . The device was a standalone in a class by itself ...not to be compared with steam engines or IC engines .
DeleteThat kind of argument to me seems childish and totally misses the point that a device which produces free power from it's structure alone , no matter how limited it might be in it's application is a great achievement .
DeleteIn this situation , no matter how you look at it the pay-off always outweighs the investment since the device can be combined , multiplied , and/or built larger .
DeleteFrom DT: "since the motive force of the device, which at the moment is only that of a small working model, can be multiplied to an almost infinite degree through combination. Further advantage can be obtained by working the device in conjunction with ordinary machines, and altogether there is no load or burden too great for the machine to face if the working arrangements are properly set up." - pg 208
It hasn't been verified by any other "structure".
DeleteUntil it is, such a device is not an achievement.
It's a machine. A hypothetical machine for our purposes. We're not going to hurt its feelings by saying it's weak.
From Chris Wilson 16 July 14:37 :
Delete"If someone builds something that works then we have something to talk about , until then we don't."
It hurts MY feeling when someone says it was weak . Bessler's device did (although it seems like it's hard for some to grasp) actually exist on the earth . Therefore it is much more than a hypothetical machine to me .
DeleteJC AP pg. 309
Delete"But now I shall have to pause, and live with my cares. How will
things go for me and this book of mine? Will people truly
understand what I'm getting at? The things that still remain to be
revealed will have to be left for a future occasion. Judge kindly,
dear Friend; search your soul, Enemy! Wild world, whether you
apportion disgrace or honour, I do not care. My mind is fixed
entirely on Heaven, for I am no longer involved in earthly
disputes. I just wish to speak the truth here; admittedly I had
thought I might gain much-deserved high honour, but foolishness
was all I received. And so praise is now the thing that interests
me not in the slightest. What I have written here may have both
good and bad in it - without a shadow of doubt the good comes
direct from God, and you can ascribe the bad to the Devil if you
like. Should anyone see me taking the wrong path, let him point
me in the true direction; please believe me when I say that the
one and only goal of all my searching and my purposing is the
Greatest Good of All. He who yearns to find it and succeeds is
truly a chosen child of the Lord, Who will never desert him. Such
a man does not seek to hate his neighbour, but is always willing
to be given advice. He tries to make the best of everything, and
believes what God has commanded him to. Such a man God will
call to Himself in Heaven, where he will remain for ever, free of
care, like a divine MOBILE."
I understand " what he was getting at " .
DeleteIt's strange, and kind of sad, that he was so pious but then destroyed his revelation.
DeleteDoug wrote:
Delete"125000 ? divided by 20 is a multiple of 6250.
Gee, I wonder why Bessler wasn't able to get such a power multiple in any of his wheels? Hmmm, something doesn't add up here. Oh well, I guess it doesn't matter. No one makes springs that big anyway."
Bessler wasn't using one TON weights in his wheels! The springs that are needed would not have to produce a contractive force of ton since they only play an assisting role in the instantaneous resetting of the CoM's location during wheel rotation. It might even be possible to replace the springs with some sort of pneumatic system that would act like a spring but would only have a fraction of its weight. Once we have the design Bessler actually used, then new possibilities will immediately suggest themselves, possibilities that even Bessler could not envision because they will involve new materials and mechanisms that did not exist in the early 18th centure.
The absence of a one ton weights isn't the issue, it's the power multiples he achieved. His best multiple was between Gera and Draschwitz, about 3 times the output. If he could have achieved 6250 times the power, or even 10 times, in one wheel to the next, by using BIGGER weights, he would have done it.
DeleteThe design he had was limited by the energy source, whatever one's theory about it. The energy source was too WEAK to lift more than 4 pounds in a 12 ft wheel. There's no indication from his demonstrations that the design Bessler actually used would lift a ton of weight in a 100 ft. wheel.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Delete@ 100 lbs for every 6 ft. ( which is 1/2 the diameter of the wheel ) a 120 ft. wheel would be able to lift (@ 60 ft. to center ) would be able to lift 1000 lbs .
DeleteDoug,
DeleteWhat are you talking about with the four pounds in a twelve foot wheel ?
Are you talking about the interior weights or an external load ?
yes the interior weights.
DeleteDoug wrote:
Delete"There's no indication from his demonstrations that the design Bessler actually used would lift a ton of weight in a 100 ft. wheel."
My Bessler / Ferris wheel power output extrapolation from the Merseburg wheel WAS accurate and it has NOTHING to do with the enlarged version lifting a ton of weight. Let me briefly review the extrapolation:
20 watts x 8.333 x 1.5 x 500 = 124,995 watts.
I had to assume a "reasonable" power output for the 6 ft radius Merseburg wheel and chose 20 watts. That was then multiplied by several scaling factors to derive the much larger power output of a 50 ft radius Bessler / Ferris wheel.
In a 50 ft radius (100 ft diameter) Bessler / Ferris wheel, the CoM of the weights is shifted horizontally away from a vertical line passing through the axle by a factor of 8.333. Thus, the CoM in the Bessler / Ferris wheel is 8.333 times farther from the vertical through the axle as compared to its distance from the vertical as found in the 6 ft radius Merseburg wheel and this factor was gotten by simply dividing 50 ft / 6 ft. Thus, the enlargement increases the starting axle torque and power output at any rotation rate of the larger wheel by a factor of 8.333.
The l.5 factor is used because we would be using 12 instead of 8 weights in the 50 ft radius Bessler / Ferris wheel (12 wts /8 wts =
1.5) and those extra 4 weights increase the axle torque and power output at any rotation rate by a factor of 1.5.
Considering that the fully loaded carts in some 50 ft radius "observation wheels" can easily weight 1 short ton or 2,000 lbs, I see no problem in using similarly massive weights in my hypothetical oversized Bessler / Ferris wheel to greatly multiply its starting axle torque and power output at any rotation rate. Since the Merseburg wheel only used 4 lb weights and the much larger Bessler / Ferris wheel uses 2,000 lb weights, the larger wheel's weights will be able to deliver excess energy / mass at a rate that is 2,000 lbs / 4 lbs = 500 times as much as the original Merseburg wheel.
Indeed, the calculated power output of the giant Bessler / Ferris wheel of 124,995 watts MIGHT even be on the LOW side!
What if i put the thing that was invented to save lives after a shipwreck on the internet . What would happen . Would someone patent it or what .
ReplyDeleteWould people use it . Does anyone here know ?
That would be dangerous because there are a lot of industrial spies out there ready to steal any new idea.
DeleteThere are lots of other blog sites that could give you advice or even approach a patent attorney.
You need not worry. Once you publish the design (assuming that you do not have "patent pending" status for it), then it is considered in the "pubic domain" and can not be patented by others. However, they can make improvements to the design you published and get patents on those. Actually, even if one does have a patent on something, there is ALWAYS the danger that some company in some foreign country will steal MOST of the design and manufacturer it anyway. IF that happens, then you'd better have a boat load of money to fight it out in THEIR country's court system.
DeleteI don't worry about these issues of patents because they are yet another part of the "rags to riches" fantasies that inventors routinely daydream about. The FACT is that something like 98% of all patented inventions NEVER earned the inventor a dime. They only COST him money to apply for the patent. It's another revenue raising scheme by governments drowning in debt! Maybe they are are of some value to the rich corporations, but for the "little guy" they are a COMPLETE waste of time, emotions, and, most importantly, MONEY!
Put it out there ealadha. Don't you want to save lives?
DeleteEaladha, they already know who you are and where you live. Get out now while you can. Your only hope is to go underground and never use your name or personal identification again. Never, ever try to access this site or any other as long as you live. With any luck, you may live to see the end of the world. Good luck and get going ...
DeleteWait, before you leave, please give us some clues. Don't make us wait 300 more years for you to show up again.
Deletehehehe ... good one.
DeleteEaladha was banned from BW. Sound familiar? Best to ignore.
There is coded iNformAtion in My posts on the bw fOrum , i wiLl/did post them backwards through time frOm 105 yearS from now .
DeleteFirst there was John Titor , then there was Ealadha .......
DeleteBeing banned twice from BW forum is something I am quite proud of really . The know-it-alls who know nothing at all .
DeleteDoug,..If you are worrying about centrifugal force on the weights then don't.Bessler did not think was a problem so why should we.
ReplyDeleteThere are no hanging weights,besides struts under tension are more than capable of handling the stress at one rev/second.
As you know,the greater the diameter,the greater is the torque.
CF within one of Bessler's wheels actually eventually CURES the problems it creates!
DeleteAs a wheel accelerates, the CF acting on the weighted levers will put an ever increasing stress on the lever pivots. BUT, at the same time the CF causes the ascending side weighted levers moving between a CW turning drum's 6:00 and 9:00 positions to swing out a bit AWAY from the axle. This action then "pulls" the CoM of all 8 weights closer to the "punctum quietus" point under the drum's axle and, as a consequence, reduces the torque turning the drum which then causes the increasing CF to begin to level off. At some point, the CF is strong enough to relocate the CoM ALMOST directly under the axle and then the torque decreases to where it just equals the counter torque of air and bearing drag. When that terminal rotation rate is achieved, there is no net driving torque left over to cause any any further acceleration in the drum. Thus, a Bessler wheel can never accelerate to the point where it tears itself apart with CF.
Genius!
DeleteI suppose it depends on the design ...
DeleteIn one of my designs, it would help lift the upper weight into position, but it would work against lifting the lower weight back to the reset position.
In another design I am working on, it only works entirely off CF.
"In another design I am working on, it only works entirely off CF."
DeleteThe obvious advantage of CF only designs is that they could work in a horizontal position or, indeed, ANY orientation whereas Bessler's wheels HAD to be vertically oriented with respect to the Earth's surface in order to operate.
Unfortunately, these designs are prohibited by Newton's Third Law of Motion which, basically, states that the SUM of the torques in a closed system (which is one's CF only design) MUST equal ZERO at any instant. That also means that the sum of the CF's acting on ALL of a rotary device's parts must also equal zero at any instant. Since this is the case, it then becomes impossible to construct ANY type of device in which there would somehow be a NET CF available that could be used to operate the device against air and bearing drag and also perform "outside" work.
Bessler's wheels, fortunately, did not depend upon CF for their operation.
Face it TG, until you have a working wheel, all your statements are just opinions.
Delete@ Anonymous 12:25
DeleteWith regard to the "right track" approach to solving the Bessler wheel mystery, my statements are FAR closer to being facts than to being merely opinions considering that I'm now about 98% of the way to final success. Perhaps my statements should be called 98% fact and 2% opinion?!
With regard to other approaches, my statments will, of course, be less factual and more opinionated depending upon how much personal experience I have with a particular approach.
For example, there was a time when I was convinced that it might be possible to develop an "inertial drive" and even constructed a device that was intended to function as "rectified centrifuge". The idea was childishly simple (most "wrong track" approaches are!).
I used a motor driven axle to quickly rotate a metal bar. This metal bar could slide smoothly back and forth perpendicularly through a slit cut through a diameter of the axle and, using two opposed solenoids, I had arranged things so that, as the axle spun through 180 degrees, the metal bar would be quickly yanked through the slit so that its quickly swinging LONGER and more massive end was always on the SAME side of the axle while the bar shorter and less massive end was always on the opposite side of the axle.
This was supposed to create a situation in which the greater CF acting on the longer end of the metal bar than on the shorter end would make the entire track mounted device accelerate toward the side of the axle that had the longer end of the bar. On paper the design looked flawless, but despite dozens of experiments, I couldn't get the damned thing to move even fraction of an inch!
It was then that I learned the HARD WAY about the REALITY of Newton's 3rd Law of Motion. Yes, the longer end of the metal bar was producing more CF in one direction than the shorter end was producing in the opposite direction. BUT, in the process of EXTENDING the metal bar and creating that longer end on one side of the axle, my solenoid was SIMULTANEOUSLY pushing the axle and the rest of the device attached to it in the opposite direction with the EXACT same amount of force! There was NO net CF working on the device to propel it down the track and there never could be. Needless to say, I never tried another such device again nor any other approach using CF for that matter.
So, when I see someone appear on the scene who thinks he can use CF to make a wheel turn or to create an inertialess or reactionless drive, I just remember my early experiments with it and smile to myself. I don't waste my breath trying to convince him otherwise because anything I say will just be dismissed as an "opinion" and probably a wrong one at that. Most mobilists, myself included, just have an unfortunate "need" to learn their lessons the HARD way.
That's why I'm SO glad that I have finally risen above those early mistakes by stumbling upon the "right track" approach to Bessler's wheels. I want to see a solution to his mystery before I finally pass from this world. 300 years is long enough to wait. We need a solution NOW and I'm VERY sure (at least 98% so) that CF will NOT be a part of it nor of any other type of design for attaining PM.
The only thing you are doing is stumbling down the "wrong track".
Delete@ Anon 13:52 ... Not to worry, Tech is 98% on his way to a balanced wheel, and I'm 100% sure of that. It sounds like he took a correspondence course in reading tea leaves and bessler portraits.
DeleteA balanced wheel , according to what I know is actually not as bad as you might think ... but not in the way that you think .
DeleteChris, Funny you should mention balance. Not sure if we are working on similar designs but a few years ago I found a interesting variation of MT9 that I would like to share with you. It is 100% balanced (angularly) and overbalanced (radially) on the descending side. Normally with a design such as MT9, while the upper weight is being raised, the corresponding lower weight (weight opposite the lifted weight) is not being balanced by the upper weight and therefore causes a back force which would slow the wheel. The same holds true while lifting the lower weight. Well the design I found produces zero back force when the upper and lower weights are lifted. Initially I thought that the overbalanced force from the wheel would have to provide the impetus to lift the weights, and in the end, this may still be the case. However, after many hours of testing and examination, I believe that the momentum of the upper and lower weights may provide the impetus to move themselves to their raised positions. Time will tell. I just thought I would share this with you. As I mentioned in an earlier post, I credit you for keeping me focused during a time of great depression (yes from a previous failure), and for this, I will always be grateful to you. I hope the work on your wheel goes well. Rick
DeleteAnonymous 13:52 wrote:
Delete"The only thing you are doing is stumbling down the "wrong track"."
Getting on the "right track" requires a Bessler mobilist to completely revise his approach to the subject. Most will lack the will power to do this. STAYING on the "right track" until one's journey is completed and rewarded with a WORKING OB PM gravity wheel requires even more effort. Yes, once on it, the mobilist will do A LOT of stumbling about, but the DT portrait clues will guide him at critical times. The "right track" is NOT a STRAIGHT path to instant success. There are MANY twists and turns along the way, but, unlike the scores of "wrong track" approaches out there, it is not just ANOTHER dead end.
Anonymous 14:05 wrote:
"It sounds like he took a correspondence course in reading tea leaves and bessler portraits."
Actually, if I thought that reading tea leaves would help interpret those DT portrait clues, then I'd be willing to give it a try!
The clues can ONLY be interpreted properly by a "right track" Bessler mobilist AFTER he has found a particular element in Bessler's design that works and has VERIFIED that via actual construction / modeling and NOT one second before. To the "arm chair philosophers", "wrong track" mobilists, and "no trackers" out there in PMland, the portrait clues will APPEAR to be COMPLETELY meaningless. This effect was, I assure you, quite INTENTIONAL on the part of Bessler.
I am only ever going to hint at my design in the way that it differs from " classical " overbalanced concepts . I am done sharing . I am sorry for that but JC feels the same way about sharing a " concept " as I do . Without some kind of build there is really nothing to talk about . Give your all in thought and then build something from there .
Delete"I am done sharing"
DeleteI can sympathize with your sentiment there because I am very hesitant to even discuss the "right track" DT portrait clue interpretations on ANY blog or free-energy site considering the past difficulty I've encountered here in just trying to share even the most general overview of the "right track" approach itself.
There is little difficulty when ACTIVE "right tracker" Bessler mobilists discuss the interpretations amongst themselves, but once one of them tries to share them with "outsiders" (that is, "wrong trackers" and "no trackers"), he finds himself in a situation which is somewhat analogous to that of a person trying to explain the operation of, say, a simple lever to a cat. It only wastes the person's time and, worst of all, it bores and even irritates the cat!
I have also looked at centrifugal-force only designs. There is an approach which I thought was fairly interesting:—
ReplyDeletePut an offset mass on the wheel's vertical centerline. Attach it to one end of a horizontal arm. Attach the arm's other end to the wheel with a torsion link (i.e. a pivot plus a torsion spring).
Analysing that, with the wheel spinning, there are two equal and opposite torques acting on the wheel. One is from the torsion spring alone, and the other, which acts at the pivot, is from the centrifugal force on the mass multiplied by the arm length.
The question is: can these torques be separated out in a real machine? By that I mean can either one of them be made to act against the Earth, while the other one still acts on the wheel and thus keeps it turning? (As yet, I haven't seen a viable way!)
Easy guys. Remember we are all working toward the same goal. Result oriented, goal focused, people often get into these types of battles. These behaviorisms are in the nature of this type of individual. I see it every day at work. We have to learn to respect other's ideas no matter how certain we are in our own work. Bessler said his wheels were based on different principles. If this is so, then there may be many ways to achieve a runner. So I say to everyone here, please treat everyone with respect, including the ideas they present. Until a working wheel has been offered to the public, no approach can or should be assumed to be the "only" approach, regardless of the amount of work already done by someone or in any specific area. Let me remind everyone of the following statement by Bessler. "I found it where everyone else looked". I think that says it all. R
ReplyDelete"I found it where everyone else looked".
DeleteYes, and nearly everyone else was looking to OB wheels for a solution. The difference between theirs and Bessler's was that his could keep the CoM of their weights fixed on a wheel's descending side during rotation while their could not.
I, of course, wish everyone the best of luck with their various approaches to achieving PM and I will admit that there MAY be ways other than Bessler's to achieve it as evidenced by Asa Jackson's wheel which was a radical departure from the design Bessler used. I, however, am ONLY interested in how BESSLER achieved it because he is the only one to my knowledge to do so other than Jackson.
NO ONE should assume that, should their approach actually produce a PM, that it is the SAME as the one that Bessler used. If they make that erroneous assumption, then it will be THEY who are ASSUMING that there is only ONE way of achieving PM!
"NO ONE should assume that, should their approach actually produce a PM, that it is the SAME as the one that Bessler used."
DeleteOf course, IF the design DOES work AND agrees with the most "reasonable" interpretations of ALL of the clues in the Bessler literature, then, to a VERY high degree, it probably IS the design Bessler used! Even after a "right track" design is finally produced which meets all of these criteria, it will still take time for it to be fully accepted by humanity, but I have no doubt that that will happen eventually. The bigger a discovery is, the harder it is for it to achieve acceptance.
Well said! We will all utimately benifit from the wheel regardless of who has ownership.
ReplyDeleteI'm looking further into the general approach of "separating out" that I mentioned above, i.e. finding two things (torques, or forces etc) that would normally cancel each other out when they both act together on a wheel, and getting one of them to no longer act on the wheel, but on something else, e.g. Earth.
ReplyDeleteA while ago I mentioned the rate gyroscope as one possibility, where a rate input (i.e. an input of angular velocity only) produces a torque output, and whether that can be separated from the converse of a torque input giving a rate output. (See "The Rate Gyro", bottom of page 2 of http://tinyurl.com/6uuughx. (It's a pdf)).
It looks like gravity wheels can be roughly divided down into three subcatagories: OB gravity only, OB CF hybrids, and, finally, CF only types.
DeleteStarting with the last catagory first, if one believes in the validity of Newton's 3rd Law of Motion (and I certainly do!), then CF only wheels are IMPOSSIBLE to achieve. They are the equivalent of a linear reactionless drive system curled up within a wheel to achieve constant torque and motion. If, as in the personal experience I described above, linear reactionless drive systems can not work, then their rotary analogs will not work either. My recommendation is that mobilists NOT waste their time on them.
OB CF hybrids use the OB CoM of weights for torque, but seek to "reset" the weights after each increment of wheel rotation using CF. I do not have enough experience with these types of designs to dismiss them outright. Resetting weights after each increment of wheel rotation usually requires that they be supplied with some extra energy / mass. Perhaps it would be possible to have weights slide inward toward a wheel's axle as they passed the 6:00 position and then to use their release of energy / mass to slide weights outward toward the wheel's rim as they passed the 12:00 position so that the CoM of all of the wheel's weights would remain on the wheel's descending side. This is one approach that a mobilist interested in OB CF hybrids might consider exploring. I'm not sure, however, if such a hybrid design would be self-starting from any wheel orientation and, if not, then it could not be the design that Bessler found.
The "right track" design I pursue and advocate is a gravity only type of design and it, like Bessler wheels, WILL be self-starting from any drum orientation. Yes, it employs springs to temporarily store energy / mass, but that energy / mass comes solely from the weights in the wheel.
I don't hold out much hope for centrifugal force by itself for an energy-producing wheel, nor for gravity by itself. Neither, as far as I can see, can introduce net energy into the system. That's why I mentioned Earth — the rotating Earth is a source of energy if we could figure out how to exploit it well.
DeleteArktos wrote:
ReplyDelete"That's why I mentioned Earth — the rotating Earth is a source of energy if we could figure out how to exploit it well."
Sounds that, like Doug, you do not believe that Bessler's wheels carried their own "onboard" sources of energy / mass (which, as everyone here should know by now, I believe was the energy / mass content of their lead weights), but, rather, were "geo powered" in some vague way. Sadly, that belief disqualifies you from becoming a "right track" Bessler mobilist at this time. I shall, however, look forward to your future conversion.
TG,
ReplyDeleteDo you think your wheel will violate any known laws as they are written or understood today?
Firstly, it's not MY wheel, but, rather, that of Johann Bessler. I am only the "conduit" through which his various clues, once PROPERLY interpreted, will allow the design he found to finally be duplicated and his reputation to be cleared of any and all suspicions of fraud!
DeleteSecondly, Bessler's wheels did NOT violate ANY of the laws of physics that were known in the early 18th century. Once they resurrected, they will not violate any of our presently known laws of physics. And, should human beings still exist a BILLION years from now, his wheels will not be violating any of the laws of physics they have then!
TG,
Delete"it's not MY wheel, but, rather, that of Johann Bessler. I am only the conduit through which ... will allow the design he found to finally be duplicated"
So you admit "nothing" you are doing is of your own design or idea. You just gave a nice gift to Bessler heir's in America.
I had one of our paralegals in our patent office read your statement and you have all but given away any claim or right to the wheel once completed. You may want to seek advice from an attorney before attempting to patent the device as your words will be used against you should a patent infringement case go before a judge. The patent office may also find this bit of information and your request could be denied because of this.
DeleteGentlemen, I PURPOSELY made that statement to ASSURE everyone that I have NO intention of trying to patent the "right track" design I am working on. This is because, to reiterate, I do NOT consider it to be my design, but rather that of Johann Bessler. I would never try to patent someone ELSE'S invention, even if I could get away with it. In my book that would be dishonest and unethical.
DeleteBut, by the same token, neither will anybody else be able to patent Bessler's original design either. It really "belongs" to history or to the world. I don't think his original design will ever amount to much anyway. IF anything comes of it, that will be the result of improvements made to it by others and, in those cases, they SHOULD be able to patent those and, hopefully, make some money off of them to compensate them for their efforts. My ONLY compensation will be KNOWING that this annoying 300 year old mystery is FINALLY solved! That's quite enough for me, thank you.
@ TG,
DeleteYou could however patent or trademark your "Right Track" approach as this is your process of verification and elimination of Bessler's clues thru trial and error of building. I may not have presented my point accurately but I think you know what I am mean. Who knows, maybe the same approach will lead to the discovery of principles behind the Asa and Keenie wheels.
Heck, it's an approach that could apply to many areas of engineering and scientific research.
@ Anonymous 19:54
DeleteThe "right track" approach is just the most probable DESIGN for Bessler's wheels based upon the most probable interpretations of HIS various clues. The method used to verify this design is simply trial and error modeling and nothing more. I don't see any need to patent any of this. It would be like trying to patent logic itself or the simple process of elimination.
I'm sure that there is also a "right track" approach that is appropriate for Asa Jackson's wheels. But, Jackson, unlike Bessler, did not leave us with drawings filled with symbols describing the inner workings of his wheels that needed to be interpreted. Jackson just left us the entire wheel itself!
Someday, after the Bessler mystery is resolved, I may take a serious look at Jackson's wheel. I already have a general idea of how it worked and there ARE hundreds of close up photos that have been taken of its various components. However, because of the complexity of his wheel's central rocking mechanism, it will be a "challenge" to successfully duplicate it through either building or computer modeling. Although smaller than Bessler's largest wheels, it appears to be more mechanically complicated. But, where there's a will, there's often a way.
One's efforts with the Jackson wheel, however, could be greatly aided if he could get permission from the museum owners to actually handle the mechanism of the wheel itself. I can understand, because the wheel is a major attraction there, why they would be hesitant to allow that. It's not because they are afraid someone might analyze it and declare it a hoax. No, it's because they don't want the wheel damaged. Something made of wood that is about 150 years old is probably going to be on the fragile side and needs to be handled VERY carefully to avoid damage. It's actually more of a job for trained forensic archaeologists to deal with than for amateur mobilists. But, only an active mobilist would know what to look for while handling the Jackson wheel.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete