I explained my reasoning by saying that the words ‘principis agi..t’ derived, in my opinion, from the Latin ‘ago’, ‘to drive’ or ‘put in motion’, and that this translated as ‘principle of motion or movement’, however Stewart's work on the translation has persuaded me that his translation, 'connectedness principle' is correct and it seems to fit better with the preceeding text.
I've had some more thoughts about this phrase and I think one can infer that it refers to either a connection between two objects or an interconnection between several. I prefer the idea of two-part connections because I think he would have used some word such as interconnectedness to describe a connection between several objects. He also states that his weights worked in pairs, and that seems to fit. But what else can we gather from the phrase?
Connectedness implies a degree of connection somewhat less than a full connection and I'm thinking of something like, for instance, a length of rope between ones-self and a heavy object. You can pull it but you can't push it, so it's a one-way connection. My research has has shown how this is used in Bessler's wheel and he has used two similar arrangement for moving weights in both direction but only pushing them, and then he allows one hald of the pair of weights to return under its own steam and the other is brought back by the pull-not-push method.
But there is another version of the pull-not-push which gives additional advantages. Using a lever which is articulated or hinged a point between the two ends allows one to pull another object but also to push it and, with the desired proportions, to push it with extra force over a shorter distance. A combination of these features is used in Bessler's wheel.
JC
10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.
Sounds like you were originally trying to "retranslate" the "Connectedness Principle" out of existence because it did not fit in with you then current wheel design! Glad to read that you finally accept it as a reality and an important feature of Bessler's wheels.
ReplyDeleteIn my "right track" approach, the Connectedness Principle refers to the collection of cords of various lengths that interconnected the 8 weighted levers within one of Bessler's one-directional wheels or two-directional wheel's sub wheels. These cords do NO pushing. They only pull and, at times, are either slack or taut depending upon the orientations of the levers they interconnect. They are critical to maintaining the "coordination" between the shifting levers as the drum rotates and also play a major role in the transfer of energy / mass between the weights that is vital to maintaining the OB of their CoM.
There are clues in the DT portraits that indicate that each one-directional wheel's weighted lever was divided into 5 "layers" that each contained one or more cords. The layers were necessary in order to keep the cords from rubbing against each other, fraying, and failing prematurely during drum rotation.
In order to maintain the coordination of the weighted levers, these cords had to be attached to SPECIFIC points on the levers and the levers themselves had to have a certain shape. Again, clues in the portraits provide the information to shape one's "magic" levers AND determine were to attach the cords to them.
No TG, I was certainly not trying to "retranslate" the "Connectedness Principle" out of existence because it did not fit in with [my] then current wheel design! I have always sought the most accurate translation within the limitations of my own abilty to do so. Some of my few corrections have proved accurate - this one didn't.
ReplyDeleteJC
That's good to know, John. I, too, have encountered translated quotes that I found problematic. We should, of course, always seek to make our theories fit the facts rather than the facts fit the theories. Bessler's "Connectedness Principle" is VERY important and represents a MAJOR design departure from the "Rolling Ball Weight Wheel" and "Isolated Perpetual Motion Structures Wheel" designs that have dominated the history of failed PM devices.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with Bessler research is that one never really seems to obtain enough agreement to establish anything as a fact when it comes to determining how his wheels may have worked. Everyone seems to have his own pet theory and most of them have very little in common other than, perhaps, that they attempt to maintain the OB of the CoM of a design's weights! But, as someone once noted, "When the facts are few, the theories will be many."
Despite this handicap, I have found that formulating a valid theory of operation and construction for Bessler's wheels can, at least, be started by simply using the various textural and witness clues. That theory then becomes the foundation one needs to begin to explore the many DT portrait clues. IMO, ONLY they will provide the FINAL details that are needed in order to construct a working replica of Bessler's OB PM gravity wheels.
From the textural and observer clues alone, I learned with regard to Bessler's wheels:
a.) That their motion depended upon the maintenance of the imbalance of a collection of weights during drum rotation.
b.) That there were 8 of these weights in motion during rotation which were mounted on the ends of levers.
c.) That there were cords and springs involved in the process of maintaining the imbalance of the weights.
d.) That the "works" of a wheel were contained in the drum near the rim, nothing was on or near the axle section inside of the drum.
e.) That the two-directional wheels were made from two one-directional wheels.
f.) That the design was "simple".
That's about it in a nutshell. The details, however, are a LOT harder to determine, but the DT portraits are, I believe, the place to start...BUT, only if one is an ACTIVE builder / computer modeler! If not, then the mobilist will never progress upon that general theory above which can be derived from the textual and witness clues. He will remain stuck in a sort of limbo and can only hope to escape by hitting upon a working design by chance. Yes, it COULD happen, but, then again, one might also win a major lottery with one ticket and retire for life! By studying the DT portraits in-depth, however, one will be able to greatly improve his odds of success.
Hi technoguy,
ReplyDeleteinteresting how we might not even agree on such basics as your a) to f)...
My feedback: I go along with you on a) and f). With b) I agree that (about) 8 sounds were heard per cycle, but not necessarily with the conclusion that this indicates that 8 weights existed. I started my physical models with the 8-weights approach which gave me an interesting no-runner, which had the potential of a runner, if only I could build in a small lifting action between 6 and 7 o'clock (running clockwise). I switched to a 3-chambers/weights approach as drawn by Bessler in the Annexe of Apologia, because it provides much the same situation at 7 o'clock, but I only have to keep my eye on 2 other weights to see what is going on. After all: the master himself gave this very strong clue which tends to be ignored by most builders. Consider each weight going thru 3 locations where it hits off a wall, and you have 3x3 sounds, which is about 8...
As regards c) cords and/or springs, yes I go along with that. d) and e) not sure, undecided.
Of course, if the 3-symmetry works, it should be easy to build an 8-symmetry using similar construction principles. I think the confusion with the clues is partly because Bessler was explaining the current wheel at each point in time, and he probably varied his design.
Even agreeing on only a) and f) is a good start. There are mobilists out there who will not even agree on a.) by itself!
DeleteAs far as the "wheel" shown in AP is concerned, I'm not even sure that it is a wheel. Yes, it is circular in shape and contains what APPEARS to be an axle, but it could easily represent some symbol of esoteric / religious significance to Bessler which is NOT relevant to his secret wheel mechanism. It could also have been added merely to confuse reverse engineering readers and get them chasing after various "wrong track" designs. I don't pay it much attention.
I have found that the most important region in a CW turning drum of a one-directional wheel or sub wheel is that between 6:00 and 10:30. Something very unusual is happening there as weighted levers approach the 9:00 position. Spring tension is critical to the process taking place there.
Bessler probably did make small modifications to his design over time, but I think these were only meant to improve its power output by increasing its efficiency and net axle torque. I'm not convinced that his BASIC design really changed that much since his "House of Richters" discovery in early 1712.
I agree with a) e) and f).
ReplyDeleteBut if there were 8 weights heard in the two directional wheels and you believe, as I do, that the two-directional wheel were made from two one-directional wheels, then surely the sound of 8 weights might include 4 reversing? Which leaves us with 4 weights for the one-directional wheels. Add a bit of subterfuge by Bessler, to confuse the witnesses, and dampen the sound of one weight for erasvch direction, and there could be 5 as I have consistently surmised.
JC
"...then surely the sound of 8 weights might include 4 reversing? Which leaves us with 4 weights for the one-directional wheels."
DeleteI don't think it's possible to make a one-directional OB PM wheel using only 4 weighted levers. In my "right track" design EACH of the two one-directional "sub wheels" within a two-directional wheel has a full set of 8 weighted levers. BUT, the 8 weighted levers of the sub wheel forced to undergo retrograde rotation become locked into position against their rim stops. Thus, they stop shifting about during drum rotation, consequently produce no sounds, and their CoM remains located at the center of the axle. In a two-directional wheel turning in EITHER of its two possible directions of rotation, only ONE of its two sub wheels actually drives the wheel. The weights of the INACTIVE retrograde turning sub wheel are only along for the ride but do contribute to the overall moment of inertia of the two-directional wheel.
No, I believe the weights performed the same task in either direction. They were however in different sections as the connectedness only went between a pair of these weights. They are connected using cords, or aircraft grade cables as in my design. These cords, then incorporated springs in tension to store the energy and return it to the total rotating mass in the right moment. Timing is everything
ReplyDeleteFour people; four differing viewpoints; and maybe we're all wrong!
ReplyDeleteJC
Don't forget me!
ReplyDeleteWhat if there was an inner wheel that had 16 weights, and the outer wheel was merely a shell and it was geared to run twice as fast as the inner wheel. You would still hear 8 bangs for every rotation of the outer shell, but the inner wheel would have only made half a turn. Having a setup like this would make the outer wheel easier to turn and hide the amount of mass/inertial of the inner wheel. I know it is not a "right track" approach but it is a possibility. Rick
ReplyDeleteSorry Trevor! There's probably as many views as there are people reading this bog, but I guess most of us share some parts of the whole picture.
ReplyDeleteWe can't afford to rule anything out, Rick.
JC
TG said:
ReplyDelete"No gravity is still a conservative force. I could have, perhaps, phrased things differently. Based on just the vertical distances moved, the descending side weights ultimately must lose the SAME amount of energy / mass as is regained by the ascending side weights. However, momentarily, the descending side weights lose their gravitational potential energy / mass at a faster rate than it is regained by the ascending side weights. This is because the OB design causes the descending side weights to momentarily increase their vertical drop rate. This requires that the descending side weights speed up a bit and that requires that they be supplied with EXTRA energy / mass that will appear in a kinetic form. That extra energy / mass comes DIRECTLY from the energy / mass content of the weights themselves or what I called their "innate" energy / mass."
Te measurement of gravitational potential energy in a weight is only based on 3 things:
mgh - mass, gravitational acceleration, and vertical distance (height).
Since the gravitational acceleration is the same in both directions, down and up, it can't be "momentarily increased" by a weight, or the OB design. That's the same sort of circular reasoning John brought up about the PM question a while back.
You want the wheel design to add energy to the weights -
("This is because the OB design causes the descending side weights to momentarily increase their vertical drop rate.") Yes, that would be nice, wouldn't it?
-so the weights can return the energy to the wheel, in the "innate form".
Innate simply means natural, inherent, intrinsic. It's not a recognized form of energy.
For an OB design to work, the weights would have to be forced to take the short path back up. The weights exert an equal force on the wheel part that tries to force them to take this route. In your design, they exert that force (after they've bottomed out and need to be "swung back" to the axle) on the weights that you've connected them to with your cords. The springs are superflous because they only return the same force that gravity gave them. When your design, or any OB design, tries to multiply force, it's going to be defeated by distance; the law of leverage, and the forces always balance. It can't be broken, or fooled.
Connectedness, either rigid or elastic, makes no difference. The connections just make things worse. Maybe when he said connectedness (or principle of motion or movement, I like those too), he meant connected to the earth.
John said:
"Using a lever which is articulated or hinged a point between the two ends allows one to pull another object but also to push it and, with the desired proportions, to push it with extra force over a shorter distance."
That would be nice, too, but levers don't work that way.
Doug wrote: "Since the gravitational acceleration is the same in both directions, down and up, it can't be "momentarily increased" by a weight, or the OB design."
DeleteThe acceleration I mentioned has NOTHING to do with gravitational acceleration. It is the acceleration that the weights ENTERING the descending side of a rotating OB wheel near its 12:00 position MUST experience as the design moves them farther from the wheel's axle.
And: "Innate simply means natural, inherent, intrinsic. It's not a recognized form of energy."
ANY object that has mass, no matter how small, whether it is moving or stationary, whether it is in a gravity field or not, WILL contain a finite amount of energy / mass. I have referred to this as its "innate" energy / mass for the sake of discussion. It can, upon transfer to other objects, display itself in a wide VARIETY of forms. But, they are, ultimately, ALL just various amounts of energy / mass. Sort of like having coins of various shapes and sizes that are all made of the same metal.
And: "The springs are superflous because they only return the same force that gravity gave them."
The springs in Bessler's wheels only TEMPORARILY stored SOME of the wheel's outputted energy / mass during a certain portion of their journey about the axle. That stored energy / mass was then released later in their travels so as to provide the something "extra" needed to continously shift the weighted levers and thereby maintain the OB of their weights' CoM. The springs, IMO, were CRITICAL to the operation of Bessler's wheels. Whenever one sees a mobilist working on a design that does NOT incorporate springs, that is a sure sign that it will be a NON-runner.
And: "Connectedness, either rigid or elastic, makes no difference. The connections just make things worse."
Without the use of interconnecting cords there would be no coordination and synchronization of the shifting motions of the weighted levers within one of Bessler's wheels and the CoM of their weights would not remain on the descending side during drum rotation. Like springs, interconnecting cords were CRITICAL to the successful operation of Bessler's wheels.
PART I:
ReplyDeleteOne of the problems that the serious ACTIVE reverse engineering Bessler mobilist can run into is known as the "escalating complexity syndrome".
He starts out with some simple little design, perhaps inspired by the numerous UNworkable MT designs, and then, eventually realizing that it does not work, he embellishes it with a modification here and another there in the hopes of deriving something, ANYTHING, that will work. He finally winds up with a ponderous collection of parts which, when it does not work as anticipated, he wonders whether its failure is due all of the friction in the design, his being on the "wrong track", or BOTH! The Master summed it up nicely when he wrote:
"He can rack his brains and work his fingers to the bones with all sorts of ingenious ideas about adding extra weights here and there. The only result would be that his wheel will get heavier and heavier - it would run longer if it were empty!" (AP, pg. 295)
We must ALWAYS keep in mind that the design Bessler found and used was SIMPLE! This was attested to by Karl on several occasions and he even remarked that he was SURPRISED that no one else had thought of it! Bessler is also quoted as having said that he feared that if someone actually paid the 100k thalers for the secret design, then he might feel it was NOT worth the price!
To me, "simple" means having the LEAST number of parts needed to function and that functioning taking place as efficiently as possible. OTOH, however, if the Bessler's design was TOO simple, then, surely, it would have been discovered by others long before him or shortly after him and I would not be writing these words now. So, while I fully accept that Bessler's design was "simple", I can only rationalize its NON rediscovery by others as being due to its NOVELTY. Most highly likely, it used spring tension in a VERY unique way to counter balance the weighted levers traveling between the 9:00 and 3:00 positions of a CW rotating drum so that they could be EASILY shifted by the CCW swinging of the SINGLE weighted lever approaching the 9:00 position of the drum.
PART II:
ReplyDeleteThis novel method Bessler employed probably occurred to him because of his work with and familiarity with the various types of mechanisms used in organ construction. Indeed, a LOT of CORDS and SPRINGS went into the construction of the organs of Bessler's time. I refer to the novel method Bessler used to turn a "NON-runner" into a "runner" as his "Secret Principle" and learning its details is now the CENTRAL focus of my own research.
I am happy to report that I believe that I now know with 100% certainty the EXACT location on his "magic" levers to which the springs needed to be attached. I have also managed, using the DT portrait clues, to find TWO particular locations within the drum which Bessler seems to REPEATEDLY emphasize. No doubt, those are the points in the drum to which the other ends of the springs needed to be attached. I am building models now to see if the particular arrangement of springs suggested will do the trick which means making the ascending side weights, whose lever pivots passed the 9:00 position of the drum, suddenly "rise in a flash". If that can be done, then there should be no problem keeping the CoM of a one-directional wheel on the drum's descending side THROUGHOUT a 45 degree increment of drum rotation!
The Connectedness Principle used in my current one-directional wheel model requires a total of 24 cords to interconnect its 8 weighed levers. If three springs are used per weighted lever, then that will add another 24 cords. That then makes a total of 48 cords per one-directional wheel or one-directional sub wheel and a total of 96 cords for the two sub wheels of a two-directional wheel. Does this sound "simple"? At this point I would still say "yes" considering that the cords are rather short in length and confined to the region near a drum's periphery.
Doug,
ReplyDelete"Using a lever which is articulated or hinged a point between the two ends allows one ... to push it with extra force over a shorter distance." This is exactly what I am successfully doing. The weight at 3 o'clock presses on a jointed lever which hoists the weight at 7 o'clock (far from the axle) up to close to the axle around 9 o'clock. Thanks to 4bar leverage! Of course, I need to connect the lever to the frame for that, maybe not what Bessler did, but who cares? It works in the physical model and in the simulation.
Cheers Mimi
It works in the model and sim, but does it work more than once?
DeleteThat's why OB designs are impossible. You can use gravity once to hoist your weights with any combo of levers you care to use, but once the weights have moved, the levers are useless for another hoist.
"...but once the weights have moved, the levers are useless for another hoist."
DeleteUnless, of course, all of the levers in the wheel have returned to their ORIGINAL orientations just prior to the next "hoist" taking place!
And we all know they don't, because like I said, they can't be made to work that way. And the explanation isn't complicated or hard to understand. You're trying to apply leverage to a 360 degree lever, the wheel, with a series of levers. It's not going to happen without a form of energy besides GP.
DeleteExcellent Mimi!
ReplyDeleteI know you think levers don't work that way, Doug, but I have been using hinged levers as variable connectors for some time and they work just fine. Perhaps my description was confusing.
When the hinged lever is pulling a non-hinged weighted lever it is extended to its full length, but when it is pushing, one part of the hinged length folds up parallel to the weighted lever it is pushing. and it applies its force to a point somewhere between the weighted lever's pivot and its weight.
JC
Your "hinged" levers remind me of what is depicted in MT 26 and 27. Yes, they are an excellent way to vary the geometry of a mechanism and thereby introduce some asymmetry into its action. In my "right track" approach, all of the levers are of the "unfolding" type. The asymmetry of the design is completely maintained by array of cords interconnecting its weighted levers.
DeleteOnce you've sacrificed distance or force even with a compound lever, the advantage is gone. See reply to Mimi.
Delete@Doug
ReplyDeleteJohn said:
"Using a lever which is articulated or hinged (at) a point between the two ends allows one to pull another object but also to push it and, with the desired proportions, to push it with extra force over a shorter distance."
This is a correct statement.
Contrary to what you say, it IS very nice, the levers that both John and I are working with at the moment do work exactly that way.
JW
As far as I can see,..hinged levers only provide a mechanical advantaage,load/distance,there is no power gain.
ReplyDeleteBut what do I know,I don't wish to be negative.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe "Kooza Wheel of Death" only works because there is a constant input of energy / mass from the bodies of the two opposed performers in the end drums that keeps raising their CoM and keeping it offset onto one side of the "wheel". If the two stop running up the sides of their respective drums, then the "wheel" quickly slows and stops from air and bearing drag as their CoM drops to the punctum quietus.
DeleteIf one wanted to compare Bessler's secret mechanism to the Kooza Wheel of Death, then the former would be like the latter if the latter had two performers who, rather than having to run, were standing on roller skates and being continuously pulled up the curving inside surfaces of their respective drums by contracting springs!
...here we go stating facts again... Bessler's wheel was this or that . Bessler and Karl : until the thing continues to revolve you have nothing . Stop fooling yourself by stating "facts" before THE fact .
ReplyDeleteYes, OK Chris, fair comment, however you do not know what I have on my work bench, or what it is that JC is experimenting with in his workshop.
DeleteI do not state things on this blogg in order to make a fool of myself.
I have a better agenda.
JW
Bessler wrote something to the effect that people, by their nature don't want a simple answer . I was not addressing anyone in particualr other than JC . Give us a jewel of a revolving wheel. Be self sonsoring . That'sall I'm saying .You guys are no better than me . I may express my imagined sucess in one way and you all in another but it's still delusion and should be looked on as such until someone possesses a device that works . This is the standard I am now holding myself to . I will never again say I have something of value until I can prove it .
DeleteHere’s another jewel from The Treasure Trove of Visual Clues MT9-140.
ReplyDeleteThe Crank Clue
Bessler’s Crank Clue appears in the following images:
MT30, MT32, MT33, MT34, MT35, MT36, MT41, MT42, MT46, MT47, MT51, MT52, MT55, MT57, MT58, MT59, MT61, MT62, MT69, MT76, MT78, MT79, MT82, MT90, MT93, MT94, MT95, MT96, MT102, MT103, MT104, MT121, and MT135.
It is to be noted that Bessler’s Crank Clue can easily be confused with, or appear to overlap with his Sickle Clue in MT30, MT51, MT57, MT74, MT79, MT83, MT84, MT102, MT103, MT104 and MT121. This potential confusion is only that; apparent, in reality both elements are ‘part and parcel’ of the same thing. The Crank (one part of which is sickle shaped) transfers the reciprocal movements between the two distinct parts of The Mechanism.
JW
More glass "jewels"!
DeleteYes, Bessler liked to put opposed cranks on the ends of lots of the axles in his MT designs. They are easily added and, obviously, are intended to convert the rotary motion of an axle into an oscillatory motion of some nearby component.
When he uses these cranks to operate counter swinging pendula or synchronize the motion of other rotary components (as, for example, in MT 96), he's on firm mechanical ground. When, however, he uses them in MT's many UNworkable "Self-Pumping" devices, he's wasting his time and the reader's!
I focus on his wheels which are KNOWN to have worked such as the Merseburg wheel and which did NOT require the use of cranks at the ends of its axle. Also, there would have been no cranks inside of his OB PM gravity wheels because there were no components in them that would have completed a full 360 rotation relative to any other component.
Meanwhile, I continue to explore ways to make my "right track" design's ascending side weighted levers "rise in a flash" as Bessler said those inside of his wheels did. This means that, as a weighted lever's pivot passes the 9:00 position of a CW rotating drum, the combination of torques applied to the lever by the weighted levers both leading and lagging it must make it IMMEDIATELY begin rotating CW about its pivot so as to cause its weight to draw nearer to its rim stop.
So far, I am starting to see how VERY difficult it is to achieve this little feat. There is enough energy / mass available to do it, but the transfer of this to the weighted levers as they pass the 9:00 position must be as close to 100% efficient as possible. It's also becoming obvious to me that my current "magic" lever does NOT have the correct shape to provide his required efficiency. So, now I'm doing a quick redesign of the lever to see if it improves the situation.
Back to work.
"Columbian Wheel of death"
ReplyDeleteActually, I find the youtube videos of the wheel of death very significant. They do show that it is possible to give a wheel a continuous rotation merely by shifting the position of weights. I found a 2-, 3- and 4-symmetry wheel example. When you think about it: one person doing kiiking is the 1-symmetry example of the same thing. Now of course: we still need to find out whether the energy provided by the imbalance (net-torque * angle) is greater than the energy needed to shift the weights (mass * g * distance). Hint: look at levers.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAssuming that the drawings you refer to are those of the Merseburg wheel, those "slats" are just engraved lines used to denote a change in the glare coming off of different sections of the curving (and most likely polished) surface of the drum's periphery and this technique is used on other parts of the machine as well such as the axle. They are not actual physical openings into the drum.
DeletePART I:
ReplyDeleteGravittea's comment got me to thinking about how the full face view of the Merseburg wheel has always interested me.
It appears from the engravings that Bessler did not just glue the layers of cloth to the sides of the drums of his two-directional wheels, but also added two large circumference rims on both sides of the drum which appear to be nailed into place. These rims, which would have been applied in several curving sections, were meant to "finish" the drum off, just as one would use molding to finish the joining edge of a wall with a floor or to "frame" a door or window. More importantly, they allowed one to grab onto the periphery without having to touch the cloth side covering and, possibly, tear them and thereby expose Bessler's secret wheel mechanism.
A somewhat sturdier looking version of this periphery rim frame appears on the Weissenstein wheel and in Joseph Fischer's 1721 letter he mentions that one could grab onto it while the wheel was turning at its maximum terminal rotation rate (26 rpm) and there would be enough angular momentum stored up in the wheel to raise a man up several feet off of the ground before his weight brought the wheel to a complete stop! This demonstrates how these circumference rims could be used to firmly grasp the axle without touching the cloth sides.
Considering Bessler's wheel construction techniques, in general, one tends to always think of the drums in Bessler's wheels as having come into existence just as shown in the illustrations; that is, mounted on their axles and sitting between their upright supports. However, Bessler probably would have constructed his large 12 ft diameter drums APART from their axles. Perhaps he first completed the axle, installed its end pivots, erected the vertical uprights, and then made sure they were properly working. Next, he turned to constructing the drums.
After completing their light wooden frames, these drums would have had their 16 UNloaded levers and their pivot bearing installed into them. He would then have physically ROLLED the drum over to the location of the uprights, removed the axle from them and carefully passed it through the close fitting center of the drum. Then the axle and its "loose" drum were placed back between the vertical supports with the axle pivots seated on their brass bearing plates (these tasks were just possible to manage by one person despite the combined weight of the axle, drum frame, and levers). Then he would have attached the various cords and springs to the UNloaded levers which would have radially aligned them and held them against extra stops (not the weights' rim stops) on the radial support members and proceeded to lubricate all metal to metal contact points. Finally, the still loose drum would be internally secured to the axle and, after it was secure, the balance of the entire frame and its contained components would be checked. If they did not balance PERFECTLY (which meant that their CoM was not EXACTLY at the center of the axle), then Bessler would have added small lead weights to the periphery until they did. This is very similar to what is done when an automobile tire is "balanced" at a modern tire shop.
PART II:
ReplyDeleteNext, a double layer of DRY cloth was cut from a long 6 ft wide "bolt" of material (if provided from a single bolt, it would have to have had at least 96 feet of material on it!), stretched, and applied to both sides of the drum. It would be tightly attached to the drum's radial support members and rim with a strong glue. Once the glue dried, the cloth was then saturated with a quantity of vegetable oil (perhaps several quarts of olive oil) to prevent it, if it had been left dry, from absorbing oil from the lever's pivot bearing and thereby indicating to reverse engineers exactly where inside of the drum the levers were located. At this time the curving periphery rim frame sections would have been attached using small nails or, possibly, wood screws. Bessler would then have cut the various cover flaps and inspection holes into the cloth covering one side of the drum. The flaps would later be secured over the smaller holes with pins. Perhaps at this time an additional balancing of the drum with the attached cloth and periphery rim pieces attached was also performed. Now, however, Bessler would have to add any extra counter balancing lead weights through the inspection holes. They would be attached with screws to the wooden frame pieces between the radial support members and as close to the periphery as possible.
The final phase of construction would always be the installation of a two-directional wheel's 16 cylindrical lead weights to the ends of their respective levers. This would have to been done entirely through the 8 circular inspection holes that Bessler had previously cut into the cloth covering one of the sides of the wheels. Through each hole he would install 2 weights and then, after reattaching its flap cover with pins, move on to the next hole until the job was done. I have previously estimated that this installation would take about 30 minutes which would require him to spend no more than 7.5 minutes working through each hole. He would have used some sort of quick attachment method to secure the weights to their ends of their levers, but would have had to have used both hands while doing so.
From this we see that while discovering a design for a working OB PM gravity wheel design is certainly a VERY difficult / nearly impossible task, constructing a giant 12 diameter wheel to utilize that design is a rather awesome task just by itself. Yet, everything I've described above could have been done by just ONE very determined craftsman working in secrecy!