Bessler is said to have covered his wheel with waxed-linen. Considering this fact led me on an interesting mental ramble.
The German words used to describe the cloth covering in Das Triumphirende is leinwand which means canvas/linen/fabric. The other German words used are überzogen, which means covered/drawn-over; and äusserlicht meaning external/outside. OK, but in the Latin text he uses the words linteo = linen, cerato = waxed, and vestito = covered/clothed. So I'm assuming it was waxed linen or canvas.
When I build a test model, I fix everything to a single disc, mounted on a free-spinning axle. The disc is made of medium density fibreboard (MDF) and I can drill holes and fix pivot points and add stops easily. The only difficulties arise if I need a lever to pass over the top of another pivot point, or another lever with a weight attached to the end. In those cases the pivot point has to be made shorter to allow the passing lever to pass over it and not get stopped too soon. It's a bit like watching the hour hand pass over the minute hand of a clock, the hour hand has be nearer the clock face than the minute hand, so it can easily pass over it.
This is all fine and well until you wish to build a more substantial model that will do work - or you need to exhibit it and wish to cover the inner workings. The obvious thing is to attach another disc to the axle to cover the mechanism and this requires all those pivot points to be attached at their outer ends to the new disc. Those pivot points that you shortened now need to be repositioned because if you don't they will obstruct the passage of the other lever you had designed to pass over it. It takes time and trial and error to achieve the new positions without affecting the continued operation of the mechanism and these new positions explain, for me, some of the mysteries about Bessler's drawings.
Also, he is said to have introduced a flap in the cloth which gave him access to the interior so that he could remove the weights prior to moving the wheel from one support to another. But here is another mystery. To get all the weights out, or at least to get all the weights he could reach, out, he would surely need several flaps? They couldn't have all been accessible from one position in a twelve foot diameter wheel. He must had to lock and unlock the wheel as he removed the weights otherwise it would spin until balanced again. Maybe he had one flap at each weight access point? It is a pity nobody counted the flaps.
But ... he might have accessed the weights by unbuttoning the edge of the linen, then he wouldn't need a special flap.
But ... he might have accessed the weights by unbuttoning the edge of the linen, then he wouldn't need a special flap.
JC
10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.
What I value about this Blog is it's comforting to know there are others out there who share the same goal of perpetual motion and I'm therefore no crackpot.
ReplyDeleteWe don't have to reveal what we're doing so long as some progress is being made.
That's why we ought not to dispise those who are enthusiastic about their progress.
I don't think bessler had the same issues with the pivot points that you are having because I don't think his wheels worked that way. The drawings as everyone knows don't explain the reason they worked, so the mystery about them is throwing you off the scent. The linen wasn't for hiding the pivot points or anything like that specifically. It hid the real reason the wheels worked, generally.
ReplyDeleteRemoving the weights to relocate the wheel was also a distraction, regardless of what his method was. Why remove a very small fraction of the total weight of the wheel to move it? To make you think the wheel was a lot lighter without them, and easier to move? Not if it was made of solid oak, the total weight could have been 300 lbs or more. Removing the 4 lb weights wouldn't lighten it that much, unless the whole wheel was made of balsa wood.
To make you think the mechanisms were so delicate they couldn't stand the move with the weights installed? If that was the case, how did the mechanisms stand the strain of operation?
The weights were decoys, distractions in the presentation, included to make you think, and so bessler could claim, they were what turned his wheels. Everyone who thinks his wheels were genuine are being misled by statements like 'I found it where everyone else looked', referring to OB designs. He's not lying, he's just not telling all of the truth because OB designs are impossible; he had to have been talking about something completely different. And maybe (I'll be generous), he didn't know he wasn't telling all of the truth, because the real reason they worked was a new discovery about nature. Capisce?
Trevor, perpetual motion is impossible. Bessler didn't achieve it. If you want to progress to a goal you can reach, and not worry about crackpottiness, you have to understand and accept that fact, especially as it applies to a wheel under the influence of gravity, the great leveler. It always wins.
Doug,..If I succeed,does that make you the crackpot.LOL.
DeleteDoug wrote: "Not if it was made of solid oak, the total weight could have been 300 lbs or more"
DeleteNot true. I've made previous estimates that the weight of the Merseburg wheel WITHOUT its 16 lead weights would have been about 220 lbs or so. That's light enough for two strong servants to lift it off of the wheel's vertical axle supports and place its drum's rim on the floor to roll it over to another set of vertical supports and then lift its axle into position there. The 16 lead weights, IF left in the drum, would have added another 16 x 4 lbs = 64 lbs. That would increase the weight each servant had to lift from 110 lbs to 142 lbs which starts to be a strain especially if one is lifting an axle that is located above one's head.
Also there is the problem of what would happen if, during a translocation, the drum was dropped onto the floor accidentally while it still contained its weights. Perhaps there was the danger of the shock of the impact damaging the lever pivots or actually pulling them out of their brass bearing pieces. If Bessler went to the trouble of removing the weights during a translocation, he had good reason to do so.
"He's not lying, he's just not telling all of the truth because OB designs are impossible; he had to have been talking about something completely different."
No, his "Preponderance Principle" CLEARLY indicates that there was MORE weight on one side of the drum than the other during rotation and that this differential was maintained; in other words, the CoM of the drum's weights STAYED on one side of the axle DESPITE drum rotation. HE truly did find a way to make an OB wheel work so it has to be possible. Basically, he found an interconnected pattern of weighted levers that was constantly "resting" in an equilibrium configuration that placed the CoM of its weights onto the drum descending side. When drum rotation began to upset that equilibrium and move the location of the CoM, the system immediately responded by shifting its interconnected, spring loaded levers so that the original equilibrium was reestablished and the new location of the CoM of the weights was where the original one had been. This was an automatic and continuous process which used very little of the energy / mass being outputted by the OB weights within the rotating drum.
I think you can take Bessler's word for a lot of things . like why he removed the weights ... because the wheel was easier to move without weights in it . The wax covering was there to hide the simple mechanism , just as Bessler said ... something like " if I were to reveal my art by casting aside the cloak a lot of craftsman could easily imitate this special toil ... ect . "
DeleteTrevor, you're not going to succeed. I can guarantee it.
DeleteTG, your estimate is only an estimate, you could be lowballing it, because you've never built a solid oak 12 foot wheel; you don't know how much wood was under the cover, the width or height of any of the pieces (only lengths) or how solid or heavy the axle weighed. As for the danger of dropping it, that seems really unlikely because it never happened for one thing; and there was room for at least 4 people to roll it by the axle.
The weight removal was for theatre.
The CoM wasn't maintained by springy magic levers with weights on their ends. We know that's impossible.
So we have to look elsewhere.
Chris, that sounds like something an illusionist might say.
@ Doug
DeleteMy estimate is based upon a schematic I made for the Merseburg wheel that uses the lightest structure possible which would still be rigid enough to endure the CF of a rotation rate of up to 70 rpm's AND is based upon the average densities of materials such as lead, oak, steel, linen, etc. I believe it to be accurate to within a few percent.
The external axle ends projected out about 3 feet each from the side of the drum of the Merseburg wheel. Maybe two people could have been lifted each end together, but they would have each been confined to a space only 18" wide. This seems a bit cramped to me.
"The CoM wasn't maintained by springy magic levers with weights on their ends. We know that's impossible."
Actually "WE", meaning the VAST MAJORITY of people reading this blog, DO think it's possible and, so far, ONLY YOU think it's impossible. I have no doubt that Bessler had a bit of a showman in him which he utilized in an effort to make his wheels seem as powerful as possible so that he could secure a sale. But, I doubt that he was a fraud because of how quickly that would have been discovered after a sale and what the "negative" consequences would have been for him, his family, and for his patron.
As far as looking elsewhere is concerned, we must remember this quote:
"But the point is, my invention is not fanciful. I haven't suddenly come up with an unheard-of form of matter; rather, I have invented something new from commonplace materials." (AP, pgs. 288-289)
If Bessler told the truth when he said that he found the answer where EVERYONE else had looked, then he was referring to OB and NOTHING else!
The lightest structure is possible if you know the load ahead of time.
DeleteBessler didn't know any of those numbers. He probably had to build it with stock already cut to common sizes. Your guess could be wildly inaccurate. The truth is the wheel was probably bigger and heavier than your estimate and could have handled much more stress.
18" is plenty of room if two men stood back to front with the axle on their (right on one and left for the other one) shoulders. Unless the men were obese, which no one was in those days. Most men back to front measure less than a foot. Pull out your yardstick and try it, or simulate it on your computer if you prefer.
There are a lot of people that don't think it's possible, they just don't post like I do.
I never said he was a fraud; I said he might not have known he wasn't telling the whole truth. Or he had different ideas about what PM meant, and a sale would have resulted in a courtroom battle.
"Something new from commonplace materials" doesn't pin him down to OB. That is about as vague as he could be.
To which I respond:
Delete"The lightest structure is possible if you know the load ahead of time.
Bessler didn't know any of those numbers."
You seem to forget that BEFORE the Merseburg wheel was constructed, Bessler had ALREADY constructed THREE other wheels. He was well aware of the problems that were caused by the structural stresses acting on the axle, drum, and pivots as well as due to the increasing CF caused by increasing drum rotation rate.
"Pull out your yardstick and try it, or simulate it on your computer if you prefer."
For all we know, Bessler could have been using a simple block and tackle arrangement to lift his wheel off of its vertical supports and then gently lower it to the floor so that it could be rolled to the new set of supports where he would reposition the block and tackle to lift it again. In any case, keeping the weight that would be placed upon the portion of the drum contacting the floor to a MINIMUM was a good idea because it reduced the chance of the drum frame's support members cracking considering how thin he would have made them. That need alone would have prompted him to remove the weights before a translocation was attempted.
"There are a lot of people that don't think it's possible, they just don't post like I do."
Those that still think that PM is impossible are only parroting the same tired old ERRONEOUS objections that have been circulating since the time of Newton. There are NEW ways, based upon 20th century physics, of viewing how an OB PM gravity wheel CAN work and which I have promoted on this blog. It only takes one black swan to prove that not ALL swans are white. In the world of exotic mechanics, Bessler's wheels (and Asa Jackson's single wheel) were the black swans!
"Something new from commonplace materials" doesn't pin him down to OB.
To me, it implies that he found a new DESIGN for an OB wheel that DID work. He wrote that "...all intelligent people, who, with true understanding, have sought the Mobile in a place no different from that in which I eventually found it." (AP, pg. 367) Prior to Bessler, with only a FEW exceptions, practically all mobilists were working with OB designs. To even suggest that Bessler was not using an OB design is ridiculous, IMO.
Do you mean two other wheels? Which were smaller and faster with different insides? Which he probably also built with wood that came in stock sizes and were overbuilt for the load they had to handle? Yes, I remember. Do you think he built wheels and then tested them to see where their breaking point was? I doubt it, that would have been way too much trouble; and pointless. Why risk building a wheel to that spec? If it would break at the slightest bump on the floor? If you ever built one, you'd do the same thing. You'd use the wood in the sizes that it came: 2x4, 4x4, 2x6; or whatever they used back then.
DeleteMy argument stands; the last two wheels could have been much heavier than 220 lbs. I have an oak table that is about 5 feet diameter; it weighs about 150 lbs - just a 5' table.
Block and tackles would have to be anchored to the ceiling over both sets of supports; that sounds like a lot of trouble when 4 men could simply lift it off the bearings and roll it and lift it onto the other bearings.
20th century physics doesn't change gravitational potential energy, which is all OB has to support its case.
He used the OB design approach as a facade for what he really did, and ran with that. As long as he could say his wheel was what everyone thought it should be, his head would be safe.
And finally, he destroyed his life's work. That isn't a strong endorsement for whatever was in his wheels.
PART I:
DeleteDoug wrote "Do you think he built wheels and then tested them to see where their breaking point was? I doubt it, that would have been way too much trouble; and pointless."
Because of its larger radius, he probably learned much about the structural problems involved in drum construction from the one-directional Drashwitz wheel. His main problem would have been fabricating lever pivots that could withstand the CF applied to them as drum rotation increased. My calculations show this was probably the weakest point in the structure since the weights were separated from the outer rim wall by a gap of about an inch or so which meant that the lever pivots had to withstand ALL of the CF applied to a weight. The biggest problem, however, is when such a drum is lowered to the floor. If the drum hits too hard, the G forces applied by the weights to the pivots can shoot way up and become high enough to actually damage the pivots or the drum frame itself. Removing the weights prior to translocation removes this danger.
"You'd use the wood in the sizes that it came: 2x4, 4x4, 2x6; or whatever they used back then."
I might, but Bessler, being a REAL carpenter, would not have hesitated to plane a stock board down to whatever dimensions he wanted. There's a reason he shows so many carpenter's planes in that second DT portrait!
"Block and tackles would have to be anchored to the ceiling over both sets of supports; that sounds like a lot of trouble when 4 men could simply lift it off the bearings and roll it and lift it onto the other bearings."
Remember that Bessler was obsessed with privacy and maintaining the secret of his PM mechanism. That would have motivated him to want to do as much as possible by himself. If he needed an overhead hoist of some sort to attach a wheel's drum to its axle or move an assembled wheel, I don't think he would have hesitated to install one.
PART II:
Delete"20th century physics doesn't change gravitational potential energy, which is all OB has to support its case."
20th century physics tells us that energy and mass are the SAME thing. Weights arriving on the descending side of the wheel had to speed up as they moved farther from the axle and would momentarily have a vertical descent rate greater than the vertical ascent rate of the ascending side weights (thus forcing them to transfer gravitational potential energy / mass to the drum at a rate faster than it was removed from the drum by the ascending side weights). That acceleration required that the descending side weights obtain energy / mass from somewhere. The ONLY place that could come from would be the energy / mass content of the lead weights themselves.
"He used the OB design approach as a facade for what he really did, and ran with that."
Well, if YOU don't believe his wheels were OB, then from whence do YOU think they obtained their outputted energy / mass? No conventional energy / mass source within the wheels, other than their weights, could have provided it. There was no physical connection between the wheels and anything external to them except their vertical supports and these were always immediately eliminated as a source of power for them by those who examined the axle pivots and their brass bearing plates.
"And finally, he destroyed his life's work. That isn't a strong endorsement for whatever was in his wheels."
It's an endorsement for someone who decided that he would not just be giving his secret mechanism design away because he was frustrated that no one would pay him what he wanted for it. Bessler was stubborn, DAMN stubborn! But, he did leave us future reverse engineering Bessler mobilists the two DT portraits with their rich supply of mathematical clues to guide us as we attempt to replicate his wheels. I am 100% convinced that the solution to the Bessler wheel mystery IS contained in those portraits, but it is VERY carefully hidden. Only an ACTIVE Bessler mobilist will ever have any hope of CORRECTLY interpreting those clues. I continue to make slow, but steady progress with my own efforts. So far, I've only released about 35% of the information I've derived from the portraits (which is mostly of a general nature). However, the TOTAL amount of information that I have derived so far is TRULY amazing, but now is not quite the right time to release it.
If anyone is interested, here is a physics page that has the equations for motion in a vertical circle:
Deletehttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mechanics/cirvert.html#c1
It even has a calculator included. You can enter the known quantities and it will do the numbers for you.
This page has a calculator for centripetal force in a horizontal direction:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cfc
If you enter the quantities for one of bessler's wheels, it gives you numbers for the forces (horizontal centripetal force on the one page and forces at top and bottom of the vertical circle on the other page)that prove why OB designs are impossible.
The tail doesn't wag the dog. The weights are merely along for the ride at 26 to 60 rpm.
"Also, he is said to have introduced a flap in the cloth which gave him access to the interior so that he could remove the weights prior to moving the wheel from one support to another."
ReplyDeleteIs it possible that the outside covering and structure could be unlocked from the interior wheel/mechanism. Doing this would allow the interior wheel to be rotated sort of like a Ferris wheel rotating car by car loading/unloading its riders when at the bottom. Only a single opening would be needed near the loading/unloading spot. There would also need to be some type of lever/stop moved in place that would catch on each radial spoke as the wheel turned. This would stop and hold the wheel while the weight was removed. The lever could then be momentarily depressed/withdrawn allowing the wheel to start rotating again. The lever/catch would stop the wheel at the next spoke, and so on, until the wheel was loaded or unloaded. Maybe during one of these times, the catch someone got depressed or slipped causing the wheel to rotate unexpectedly to the next position, and that is the bang that was heard when Bessler was loading/unloading the wheel.
My thoughts:
ReplyDeleteMost of the translations I've seen say that the two-directional wheels were covered with OILED cloth which was made of linen. I guess it could have been "waxed" if the wax was some soft type that could be easily spread over the surface of the cloth. In past comments, I reached the conclusion that this oil was intended to prevent "dry" cloth from absorbing some of the excess lubricant from the lever pivots' brass bearing pieces which were seated in the drum's outer set of radial support members. That would have given the reverse engineers observing his wheels too much information about the number of weighted levers inside their drums (8) and their arrangement (their pivots forming an octagon whose center was at the axle).
Your version of Bessler's secret mechanism has a serious problem with it if it requires two levers to pass each other as shown in your illustrations. This means that the mechanism is actually operating in TWO close parallel planes and requires some sort of linkage BETWEEN the planes. That's a mechanically awkward thing to achieve unless you use sets of at least THREE levers per mechanism so that the stresses are balanced. You do provide one possible solution in the second figure, however. In my "right track" design, each of the levers operates clear of the others and none passes near, over, or through another. All of the levers are in the same plane although the width of each lever is subdivided into several discrete layers that contain one or more of the cords / springs which are attached to it.
I also dealt with the issue of the inspections holes that were used on the Merseburg wheel in prior comments.
Most likely, Bessler would have used the minimum number of holes necessary to maintain a wheel's internal mechanics. There would have been 8 of them located between the radial support members on ONE side of the drum. I estimate that the holes would need to be at least 18 inches in diameter in order to permit TWO hands to be inserted easily into the drum's interior and have had their centers placed about 24 inches from the rim so he could access the FOUR weighted levers whose pivots would be located toward the ends of the SIX radial support members there (four supporting the outside of the drum and two in the middle of the drum).
I believe that Bessler actually covered each side of the drum with TWO layers of the linen which was dyed a dark color in order to prevent any sunlight from passing through the drum and, again, providing reverse engineers with shadow clues as the location and, worst of all, the SHAPE of his "magic" levers. He would have used TWO holes in these layers of slightly different diameters. The inner layer's hole would have been 18 inches in diameter and the second outer layer's hole would, perhaps, have been 24 inches in diameter. That would then allow each of the flaps cut in the outer layer to overlap the hole in the inner layer by 3 inches all the way around its circumference. That overlapping material was where he inserted the pins to hold the flap (then made from two circular patches of different diameters) onto the second inner layer of cloth.
Correction.
DeleteIn the first paragraph above I wrote: "That would have given the reverse engineers observing his wheels too much information about the number of weighted levers inside their drums (8)...".
The drum of one of his two-directional wheels actually contained 16 weighted levers: 8 for EACH of its two opposed "sub wheels". But seeing 8 oil stains on EACH side of the drum would have told the reverse engineers that the drum either contained 8 weighted levers OR some multiple of that which, considering that the wheel was two-directional, would probably have been a multiple of 2 so that there were 2 x 8 = 16 weighted levers inside of the drum. Bessler had to make sure this type of precise information was not revealed during any public demonstrations.
Let me correct the impression you might have that my design bears any resemblance to the two drawings shown above - it doesn't ;-)
ReplyDeleteJC
That's good because I did not see how the mechanism you illustrated was supposed to work. But you do write "The only difficulties arise if I need a lever to pass over the top of another pivot point, or another lever with a weight attached to the end." which I assume IS a feature used in your actual design and, no doubt, a "troublesome" one at that as the motion of a weight is either blocked by another lever or rubs against the support disc.
DeleteIn order for Bessler to have kept his drums as thin as they were relative to their diameters, he needed to keep his "magic" levers as narrow as possible and precisely confined to a single plane. The levers used in my current schematic for the Merseburg wheel are 5.875 inches wide and the total drum thickness (not including the four layers of linen that covered its open sides) is about 14.25 inches (with the layers of linen it might have been about 14.5 inches). I allow for a 0.25 inch clearance between the sides of the levers and the radial drum support members that contain their brass bearing pieces. The design Bessler used was "tight" and, obviously, was made with a considerable degree of precision.
JC, you are a terrible tease. Why publish it, if it is not relevant to your design? How else did you stumble upon it?
DeleteSorry Mimi, I thought that TG was assuming I was having trouble with pivot points and I wanted to reassure him that I wasn't. I have used those kind of features in previous designs but not in any current ones.
ReplyDeleteI used the drawings just to illustrate what I was referring to, and I would not, at this stage, publish anything relating to my current work, although I can point to things I think are useful clues.
JC
point away ...
ReplyDeletePART I:
ReplyDeleteWell, after the disappointing failure of my previous "new" and somewhat extreme magic lever design to produce the "PM effect", I decided to have a marathon DT portrait analysis session earlier this morning to see if there were any additional clues concerning the lever's shape which I had overlooked.
Sure enough, in the second DT portrait I found a single VERY unobvious clue (those are the BEST type to focus on!) which suggests a change to a single portion of the lever. Interestingly, I immediately noticed that this change produces a shape that is almost exactly halfway between the "old" and "new" lever designs I had. I'm calling this revised lever shape my "Goldilocks" magic lever design because, as in the fairy tale of "Goldilocks and the Three Bears", she only found the porridge that was neither too hot nor too cool to be palatable (this fairy tale demonstrates a VERY important engineering principle, BTW!). Hopefully, this revised shape will finally smoothly lift my 9:00 going to 10:30 weighted levers into place without excessively stressing the cords involved. Later today, I shall begin modeling the Goldilocks lever in preparation for using 8 of them in a one-directional wheel.
To further address some of the issues raised in JC's current blog entry, I note that he wrote:
"He [Bessler] must [have] had to lock and unlock the wheel as he removed the weights otherwise it would spin until balanced again. Maybe he had one flap at each weight access point? It is a pity nobody counted the flaps.
But ... he might have accessed the weights by unbuttoning the edge of the linen, then he wouldn't need a special flap."
Considering the Merseburg wheel, if he removed four of the 4 lb weights from between two of the sets of radial drum supports, he would then have had an excess of 16 lbs on the diametrically opposite side of the drum which would certainly make the drum tend to rotate if it was not held in position. He probably had an assistant (doesn't Wagner mention an assistant who with his leather apron barely weighed 100 lbs?!) who supported that side of the drum while Bessler then ran over to that side and also removed its four 4 lb weights to rebalance the drum again. The assistant, of course, would have had to stand on the side of the drum whose cloth layers contained no inspection holes (knowing Bessler, he probably also made his assistant wear a blindfold!). Once this was done, the drum could then be easily rotated through 90 degrees and the proceedure repeated. Thus, the weight extraction (and later reattachment) took place in TWO distinct stages with each stage removing (or reattaching) 8 of the two-directional drum's 16 weights.
PART II:
ReplyDeleteI, too, once thought that those little dots on the very rim of the Merseburg wheel were some sort of buttons or tack heads that the linen was attached to. But, that method has problems and would require the circular edge of the stretched linen to have MANY little metal eyelets installed in it to reinforce it so that it would not tear away from the drum during rotation. That seems like TOO complicated an approach to me.
I think that the layers of linen were simply glued to the drum's frame and that those little dots along the rim represent nail heads that are holding a circular wooden molding to the curving edge between the drum's cloth covered open face and the flat, thin, polished outer band of wood that encircled the drum. That slight raised rim molding would have served to both reinforce the drum and protect the polished outer band from damage when the drum was lowered to the floor and slowly rolled to another set of vertical upright axle supports. This is another reason why I think the cloth was oiled rather than waxed. It seems like it would be easier to just pour some oil onto the cloth AFTER it had been glued to drum and then let it spread via osmosis to evenly saturate the cloth then to try to apply a semi-solid wax to the cloth and then have to rub it in to distribute it.
Yes, it is a pity that we do not have more detailed information about Bessler's wheels so that an truly EXACT replica can be constructed. But, I remain convinced that we DO at this time have enough information to be able to construct a wheel that will be as close as possible to what he had constructed. No, it won't be perfect, of course, but IF it works, then that alone will be a MAJOR achievement!
Correction.
DeleteThe oil would have spread via CAPILLARY ACTION throughout the linen fibers of the cloth that covered the sides of the drums, not by osmosis which is a different process altogether.
A few Bessler statements:
ReplyDelete“A wheel appears on the scene - is it really a wheel, for it does not have a normal rim. It revolves, but without other wheels inside or outside, and without weights, wind or springs.”
… without weights …
“It turns to the right and the left; it spins around in either direction, laden or empty.”
… laden or empty …
“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 will be that his wheel will get heavier and heavier - it would run longer if it were empty!"
… it would run longer if it were empty …
TG, you may want to consult your DT Ouija board again regarding your clue interpretation of how weights are used in the Bessler wheel.
We've discussed these clues in the past and they are easily explained.
Delete"… without weights …" does NOT mean that Bessler's wheels did not use weights. It only means that they were NOT powered like the then prevalent pendulum regulated clocks that contained a hanging and dropping weight attached to a chain that was, in turn, wrapped around one of the clock movement's gears. This suggestion was probably made repeatedly by patrons that attended the public demonstrations of Bessler's wheels and, apparently, annoyed him to the point where he cut an extra hole in the Merseburg wheel's cloth side so that the "no track" skeptics could reach in and "grope" the axle to convince themselves (and the other patrons, of course) that there was nothing attached to the giant wheel's internal axle section that drove it.
"… laden or empty …" is Bessler's poetic way of saying that his wheels would run either freely or while operating some external device.
"… it would run longer if it were empty …" Indeed, an empty drum frame would actually turn longer than one containing weighted levers whose motion drains energy / mass from all of the structures of the wheel to overcome their bearing and aerodynamic drag during drum rotation. Only when one's design is outputting energy / mass in EXCESS of that wasted in overcoming internal drags will it be able to achieve PM.
My advice to you and all others is NOT to take the DT portraits lightly. The amount of information they contain is actually FAR greater than that of the rest of the Bessler literature combined!
Your explanations are based on your interpretations of the portrait clues, I understand that. However, you seem to be finding time and time again that your interpretations are incorrect and you have to go back to the portraits to look for additional clues, and I get that, that is the way it seems to work. But you are not considering that your interpretations of these statements may also be incorrect because they don't fit the clues you have chosen to accept. Please keep an open mind as you move down the right track. By the way, I do believe the portraits are laden with clues.
DeleteSadly, the "right track" to finding THE design that Bessler found and used is NOT a straight line, but, rather, a long, arduous winding path with MANY dead-ends and false trails. For every one of the clues that I finally accepted as valid, I have had to chase after several PURPOSELY false or "decoy" clues that wasted my time and frustrated me. Without the relentless use of simulations and computer modeling, I doubt if I would have been able to get as far as I have.
DeleteBut, despite this bizarre "game" Bessler chose to play with future reverse engineering mobilists, one DOES make progress over time...not weeks or months, but, rather, YEARS! Slowly, an image of THE design he found and used comes into focus and one realizes WHY Bessler's holds those eyeglasses in his right hand in the second DT portrait! I would not make these statements unless I KNEW from PERSONAL experience that they were TRUE...in time ALL will be revealed and it will be absolutely ASTONISHING!
@ Anonymous
DeleteYou only need to take one wrong turning whilst on the right track, to end up on the wrong track.
Are you really a TG convert? “An Anonymous Right Tracker Number Two”
I would stop where you are just now and think for a moment.
I agree with Trevor, Chris and others who say, why are you anonymous? We all give our real names, what’s your problem? What are you hiding?
Anonymous Person think about this;
Bessler’s goal here is Posthumous Recognition
Regarding TG’s ‘Right Track’ approach
Would Bessler have made things that difficult, that complex and obscure, or would he have created a world of simple clues ideas and images that a common juror could easily identify?
JW
@ JW
DeleteI really wish that Bessler had made things simpler for us and he would have if those ORIGINAL last pages in MT had not been burned and buried along with the woodcuts for them. They would have IMMEDIATELY revealed all of the critical information a mobilist would need to reproduce Bessler's secret OB PM gravity wheel design.
But, that never happened. We have some vague textual clues, tantalizing illustrations of the EXTERIORS of his two-directional wheels, eyewitness reports of tests performed on the wheels, and, of course, those two DT portraits. The clues they contain are certainly not obvious being mathematical in nature, but they do reveal important information about the sizes, shapes, interconnections patterns, and angular orientations of the components INSIDE of Bessler's wheels. They are the ONLY source of these in all of the Bessler literature. With this information, the ACTIVE reverse engineering mobilist can greatly improve his chances of finding the design Bessler did. However, nothing is guaranteed. One must perform a tremendous amount of work to extract the information from the portraits and, need I even say it again, "Build, Baby, Build" to continuously test what one THINKS the portrait clues are telling him. They are, in essence, a sort of informational maze that the mobilist must find his way through with much building and testing. For those very few who will be successful, the end of the maze will contain the design that Bessler used. So, we can think of the portraits as Bessler's legacy to humankind, but it is a legacy that is every bit as hard to collect as it was for Bessler to obtain the details that went into the portraits.
Although we never consider the possibility, it's quite possible that in the last 3 centuries there have been SEVERAL very dedicated mobilists who, using the DT portrait clues, have managed to replicate Bessler's wheels. But, for one reason or another, they never revealed the secrets they found. Perhaps they, like Bessler, could not find anybody who was interested in buying the invention and decided to take the secret to their graves. Perhaps they were on the verge of revealing the design and then suddenly dropped dead due to the effects of the deprivation they had to endure to find the design and construct the wheel. We can never know any of this for sure, but it's certainly a possibility. As someone once said, "Truth is stranger than fiction!"
I've been having some second thoughts about that "two stage" weight extraction / reattachment "protocol" I gave in my last two-part comment.
ReplyDeleteIn thinking the matter over, I realized that when Bessler opened each of the Merseburg wheel's 8 inspection holes, he would only have been able to reach in and pull back TWO of the four levers he saw so that he could remove / reattach their weights. Two of those four levers' motion would have been blocked by rim stops and additional stops in the radial drum support members so that he would not be able to easily reach their ends. This then means that, instead of just using 4 of the 8 inspections holes as I previously theorized, he would have to access ALL 8 of them to remove / reattach the two-directional wheel's sixteen 4 lb weights.
I'm now suggesting that is exactly what he did during wheel translocations. He would have his assistant on the other side of the drum (which contained no inspection holes with covering flaps) who would prevent its rotation when Bessler directed him to and would release it when directed to. At no time would the assistant be able to see into any of the inspection holes on Bessler side of the drum. Bessler would then have worked from one hole to the next until the job was done which would have taken about 30 minutes for each complete weight removal or reinstallation.
I'm also thinking that Bessler probably would have used 8 pins to hold each of the drum's 8 circular flaps over their inspection holes with the pins on each flap arranged to form a nice neat octagon around its center. I saw a movie years ago, a historical film that had the actors wearing the kinds of wigs that were the fashion during Bessler's times. Apparently, they used long pins which were not that pointed to secure these often heavy wigs to their own hair and even occasionally used them to scratch an itchy scalp without having to remove the wig! These pins were several inches long and had a button on one end to help handle them. Possibly, Bessler used something like this to secure his wheel's inspection hole flaps.
If you say " right track " one more time, I think I am going to puke!
ReplyDeleteSorry to read that my continuing use of that term has gotten to the point of being "ad nauseum" for you! I only use it because the Master used it in this often overlooked quote:
Delete"For Wagner sings the praises of weights and springs, and the sort of fly-wheels to be found in saw-mills. (However, in Borlach’s writings a contrary point of view is expressed.) But, fly-wheels are not to be sniffed at! Though anyone who sets about the task of bringing a Mobile to glorious completion with such devices, is not on the RIGHT TRACK at all." (AP, pg. 363)
I'll try to keep my use of it to a minimum in the future.
If anyone is interested, here is a physics page that has the equations for motion in a vertical circle:
ReplyDeletehttp://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mechanics/cirvert.html#c1
It even has a calculator included. You can enter the known quantities and it will do the numbers for you.
This page has a calculator for centripetal force in a horizontal direction:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cfc
If you enter the quantities for one of bessler's wheels, it gives you numbers for the forces (horizontal centripetal force on the one page and forces at top and bottom of the vertical circle on the other page)that prove why OB designs are impossible.
The tail doesn't wag the dog. The weights are merely along for the ride at 26 to 60 rpm.
For the Weissenstein wheel, when I plug a weight mass of 8 lbs and a weight tangential velocity of 11.13 mph (due to the weight rotating at a rate of 26 rpms around an axle located 6 ft from the weight) into the calculator, I get a force due to CF of only about 3 lbs acting on the weights. HOW is that supposed to "prove why OB designs are impossible"??? It's certain not nearly enough to "pin" any of the weights up against their rim stops.
DeleteThat's funny. I get 11 lbs.
ReplyDeleteI've redone the computation and this time I did get 11.056 lbs so I must have put a number in the wrong box the first time around. However, this does not change the situation much because it is still not enough CF to "pin" the weights as they approach the 9:00 position of a CW rotating drum. That means that those weighted levers will STILL be able to rotate CCW about their pivots as they approach the 9:00 position and in the process lift the 9:00 going to 10:30 weighted lever into position. Thus, the CoM of all of the weights will STILL be shifted over to the descending side of the drum, but the shift will not be as great as it would be if the CF was lower.
ReplyDeleteThis, of course, fits right in with what I have been saying all along which was that, as drum rotation rate and CF increase, the CoM of the 8 weights within an 8 weighted lever wheel will be "drawn" closer to the "punctum quietus" below the axle and the torque being produced will be diminished. That torque will continue to decline until it just equals the sum of the various drags acting on the wheel and its internal components and at that point the rotation rate will level off. For the Weissenstein wheel, this happened when it reached 26 rpm's.
Don't forget this is the calculation for horizontal circular motion.
ReplyDeleteIf you look at the other page, there is a minimum velocity for vertical circular motion so the mass doesn't become "unpinned" from the rim at 12 o'clock. For a 6 foot (1.83 m) radius, that minimum velocity for any mass is 4.23 m/s (13.88 f/s).
So in the next box we can type the velocity of the wheel at the top. 11.13 mph = 4.98 m/s = 16.34 f/s; this is only .75 m/s faster than the minumum. So at 12 o'clock, the Weissenstein weight is barely being pinned (but still pinned!) to the rim.
The velocity at the bottom is 9.82 m/s = 21.97 mph = 32.22 f/s; about twice the velocity.
In the next box we can type the mass. 8 lbs = 3.63 kg.
The force at the top is 13.62 Newtons. Converting to lbs, 13.62 * .2488 = 3.3 lbs of force at 12 o'clock.
At the bottom, the force is 227.06 Newtons = 227.06 * .2488 = 56.49 lbs; a Big difference from the 11 lbs for horizontal motion.
Given this, I really don't understand how this DOESN'T prove OB designs are impossible.
At 6 o'clock, the 8 lb weight would be pinned with 56 lbs. of force; it ain't going anywhere except in a circle; especially in reverse, down and in towards the axle.
The other thing is that the extra acceleration, in addition to gravity's, must come from the source of energy that is forcing the weights in a vertical circle (i.e., the centripetal acceleration). In a wheel, the wheel itself must force the weights in a circle, either by the axle - if they're connected to the axle somehow (with levers in your case) - or by the rim, if they're not connected to the wheel somehow. This is the logic that says the "tail can't wag the dog"; the weights can't provide centripetal acceleration and the corresponding torque; there is no magic, innate energy/mass extraction following from an OB design because of the conditions I've outlined above.
Doug
"Don't forget this is the calculation for horizontal circular motion."
DeleteIt does not make a difference whether the circular motion's plane is horizontal or vertical as in Bessler's wheels. CF is NOT dependent upon the orientation of the plane of the circular motion.
The point I'm trying to make is that the CoM in Bessler's wheels will ALWAYS be OB as long as the weighted lever whose pivot is passing the 9:00 position of a CW rotating drum is not horizontal and therefore pointing straight out from the center of the axle.
If you attach an 8 lb weight to the end of a lever that is, say, 14 inches long and then apply an 11 lb force to the weight that is always directed so as to move the weight HORIZONTALLY, you will find that the 11 lb force is never enough to raise the weight so that its lever becomes horizontal. The same thing would be happening inside of the Weissenstein wheel. It is this detail that guarantees that his wheels' CoM would remain OB even at high drum rotation rates. Of course, as drum rotation rate rises, the degree of OB of the CoM will decrease and so will the torque created. At some point the diminished torque will just equal the counter torques present due to aerodynamic and bearing drag and the drum will rotate at a constant rate.
"It does not make a difference whether the circular motion's plane is horizontal or vertical as in Bessler's wheels."
DeleteFrom the page:
"The motion of a mass on a string in a vertical circle includes a number of mechanical concepts. It must satisfy the constraints of centripetal force to remain in a circle, and must satisfy the demands of CONSERVATION OF ENERGY as gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy when the mass moves downward. >The velocity must increase as the mass moves downward from the top of the circle, subject to the constraints stated.<"
Yes, I'm afraid it does make a difference. This isn't just my opinion. It's an empirically proven fact. You can try it yourself with a rope and a weight.
"If you attach an 8 lb weight to the end of a lever that is, say, 14 inches long and then apply an 11 lb force to the weight that is always directed so as to move the weight HORIZONTALLY, you will find that the 11 lb force is never enough to raise the weight so that its lever becomes horizontal. The same thing would be happening inside of the Weissenstein wheel. "
It's not 11 lbs, did you skip that part? The 8 lb weight is undergoing 56 lbs. of force at 6 o'clock at 26 rpm. 56 lbs will raise it horizontally, and more, or IT WOULDN'T GO IN A CIRCLE.
Believe what you want to. The experiments don't lie.
You should physically try it. You really should. Stand on a table or something outside and swing a weight around vertically.
You got the CF up to 56 lbs at the 6:00 position of the drum by FALSELY assuming that a weight's velocity at that position is 21.97 mph instead of the actual value of 11.13 mph which it has a 12:00. The average tangential velocity of the weights remains close to ll.13 mph REGARDLESS of their position around the drum. Remember that the drum turns at a CONSTANT rotational rate and the weights are NOT accelerated by gravity as they travel along the drum's descending side nor are they decelerated as the travel along its ascending side.
DeleteAgain, I must emphasize that as long as the weighted levers passing the 9:00 position of the drum do not assume a horizontal orientation, the CoM of all of the drum's 8 active weights will be displaced some distance horizontally onto the descending side. A CF of 11 lbs acting on the weights will not "pin" the weights at that location. There is, no doubt, some VERY high drum rotation rate that would pin the weights there, but it is far beyond the Weissenstein wheel's MAXIMUM TERMINAL rotation rate of 26 rpm's.
No, "the experiments don't lie", but MISapplications of them CAN lead to ERRONEOUS conclusions.
Gravity doesn't accelerate the weights. Oh okay. Right. That makes sense.
DeleteI'll write that down so I don't forget it.
You come up with the wildest defenses.
You never provide any concurrence though.
I think youll have trouble with this one if you even bother.
I'll be very happy to "bother"!
DeleteYou seem to have this erroneous idea that the weights on the descending side of Bessler's OB PM gravity wheels were in a state of freefall. They were NOT!
IF there had ONLY been 4 weights on the descending side of the drum at any time, then, yes, they would have been in freefall and the calculations for CF you obtained would be accurate. BUT, any tendency for the drum's descending side weights to accelerate was neutralized by the opposing gravitational torques acting on the drum's EQUAL number of ascending side weights. As a result, the weights traveling around the outside of the drum move with at an average tangential velocity that is constant at equal to about the 11.13 mph figure I stated above. Of course, there are small deviations from this average velocity by the weights on each side because the descending side ones are a bit farther from the axle than the ascending side ones. If that variation from the average value did not exist, then the wheel would not be able to output any of its weights' energy / mass content and Bessler's wheels would have just been more "non-runners".
Of course they weren't in a state of free fall. I never had that idea. They were "falling" faster than gravitational acceleration, as discussed in the next topic with Mimi. So they were pinned to the wheel rim, essentially just making the wheel a flywheel.
DeleteThe rest of your post proves my case that OB designs are impossible. Thanks.
By the way, concurrence means accordance in opinion; so when I say you never provide it, that means you never have any evidence other than your own opinion for your wild statements.
DeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteI have an animation of the Bessler mechanism . I'll show it to you at some point if you wish .
ReplyDeleteMake sure that also that you are checking out who could be giving you your gay sizegenetics. Piece of the thing having gay sizegenetics is for you to have picked that lifestyle to buy a reason, when you find yourself going to relax and look the best sizegenetics you desire to do it with someone that is definitely pretty on a eyes. Generally, if you ever start looking online for male gay masseuse, you are going to be equipped to look at their photos online and find the one that is definitely going to work an excellent for you. Pick a couple though so for you to aren't disappointed if the one basically originally wanted isn't available, they could be booked or not work the day which you just are looking for, so having options is always good.
http://buysizegeneticsonline.tumblr.com/