According to wikipedia, most ancient scientists were polymaths by today's standards - what does that mean? It means that scientists these days are too specialised. The subjects we are taught are very compartmentalised. To get the best marks we choose those subjects we excel at and not necessarily those we are interested in, because the whole system is based on competition, and we compete, not only against other people but we pit one of our subjects against another.
Many who attend University seek a degree in their best subject because it is the one in which they obtained the highest exam marks. They study to become expert in that field with the result that they know everything (they think) there is to know about it. At first sight this makes sense, but it is to the detriment of a wider general knowledge, and unfortunately there is no advantage, career-wise, in learning about allied subjects and certainly nothing about those which have no connection with it. They are experts within a very narrow field, consequently they know relatively little about matters outside their speciality.
On the other hand, for instance, Leibniz, a member of the Royal Society. invented a calculating machine, wrote an overview of the history of the earth, describing how the planet formed, subterranean fires, and the formation of fossils. He developed an explanation of matter known as Monadology, suggesting that any substances were individually 'programmed' to act in a predetermined way but which could not affect the preservation of free will. He made significant contributions in physics, logic, history, librarianship, and of course philosophy and theology, while also working on ideal languages, mechanical clocks and mining machinery. He also studied numerous aspects of Chinese culture!
Leibniz was of course, the most famous supporter of Johann Bessler. Another supporter, almost as celebrated, was Christian Wolff, a rationalist polymath and an influential leader of the early German Enlightenment. He pioneered socio-economics, and made lasting contributions to international law. He revived ontology as a systematic framework for the empirical sciences. He studied and taught mathematics and researched military architecture, natural history, and natural philosophy. He had a natural aptitude for mechanics according to one correspondent and of course he too, was a member of the commission which examined Bessler's Merseberg wheel- and of the Royal Society.
These men who examined Bessler's machine were not just experts in a particular field but were people whose knowledge spanned a significant number of different subject areas, giving them a wider knowledge base upon which to form an opinion about Bessler's machine. They were able to make the intellectual connections and accept the evidence of their eyes in a way that today's 'experts' would find challenging.
To have an in-depth knowledge about one aspect of a particular subject may deprive one of its wider ramifications, not through lack of general knowledge so much as an excess of knowledge about that one aspect. In trying to solve Bessler's wheel, we here, seek answers from a more generalised knowledge base, examining every possibility and excluding nothing, whereas 'experts' know that Bessler's claims are not possible because that is what they have been taught and they are either reluctant or incapable of re-examining their 'knowledge'. This may be due to peer pressure, fear of ridicule, or simply a feeling of smug moral superiority derived from a sense that their beliefs, actions, or affiliations are of greater virtue than those of the average person.
But not all 'experts' need to be highly educated scientists. They may have a prolonged or intense experience through practice and education in a particular field. In specific fields, the definition of expert is well established by consensus and therefore it is not necessary for an individual to have a professional or academic qualification for them to be accepted as an expert. In this respect, a shepherd with 50 years of experience tending flocks would be widely recognized as having complete expertise in the use and training of sheep dogs and the care of sheep. I consider myself something off an expert with regard to Bessler and his claims but I have no university degree in either mechanics or history, just the experience of forty years of engineering. I do not know that Bessler's wheel was impossible therefore I continue to work at it.
Thanks as ever to wikipedia. :)
JC
10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.
Thanks John for the interesting blog and it's relevance.
ReplyDeleteYes the scientists and the academics will not be the ones who will solve this problem because they are far too specialised in their field.
I really feel that the one who will crack it will be the naturally mechanically minded person who has a fair knowledge of mechanical physics including hands-on experience in building wheels and their idiosyncrecies.
He would also definitely have a firm conviction that the perpetual motion wheel did exist.
This alone would motivate him to persevere no matter how long it takes.
There is a simple reason why "specialization" is a requirement today. That is because there is a LOT more known about the universe today than there was, say, in the 17th and 18th centuries. Back then, it was possible for a single person to know all that there was to know with some measure of depth. Today, even with doctoral level training, it can be a "challenge" to keep up with the latest developments in one's chosen area of expertise. I had a friend who finally earned his PhD after years of effort. He confided to me that he felt like God for approximately two weeks afterwards and then his illusion was shattered when he took a look at the latest issue of some academic research journal he intended to be publishing papers in and saw what other researchers were publishing!
ReplyDeleteIf time travel was possible, then probably most of today's well trained high school graduates, if sent back to the 17th century, would be hailed as geniuses far superior to Newton and Leibniz. On the other hand, maybe someday we will make contact with other intelligent life in the universe that is thousands of years ahead of us scientifically and technologically. Their top scientists will look down upon our top scientists much as our top scientists would look down upon a member of some primitive tribe living in a remote region of our planet. Ultimately, everything tends to be relative in this infinite universe of ours.
I don't think one has to be a "polymath" or a genius to solve the Bessler wheel mystery. But, there are some basics that I think are essential to doing that. Mainly, one should have some understanding of geometry and how to measure angles. Knowledge of the simple mechanics of levers is, of course, very important. Finally, one has to be as familiar with the Bessler literature as possible, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, study those TWO DT portraits until his eyeballs pop out of their sockets and bounce on the table...then he must pop them back in again and study the portraits some MORE!
If one wants to make serious progress as quickly as possible, then making the "upgrade" to using computer modeling / simulation software is MANDATORY. Finally, it just becomes a matter of CONTINUOUSLY studying the literature / portraits and building / modeling. Don't expect to get results in a few weeks or even a few months. Those are the kind of ridiculous bravado predictions made by newbie mobilists who haven't even begun their quests in earnest yet! One should expect to put YEARS into the quest and, even then, only if he or she is doing EVERYTHING to maximize their chance of success. Still, with all of this working for one, he will need to be VERY lucky to finally find the solution to the Bessler wheel mystery.
The working mechanism Bessler had was a VERY precise and delicate one and finding it is almost like trying to find the combination to some combination lock one found so that it can be opened. An ordinary combination lock might have to have 3 or 4 numbers dialed into it in order to open it. Think of the secret mechanism Bessler found and used as being like a combination lock that you have to input a DOZEN numbers into in order to open! Now imagine that you found two paintings in some museum that had the dozen numbers hidden in them in the form of ambiguous symbols and mathematical relationships and that you had to try to extract the numbers from these paintings and then input them into your found combination lock in the correct sequence to open it!
Right now, I'm like a guy who found the combination lock, but still needs one or two additional numbers to input into it in order to open it!
No Bessler's mechanism was not precise. He stated an ounce here or there makes no difference. Justsomeone
ReplyDeleteI agree that there was a certain small variability allowed in the MASS of the weights that Bessler used in his wheels, because he said so. If a 4 lb weights is off by 1 ounce, that amounts to a variation of 1.5625%.
DeleteHowever, when it comes to the shape of the levers and the lengths of the interconnecting cords between them, precision starts to become far more important. In the 4:1 scale model wheel design I am currently working on, a variation in length of one particular set of cords of just 0.1 inch can result in the angle of the weighted lever over at the 9:00 drum position changing by several degrees and varying the horizontal location of the CoM of the design's 8 weights by 0.05 inches or more. That translates into an error in location of the CoM in the full sized Merseburg wheel of 0.2 inches and that can significantly affect the maximum starting torque of the wheel at the beginning of its rotation far more than a 1.5% variation in weight mass.
A late comment on fonts, etc: In either IE or Chrome, I can't see any change in style from the old font (which I assume was Arial), but the font size for the comments has shrunk! But I can use [Ctrl plus] a couple of times to see them OK.
ReplyDeleteZoelra asked about subscripts/ superscripts. There's always Unicode, which will work in these blogs, if you can be bothered; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unicode_subscripts_and_superscripts
Where possible I prefer to use the simpler Windows Alt key codes (with Num Lock on, holding down the Alt key and using the numeric keypad) e.g. for ½ use Alt 0189, for the squared symbol ² use Alt 0178 etc.
Thanks Arktos regarding the Alt key options.
DeleteOf course a scientist could solve it, assuming he/she has an open mind, is curious, and sufficiently broadly educated. Superspecialists with tunnel-vision need not apply. Of course these days our accumulated body of knowledge, in all kinds of field, is vastly superior to what they knew (or thought they knew) in previous centuries.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, it took two bicycle mechanics to prove powered heavier-than-air flight possible. And even then it took years of photographic evidence, first rate witness testimony, and even presidential pressure to investigate before academia even started to investigate if indeed there was something to these "rumors". History is full of examples like this.
So yes, curiosity and an open mind are extremely important -- especially for good scientists. In my view, a really world-class scientist is a person with a very analytical and methodical mind, *healthy* skepticism, good general knowledge, AND a very open mind with ever-lasting curiosity about just about any topic that grabs his/her attention.
Andre ,..The problem is that every scientist and academic is taught that you cannot get energy for nothing and watch out if you break this rule.
DeleteI was always anti-University because I did not want to become a stereotype.
Certain things cannot be taught they have to be felt or accomplished by your natural intuition.
It got me a long way in life and I was always highly regarded as having exeptional talent.
The only thing now is will it be enough to help me succeed in this seemingly impossible quest.
"The problem is that every scientist and academic is taught that you cannot get energy for nothing and watch out if you break this rule."
DeleteAnd they are RIGHT! Energy / mass can neither be created out of nothing or made to disappear into nothing. It can only be transformed from one type into another type.
Bessler's wheels did NOT violate this rule and, thus, they did NOT create the energy / mass they outputted from nothing. They obtained that outputted energy / mass from the "innate" energy / mass content of the subatomic particles of their weights' lead atoms.
When one of Bessler's wheels is finally duplicated and allowed to perform outside work at a maximum rate, then, after a few years of continuous operation, it MAY be possible to remove its weights and, using our most precise scales, show that, indeed, the wheel's weights ARE losing mass over time.
That is absolute bolony!What happens in the wheel does not happen on the atomic scale.
DeleteIf so you could argue that movement cuses increase in mass so that would null your theory out.
I think you will find that it weighs exactly the same, period.
@Trevor: I see where you're coming from. I do think it is possible to be highly educated and at the same time keep an open mind, even if it conflicts with generally accepted "hallowed" laws. In fact, that's what also makes a great scientist in my view -- although its "impossible", accept that even so-called rock-solid laws and certainly theories are falsifiable. I've seen some academic jaws hit the floor lately, about -for example- breaking the Coulomb barrier and a phenomenon called "reverse entropy" (both considered nearly-impossible and completely impossible respectively, until recently).
DeleteI can also understand where TG comes from. If the energy is not derived from gravity, as he postulates, logic dictates that it has to come from somewhere else. I follow his thoughts on the matter (pun not intended), but find it a little hard to accept, although probably not impossible. It could also be quantum fluctuations i.e. from the zero-point field. But that's largely (way) over my head, but I could imagine some process like that. Obviously Bessler wasn't aware of any of that. But the energy has to come from somewhere.
On the other hand, my teawater tells me that JC has something interesting up his sleeve too. And mr. Worton has some very, very interesting concepts and ideas too. And I like Zoelra's comment (below) as well.
Trevor wrote: "That is absolute bolony! What happens in the wheel does not happen on the atomic scale."
DeleteIF you were familiar with 20th century physics, you'd realize that WHENEVER an object loses energy, in ANY form, it must ALSO lose some mass. Thus, when Bessler' wheels were outputting energy, they were ALSO outputting the very small amount of MASS associated with that energy.
That mass was being taken from the lead weights inside of the drum. But, those lead weights were only huge collections of lead ATOMS each of which was made of SUBATOMIC particles. So, as the weights lost a tiny amount of their masses with each drum rotation, EACH of the subatomic particles within those weights was actually losing an even tinier amount of its "innate" energy / mass content.
I define the "innate" energy / mass content of a subatomic particle as that "base" amount it has when the particle is motionless and not located in a gravity field. However, as the particle begins to interact with other particles, its total energy / mass content will rise as various amounts of energy / mass in the forms of kinetic, gravitational, electric, magnetic, and nuclear are added to its base amount. But, in Bessler's wheels these other "higher" forms of energy / mass possessed by the subatomic particles within the weights' lead atoms were NOT being tapped to supply the energy / mass that the wheels outputted. That outputted energy / mass came only from the "innate" energy / mass content of the subatomic particles themselves and would, over long stretches of time, result in a working wheel's weights losing mass and weight.
I can assure everyone reading this, that it will be THESE concepts which will be used by the physicists to rationalize AND FINALLY ACCEPT AS POSSIBLE the operation of Bessler's wheels WHEN we finally manage to resurrect them!
John,..I see we're getting more junkmail than we're used to.
ReplyDeleteYou know there is a lot to be said for a type of club membership because it also gives members a certain ammount of status knowing that they have been approved.
Referring to Arktos's comment on the small size of the print;Why do you not use large type!
It will also discourage people from writing these long discourses.
"It will also discourage people from writing these long discourses."
DeleteThe new font size is certainly easier to read, but it won't affect the length of my comments. My comment lengths are determined by the minimum number of words I need to CLEARLY express a thought so that those investing the time to read it will actually have a good chance of understanding what I am trying to say and not by the size of the font.
I enlarged the font for the comments but it enlarges everything including the blog header but it seems I can't do one without the other.
ReplyDeleteJC
Ahhh...back where we started. Now, PLEASE leave it there!
DeleteThanks John for trying .I guess I could simply enlarge accordingly on my own computer.
DeleteJohn, one more suggestion regarding the font if I may. You might try the Verdana font if you have it. It was designed for readability (it is bigger than other fonts of the same point size), and was done for the purpose of allowing larger text without the need to zoom in the page to read the smaller text. It also has a nice clean look like the Arial/Calibri font you are using now.
DeleteRegarding recent spam cmments, I can either select notification of each comment and then approve or delete it before it is published - or I can enable word verification for your comments. This will require an extra step in the commenting process, which will deter automated comment spamming systems.
ReplyDeleteI don't think these spam comments are automated so only word verification will work and only then after they have been detected and banned.
JC
Please don't go to any trouble john,it's not important.
DeleteA scientist would tell you the solution mustn't violate physics laws. That's why a simulation will never work. The program doesn't have a "gravity wheel" written in the code, because perpetual motion violates the law. That's about all a serious scientist would have to say about a solution to Bessler's wheel.
ReplyDeleteAmateurs cling to the Bessler story like some sort of life preserver; they refuse to believe the only two ways forward that a scientist would accept; either it was a heat engine of some sort, and the definition for PM was still fuzzy enough to call it such, or it was an elaborate fraud. So amateurs won't find it either unless they are looking at non-OB designs.
If you think a heat engine wheel isn't possible, think again, because it's been done.
Of course you're right, Doug, but I cannot imagine that all these highly experienced and highly educated specialists of their day would fall for something so incredibly obvious such as a built-in Sterling-type engine or something similar. The evidence suggests completely otherwise - it was genuine (maybe not really PM, but that's another matter).
DeleteDoug illuminates us with: "A scientist would tell you the solution mustn't violate physics laws. That's why a simulation will never work."
DeleteThen it's is a "good" thing that Bessler's wheels did NOT violate ANY of the physics laws or I'd REALLY be wasting my time! LOL!
See my response to Trevor above.
It was a genuine what, Andre?
DeleteA heat engine doesn't have to be obvious, it just has to add force.
Your simulation won't find a solution because it's a classic OB design.
Doug
Doug wrote "Your simulation won't find a solution because it's a classic OB design."
DeleteAssuming this was addressed to me, my reponse is that my "classic" OB design has a VERY unique little trick incorporated into it that would not occur to the average mobilist in a thousand years! And, I'm betting that this little trick was what really made the difference between Bessler's OB PM gravity wheel working and all other designs that did not work!
Hi Doug, I like having your input - it keeps our feet on the ground! I think (hope) you will find that Bessler's wheel is not perpetual motion because it derives its energy from gravity. I know you argue that this would violate one or more laws of physics, but as I have said many times, I do not think this is so. In support of this I am working on a design which I believe will circumvent any violation and thus permit it to work. It's the same design I've been working on for ...what...three years now!
ReplyDeleteJC
Well, thanks but will my input keep your feet on the ground?
DeleteOf course it wasn't pm. Pm doesn't exist.
Why doesn't it violate physics? Deriving energy from gravity is definitely a violation.
JC wrote: "Hi Doug, I like having your input - it keeps our feet on the ground! I think (hope) you will find that Bessler's wheel is not perpetual motion because it derives its energy from gravity."
DeleteNO! NO portion of the energy / mass that Bessler's wheels outputted came from gravity! Gravity does NOT have any energy / mass to supply to a wheel. ALL of the energy / mass outputted by Bessler's wheels came from their lead weights which contained an ENORMOUS amount of energy / mass. Enough, in fact, to keep a wheel running freely for BILLIONS of years!
But, I DO agree with you and Doug that Bessler's wheels were NOT PM in the strictest definition of the term which would mean that they were able to continuously output energy / mass FOREVER. Since the weights within a wheel's drum only contained a FINITE amount of energy / mass, that amount could only be tapped for so long before a wheel would no longer be able to continously output energy / mass to perform "outside" work. I sometimes write PM as "PM" to warn the reader that MY use of the term PM is NOT the same PM that most mobilists usually think it is (that is, lasting forever). Maybe I should start using the expression PM* instead and then include a footnote to explain, as I just did in this comment, what I intend to be meant by PM.
@ All BCE’s
ReplyDeleteI thought it might be of interest to my fellow ‘Bessler Clue Enthusiasts’ to consider a small but possibly significant detail I have been pondering recently. I would be interested to hear what others think about it.
I think everyone knows that Bessler’s work Maschinen Tractate was given that title by John Collins in 2007: as he says in the preface to this publication “I have coined the title ‘Maschinen Tractate’ for the current work, as he (Bessler) discussed this project in his other works but there is no certainty that this was the actual work he was going to use under that title”
Bessler’s title for the work now known as MT was ‘Further demonstrations regarding the possibility and impossibility of perpetual motion’
The title of a work is usually considered very important by it’s creator. I imagine that Bessler gave exactly the same amount of careful consideration to his choice of title as every other ‘creator’ does in the same situation. I think therefore it is interesting to consider his careful choice of words and in particular the use of the word ‘further’.
It seems to me that calling this work ‘Further demonstrations …’ makes it sound like it is volume two, volume one having been called ‘Demonstrations …’
May I suggest that if this were volume two then it would not have the ball-bearings beginners stuff MT1-8 in it?
So why did Bessler use the word further?
Further to or further than what?
Further than ordinary understanding?
Does it mean this is the advanced stuff, the further lesson?
@JC John please would you confirm why it was that you changed the name FDRTPAIOPM to MT, what your thinking was at the time.
JW
A very interesting observation indeed, mr. Worton. I (of course, I'm not a Besller-specialist like you guys) wasn't aware of this. But this is very interesting statement by old fox Bessler.
DeleteGood thinking John. I did not associate the FDRTPAIOPM with a title, and without any other option I chose MT because, Bessler had offered to supply Peter the Great with a 'great Maschinen Tractate', with the wheel, for the improvement of his country's students. I didn't really think that what he was describing for Peter was the same as the document we now refer to as MT, but I thought that perhaps it might have included some of the drawings and anyway if it wasn't for Peter then he must have planned to use it for his School of Wisdom. Peter's MT never materialised as far as I can tell, but it was supposed to contain diagrams indicating the working of various machines, such windmill, waterpumps, clocks etc
DeleteJC
@JC
DeleteI am surprised that you did not associate the FDRTPAIOPM with The Title; did not see that as Bessler’s name for the work. To me it stands out as exactly that: The Title.
To me he emphatically and poignantly underlines His Title with His Cover Note that accompanies it on the same cover page: NB “Due to the arrest etc… explaining exactly what it is that the work contains: his synopsis.
JW
I guess that Bessler's intended title for his work could have been "Further demonstrations regarding the possibility and impossibility
Deleteof perpetual motion". But, it does seem a bit "wordy", IMO.
Perhaps, as was done with AP, he would have shortened the title to something like: "On the Possibility of Perpetuum Mobile" or "Experiments in Perpetuum Mobile". We may never know for sure.
Indeed, he may even have produced OTHER works which we have not seen and may never see! However, with the successful duplication of his wheels, we can expect many professional historians to begin researching the man and, perhaps, then these missing works will finally emerge.
Meanwhile, MT seems like a good "generic" title for the work and will probably continue to be used unless some solid evidence emerges to support a different title.
John, regarding the title of MT, I should point out that when the drawings were found they consisted of a pile of 141 loose papers and one of them had the lower case words ‘further demonstrations regarding the possibility and impossibility of perpetual motion’. To me that looks like a note about the drawings, to a subsequent finder. No upper case letters were used and it looks like a hastily scribbled note. If you look at any of his later drawings and writings all of it is designed to inform the reader is laid out properly with eleborate headings etc.
DeleteJC
"...when the drawings were found they consisted of a pile of 141 loose papers...
DeleteThanks for clearing that up for me, John. For some reason I've always thought that Bessler's widow found the actual woodcut printing plates containing the illustrations and that the drawings we have were made from them. It sounds from your description that Bessler did not make it that far.
Well, thankfully, when he was destroying the portions of MT that showed his WORKING design for an OB PM gravity wheel, he did not destroy the entire work!
We all know it takes much less effort to roll a weight along a horizontal surface than it does to lift it. Using this principle, if a mechanism can be devised to shift a weight outwards as it moves down the descending side and inwards as it moves up the ascending side, then I would say there is a good chance of creating an OB wheel. Bessler did say we have to think laterally if we want to get anywhere.
ReplyDeleteMT 1 and 2 show designs intended to spontaneously roll ascending side weights toward the axle and descending side weights away from the axle. This approach does not work because there is always a "sticking" point encountered during wheel rotation that prevents further rotation. When such points are encountered, it means that the CoM of the weights has moved from the descending side, passed the punctum quietus, and is beginning to climb up the wheel's ascending side. Only in a wheel that is constantly OB will there be NO sticking points.
Delete@Doug
ReplyDeleteWhat is the "heat engine wheel" which you remarked on? Sounds interesting, and I can't really think of what you are referring to.
Cheers Mimi
Well, any engine that creates heat could turn a wheel, couldn't it? A steam engine would be the starting point because it was being developed at the time.
Deletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_heat_engine_technology
The rest is just engineering as I've heard said.
"Heat Engine" type PM wheels usually use changes in the temperature of some of their parts to shift those parts around and thereby maintain the OB of the wheel for continous rotation.
DeleteFor example, there have been designs that use dark bi-metallic strips that, when heated, bend a bit so as to shift an attached weight either farther from or closer to a wheel's axle to achieve continuous OB. The strips can be heated by sunlight or a heat lamp on one side of the wheel's axle which makes them bend to shift the weights attached to them and then cool off on the other side of the axle which then makes them straighten out again and shift their attached weights back to where they started. Another type of "heat engine" PM wheel or, actually, a rotor is the Crookes "Radiometer" which I've mentioned in past comments.
Such "heat engine" type PM wheels do work, but usually they turn slowly and their sources of power are obvious. They have NOTHING whatsoever to do with the mechanism that Bessler found and used.
PART II:
ReplyDeleteOkay, time for a quick progress report on my latest "Contact at 3:00" 4:1 scale computer model wheel of one of the one-directional "sub wheels" used in the full sized Merseburg wheel.
I finished the source wheel earlier today and completed the "draping" proceedure which, basically, establishes the orientations of the weighted levers whose pivots are located at the wheel's 10:30, 12:00, 1:30, and 3:00 positions. The 7:30 position weighted lever was then adjusted until it was exactly rotated 5 degrees CW from a vertical line passing through the lever's pivot. The 4:30 and 6:00 weighted levers' weights are resting on their rim stops.
I then held my breath and hit the "Run" button to make the CoM symbol appear.
The "good" news is that, as I had hoped for in the my comment on the last blog entry, the CoM of the model wheel's eight 1 ounce weights was horizontally projected onto the descending side by a distance of 0.19000 inches DESPITE the non-verticality of the 7:30 weighted lever! This, obviously, is due to the new slightly modified "magic" lever that I had to fashion for the design. It's not the 0.25000 inches I would really LOVE to have, but I'll go with it for the time being.
I was getting ready to attach the primary and secondary springs to the new design's weighted levers when I realized that I had forgotten to put the attachment points for the springs onto the wheel! So, I'm now doing that and, hopefully, this will be completed tonight or early tomorrow morning.
BTW. In Bessler's wheels, the springs were NOT directly attached to the levers. Rather, their ends were "anchored" to attachment points inside a drum while the other ends were attached to cords which then were attached to points on the levers. I've tried making these with WM2D, but the result is that it then takes forever (literally!) to calculate each frame of the simulation. So, I have to just stretch my springs from their correct drum attachment points directly to their attachment points on the weighted levers in order for my PC's aging processor to be able to calculate each sim frame in a reasonable amount of time. This does not affect the tensions being applied to the weighted levers, but I must always remember that the actual 4:1 scale size springs of my model wheel (only 1.5 inches in length unstretched) are shorter than the drum attachment point to lever attachment point distances shown by the program.
LOL! OBVIOUSLY, this was supposed to be PART I and NOT PART II!
DeleteSorry about that.
PART II:
ReplyDeleteSo, the next step will be to attach the primary and secondary springs, set their parameters (that is, their k values and unstretched lengths), and then to again begin testing various groups of weighted levers to make sure they work individually. Once that testing is completed, it will be time to insert the cords that will interconnect all of the isolated groups of weighted levers and see how they work together during a 45 degree increment of drum rotation.
Mainly, I need to see the "Bessler Effect" being displayed by the ascending side's 9:00 going to 10:30 weighted lever as its weight rises smoothly closer to its rim stop during the interval of rotation. IF this happens, then I should also see the horizontal projection of the CoM of the design's eight 1 ounce weights onto the wheel's descending side remain at that distance of 0.19000 inches that I mentioned above. It would be REALLY nice if, early in the 45 degree interval of drum rotation, that distance suddenly increased to about 0.25000 inches.
Well, my latest research has, at least, finally removed my fear of using NON-vertical 7:30 weighted levers. If what I have now still does not display the "Bessler Effect", then I will have to consider going to a design that rotates the 7:30 weighted lever 10 degrees away from a vertical line passing through the pivot and see if that finally forces the effect to appear (and, yes, if I pursue that option, it will be necessary to further modify my "magic" lever design a bit).
To be continued...
To be continued? That's all we need, to start seeing PART III, PART IV...
DeleteFor a guy that says he doesn't have enough time to deal with his own Blog, you sure are spending a lot of time "contributing" to John's.
I thought you had stated once that the 'magic lever' design was dictated by the DT portrait clues, now you're saying that you need to "further modify" it's design??
I will not be posting any comments that are more than two parts. Often, my single comment just exceeds the 4,096 character limit per comment by a small percentage and I then divide it into two roughly equal parts for the sake of symmetry. By "To be continued" I mean that I will periodically be posting progress reports on my ongoing Bessler research and, of course, probably providing a few more details here and there for those who are SERIOUS about finding THE design that Bessler found and used. So far, I've only released about 30% to 40% of the information I have on Bessler's wheels, especially his Merseburg wheel in which I "specialize".
DeleteOh, yes, the portrait clues DO define the shape of the magic levers that one uses. But, occasionally, based upon further modeling and testing, one realizes that his previous interpretations of the shapes and orientations of certain parts of the levers may not be correct. Then it's time to "revisit" the particular clues involved and look for possible alternative interpretations to use as a guide to crafting modified lever shapes. Previously, I would have sworn that the 7:30 drum position weighted levers HAD to be vertically oriented or it would ruin the OB of the wheel's CoM. Now, based on current modeling and testing, I realize that this is NOT a requirement and will be free to incorporate NON-verticality of that weighted lever in future designs.
It would, indeed, have been nice if Bessler had left us a set of precise schematics to follow as we try to duplicate his wheels, but that was not his intention. One must painstakingly navigate his way through the MANY portrait clues locating every possible clue and then basing model construction of every possible interpretation of those clues. It is a VERY demanding pursuit and that is why I continue to state that only 1 in 1,000 mobilists will be able to reach the point that I have after YEARS of effort. Even so, final successful completion will only be had by the LUCKIEST of mobilists.
I'm hoping (and praying!) that my luck continues to hold up.
I had some time available yesterday evening and managed to complete the various tests on the "isolated" groups of weighted lever within my, now to be referred to as, "85 Degree 7:30 / Contact BEFORE 3:00" model wheel. Happily, once again, everything is working just fine during a 45 degree interval of rotation and the next test will be to see if everything continues to work "just fine" so as to produce that "Bessler Effect" that I need to see when the groups of weighted levers are connected together by certain key cords. Hopefully, I'll be able to complete that test later today or tomorrow.
ReplyDeleteCurrently, based on what seems like valid interpretations of the DT portrait clues, I am using a k value of 1.25 lbs/in. for my 4:1 scale model's 1.5 inch long (unstretched) primary springs and a k value of 2.50 lbs/in. for its 1.5 inch long (unstretched) secondary springs each of which, in a real wheel, would be replaced with TWO 1.5 inch long (unstretched), k = 1.25 lbs/in. springs in parallel. (These unstretched spring lengths correspond to lengths of 6 inches and the k values of 20 lbs/in. and 40 lbs/in. in the FULL size Merseburg wheel.)
If this configuration still stubbornly refuses to display the "Bessler Effect", then I may consider revisiting the design that had the weighted levers resting their weights on their rim stops between the drum's 3:00 and 4:30 positions. That will require the construction of an "85 Degree 7:30 / Contact AFTER 3:00" model wheel, but, since there is no change in the angle of the weighted lever at the wheel's 7:30 position, it will not be necessary to further modify the shape of the "magic" levers used for this design.
It's a LOT of work, but a far better approach to use then just trial and error designing and testing using ONLY the NON-DT portrait clues. JUST using the NON-DT portrait clues in the Bessler literature is like being blindfolded and told that you must throw your darts at one of the four walls in a room in order to hit a "bull's eye" on that wall. When the DT portrait clues are included along with the NON-DT portrait clues, then it's like being told WHERE on that wall the dart board is located. But, you will still have to throw a LOT of darts at it before you finally hit its "bull's eye"!
Anonymous, on 18 December 2012 03:24, keenly observed:
ReplyDeleteTo be continued? That's all we need, to start seeing PART III, PART IV...
For a guy that says he doesn't have enough time to deal with his own Blog, you sure are spending a lot of time "contributing" to John's.
I thought you had stated once that the 'magic lever' design was dictated by the DT portrait clues, now you're saying that you need to "further modify" it's design??
==================================================================================================
Points well taken and put, Anonymous.
He is obviously insanely obsessed with posting here.
There seems a pushy sort of greasiness to it all.
What an empty, frantic non-existence he must live otherwise.
Speaking a bit personally, I do not discuss the tangle of details of what I do at my work bench, although I do have plenty of the like going on.
When DONE and GOING, the thing itself will be heard all about. 'Till then, I'll hold my piece and not bore everyone (and, over-tax kindly patience) with cracked-pot theories and explanations yet unproved.
Why does he not wait until his successful model is built and works, to grandly pronounce on punk theories, AS IF actual fact?
What makes him so oblivious to the discomfort of others (as has been made clear by various of others, and not just by myself) so as to charge-forth with endless, tasteless and overbearing screeds of utter, stultifying boredom?
What is WRONG with him?
Until he identifies his cowardly, little hiding rat self (whichever it may be in truth) I will not address him/she/it directly. (If this was noted previously by fellow respondents, now they may know it was by no coincidence.)
I am a real, authentically named human.
I am pictured twice over at B.W.F. How many here can claim these things?
(Long ago, after just joining, there was even a discussion undertaken by two Five-Greenie types, wherein yours truly was declared by the one that had known me from some earlier corresponding, to be "real". Realness in even typed contact IS important! The Internet has driven us participants to forget this; contactless-ness being now 'in'.)
WHO is he, Kenneth Behrendt risen from the dead, pushing that same old dismal theory about diminishing mass converted to energy, the same nonsense that got him pushed out of there? If so, it is no wonder then, that he will not step-forth. After all, how could he now?
Inquiring minds want to know: Who or what is he/she/it, and, is he real?
Come forth, you blathering boring coward! Our good patience nears it's end.
James
I don't even read some posts because I find it destroys my spontaneous creative thought.
ReplyDeleteReporting back,and with referance to Zoelra's query about just moving the weights to the side,which by the way is what this blog is all about.
ReplyDeleteI have contructed a wheel where all the lifting is done by other weights which then return to a balanced position.This also eliminates the bottom heavy keeling which always follows after the weights are moved to the side.
The result is still unity power out.
This does not effect my belief that there is a way.
Trevor, if you are saying, that it turns continually under it's own power, I have to ask you, how long does it run?
DeleteNo,..What Iam saying is,if it is unity out or just below because of friction,it slowly comes to a stop,even though the lifting problem has been eliminated.
DeletePerhaps I am missing something,some key factor that will make it turn.
"I have constructed a wheel ..."
Delete"The result is still unity power out."
If you have a wheel that will turn 355-360 degrees on it's own from a static release, that's a huge step forward !!
"... all the lifting is done by other weights which then return to a balanced position."
I'm picturing an overbalanced design. 'Weights' away from the axle on the descending side, drawn close to the axle on the ascending side.
Am I correct?
"This also eliminates the bottom heavy keeling which always follows after the weights are moved to the side."
I don't quite understand that, Trevor. I wish I could see a picture or drawing of what you mean. Maybe re-phrasing it would help me out?
Mark [BW forum]
Okay,..If you take for example a simple wheel with one crossbar and two opposing weights linked together. You have to lift these weights from a keeled position to the top and the inner hub to over-balance the wheel,whereupon it will turn from 12 o'clock to six.There it will stop because it's bottom heavy,or keeled.
ReplyDeleteTo overcome this keeling we use another set of weights of equal mass to lift these working weights back to the primed position where they can continue the cycle.These priming weights are held halfway in a neutral position so they do not effect the wheel balance.This is where springs come in handy because they can keep these balanced weights in a neutral balanced position but at the same time also allow the resonance of the swing, using gravity, to do their work of priming.
I must admit I thought I had it but maybe I've missed something.
I am going to re-visit it after I've rested my feeble brain and see if I can come up with a breakthrough.
Okay, Trevor, thank you. I can 'see' it now. The "after the weights are moved to the side" part kinda threw a wrench in to bucket of brain paint, made a mess of the mental image. :)
DeleteA couple more questions and I'll back out of here again.
Are we talking about a real world build, a sim, or a thought problem?
If real world, did it turn all but a *very* few degrees short of a complete revolution?
You also wrote: "Perhaps I am missing something, some key factor that will make it turn."
Possibly a prime mover? Something like I mentioned in my comments to John, in this post:
http://johncollinsnews.blogspot.com/2012/07/does-size-matter-and-other-questions.html?showComment=1342475678237#c7975796591006536570
Mark
@ Trevor
DeleteIt sounds like you are working on a variation of what I call "Flip Over Frame" type PM machines as depicted in illustrations like MT 31 to MT 36.
The problem with these devices is that, in order to FULLY raise the mass of their lifted weights, a bit MORE mass must fall. This requirement, if met, unfortunately, always leads to a situation in which the arrangement of weights, after a lift has taken place, becomes "bottom heavy" which is just another way of saying that the CoM of the weights is BELOW the axle. Alternatively, one can have the weights doing the lifting be of the SAME mass as those lifted, but then one must have them fall a greater distance than the lifted weights rise and, again, the configuration of weights will become bottom heavy. Once a configuration of weights becomes bottom heavy, it will want to stay in that configuration and not rotate away from it. It will only oscillate back and forth for awhile (that is, "keel") before it finally comes to a stable stop.
Yes, having stretched springs attached to the weights being lifted can reduce their effective weight and make it easier for weights of the same mass to lift them. BUT, those lifting weights then have springs attached to them which are being stretched as they fall and that, effectively, LOWERS the weight of the falling weights so that they are LESS able to lift the rising weights despite their reduction in weight caused by the stretched springs attached to them. It's a sort of "no win" situation for a design!
In this type of an approach to PM, I don't think the springs will make much of a difference.
TG,..Springs are not there to lift weights, they are there to provide resonance about a neutral point of balance.In this way they can still be used equally effectively to do the work of lifting.
DeleteBy the way,.. every gravity wheel is a type of flip over frame as you put it,whether it is one in four or four in one.
I think I'd have to see a sketch of what you are trying to do before I can comment on it further.
DeleteI agree that all "flip over frame" type PM machines have bi-lateral symmetry or, at least, the one's shown in MT do. But, as far as Bessler's wheels were concerned, once one got inside of their drums, there was no bi-lateral symmetry present no matter which direction one passed a dividing plane through the centers of their axles!
@ Trevor
DeleteSorry if I asked too many questions, I was merely trying to get a clearer picture of what you might have accomplished. For all I knew, congratulations were in order. I'll just wait for your declaration of success for that.
@ Technoguy
Way to barge into a into conversation, Ken. Like, you don't know which Reply box to use? Sometimes you can be such a jerk.
Mark
You're welcome Anon,..It's good to get some intelligent interaction in response to the mechanical configuration of the wheel.
Delete@Trevor,
Delete"springs come in handy because they can keep these balanced weights in a neutral balanced position"
I like the idea Trevor, but if these weights are held in a neutral position by springs, won't they always rest slightly BELOW a neutral position, because gravity is pulling them down? I can't quite see how they can return to a neutral position, because as soon as you allow them the capability of movement they will always gravitate to a slightly below neutral position. Unless I have misunderstood you. I would much appreciate your thoughts on this point.
Regards R.
@ Mark
DeleteUnlike YOU, I was trying to save Trevor from going down a design route that I know, from PERSONAL experience, will only be a dead end for him. I might be a "jerk" sometimes in your opinion, but, IMO, YOU are one MOST of the time!
Egads! Why did not someone warn me that our pseudo-intellectual TROLL had returned with a fresh bowel full of his totally boring and worthless rantings to discharge upon us?! Now I've stepped into a steaming pile of his poo and already its starting to burn a hole through my shoe leather! I'd better get this shoe off before the stuff reaches my foot! Yuck!
ReplyDeletePlease, in the future, someone take a moment or two to surround such messes with a few high visibility highway cones so that those entering these blog entry comment sections will not risk their new shoes stepping in them should they, by chance, approach them from their up wind sides.
Our translators of archaic and obsolete languages have finally translated the troll's name into standard modern English:
"PRIMEMIGNONITE" = PRIM + E + MI + GN + ON + I + T + E = (PRIM)ITIVELY + (E)VOLVED + (MI)GET + (GN)OME + (ON)LY + (I)RRITATING + (T)O + (E)VERYONE = "Primitively Evolved Miget Gnome Only Irritating To Everyone"
"PRIMEMIGNONITE" = "Primitively Evolved Miget Gnome Only Irritating To Everyone"
Amazing how much waste can come out of such a small and insignificant creature!
Just finished the testing of my current "85 Degree 7:30 / Contact BEFORE 3:00" 4:1 scale model wheel. The results are "mixed", but, generally, "bad". Here's what happened:
ReplyDeleteI started with the scale model's 1.5 inch (unstretched) primary springs stretched 0.25 inches and having a spring constant or k value = 1.25000 lbs / in. (corresponding to a stretch of 1 inch and k value of 20 lbs / in. in the full size Merseburg wheel). After a 45 degree interval of wheel rotation, there was NO smooth lifting of the 9:00 going to 10:30 position weighted lever's weight taking place and, hence, NO "Bessler Effect" being displayed.
Undaunted, I increased the model's primary spring k value to 1.5625 lbs / in. (corresponding to 25 lbs / in. for the full size Merseburg wheel) and still NO "Bessler Effect".
Finally, when the model's primary springs were adjusted to k = 1.8750 lbs / in. (or 30 lbs / in. in the full size Merseburg wheel), the "Bessler Effect" occurred!
BUT, although I saw the desired effect, it occurred VERY late in the 45 degree increment of wheel rotation and, worst of all, the high k value of the primary springs prevented the 6:00 going to 7:30 position weighted lever from parting company with its rim stop! Needless to say, this had a disasterous effect on the location of the CoM of the model's eight 1 ounce weights which quickly rotated over to the wheel's ascending side until the "Bessler Effect" finally occurred at which time it flew back to the punctum quietus, but not onto the descending side of the model wheel.
So, once again, I must deem this design to be a failure. However, I did note that, as the last k value produced the "Bessler Effect", the late interval shiftings of the 7:30 going to 9:00 position and 9:00 going to 10:30 position weighted levers were smooth and precise and this indicates that the connecting cords between these two levers have the correct lengths and are attached to the levers at the correct points on them.
My next attempt was going to be the "construction" of a "Contact BEFORE 3:00" wheel that would have the 7:30 position weighted lever rotated CW about its pivot 10 degrees from a vertical line passing through its pivot (a so-called "80 Degree 7:30 / Contact BEFORE 3:00" model wheel) which, as I previously mentioned, requires another "magic" lever shape modification to be made.
However, something is telling me to first try the current magic lever with a design whose weights make contact with their rim stops AFTER their levers' pivots pass the wheel's 3:00 position. This should be fairly easy to do since it does not require modifying my present "magic" lever design. I'll get to work on it as soon as possible.
To be continued...
You're welcome Anon,..its good to get some intelligent interaction in response to the mechanical configuration of the wheel.
ReplyDelete@Trevor,
ReplyDelete"springs come in handy because they can keep these balanced weights in a neutral balanced position"
I like the idea Trevor, but if these weights are held in a neutral position by springs, won't they always rest slightly BELOW a neutral position, because gravity is pulling them down? I can't quite see how they can return to a neutral position, because as soon as you allow them the capability of movement they will always gravitate to a slightly below neutral position. Unless I have misunderstood you. I would much appreciate your thoughts on this point.
Regards R.
Yes you are right of course but when the springs are suficient there is always a reactive bounce to help it over the apex. Also remember it's weight is partly balanced out by the weight it has to lift to prime for the next cycle.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure that this is the system that Bessler used because it requires two weights to do the over-balancing and two weights of equal mass to do the priming and that is only for one pair of weights.
Bessler had four pairs so if you add the priming weights as well that would total 16 weights altogether.
This wheel would be quite heavy but it does eliminate the keeling of the wheel and at the same time it's weight would give it a smooth flywheel action.
In my last comment I wrote:
ReplyDelete"However, something is telling me to first try the current magic lever with a design whose weights make contact with their rim stops AFTER their levers' pivots pass the wheel's 3:00 position."
I'm happy to report that this "85 Degree 7:30 / Contact AFTER 3:00" 4:1 scale model wheel is now finished and, indeed, was rather easy to make.
I have not yet had the time to do any "motor assisted" tests with this little "detour" design, but shall try to accomplish that later today if possible. I did, however, do one quick static test of the design and was not too pleased with it. It shows that the horizontal component of the CoM's location projects only 0.14000 inches onto the wheel's descending side from a vertical line passed through the center of the axle. That was a LOT less than I was expecting (remember, I'm shooting for 0.25000 inches because, when scaled up to that of the full sized Merseburg wheel, it would provide an axle torque in the range of what that large 12 diameter wheel possessed).
If this detour design, once again, fails to produce the "Bessler Effect", then it will be time to return to the "Contact BEFORE 3:00" designs and see what are the effects of incrementally inclining the 7:30 weighted lever away from a vertical line passed through its pivot. I know that such an inclination allows the 7:30 going to 9:00 position weighted lever to deliver more gravitational energy / mass to the weighted levers that lead it which is a "good" thing. However, I dread what the effect of the increasing inclination will have on the location of the design's CoM.
When one really gets "into" reverse engineering Bessler's wheels, he eventually becomes aware that the smallest change in the shape or orientation of a weighted lever may have one of three effects: it makes matters worse, has no significant effect, or makes matters better. Thus, one develops a sense as he goes along of whether he is straying from the "right track", making no progress on it, or, joyously, moving along that track in the "right" direction and toward eventual success.
This detour momentarily took me OFF of the "right track" and, consequently, I will no longer be using the "Contact AFTER 3:00" wheel designs. And, besides, there seem to be MORE clues in the DT portraits indicating that weight to rim stop contact took place BEFORE 3:00 than after 3:00 and those clues are a LOT more difficult to locate and interpret. That seems to me like they are more probably valid because of the effort Bessler went to hide them.
To be continued...
The right track must be in the shape of a wheel.
DeleteNah, the Right Track is more like a broken record than a wheel.
DeleteSadly, the "right track" is, as I've often lamented, not a straight express highway to success, but, rather, more like a narrow, curving, treacherous dirt road with MANY dead ends and traps CAREFULLY placed along its length. The Master made SURE that was the route that anybody trying to extract the CORRECT details of his secret wheel mechanism from the two DT portraits would have to travel. Unfortunately, there is really no better alternative method to use IF one wants to finally resurrect THE "simple" wheel design that Bessler found and used.
DeleteYes, some lucky mobilist MIGHT, just based upon the NON-portrait clues, hit upon THE design Bessler used just as he might also correctly quess all of the numbers that will be selected in the next drawing of his state's or country's national lottery. Using the DT portrait clues, IMO, GREATLY reduces the odds that one must "overcome" to achieve success in finding Bessler's design...sort of like going from playing a state's "Pick 6 Lotto" game (where one must correctly select the 6 numbers that will be drawn from a "field" of about 49 numbers) to playing a "daily" numbers game in which one need only correctly select one number from a thousand.
I have been hoping that by THIS Christmas I would be able to give each and every mobilist out there (even if I DON'T like him!) a nice little brightly wrapped gift in the form of an announcement on THIS blog, JC's own, that, finally, the Bessler wheel mystery has been SOLVED and then proceeding to "prove" it by releasing a video clip of the simulation of a virtual wheel using the design. Toward those goals, I have been working at about double my normal rate of designing and testing so that I could play Santa Claus to the mobilists of PM land on Christmas day. Imagine of being able to anticipate starting the New Year by constructing a design that a glitch-free computer model shows WILL work!
Well, it might all still happen that way and I will, of course, be doing my best to make it so.
At this point in time, I am confident that my basic "right track" wheel design IS correct, but that there are still some problems with it involving the weighted levers with pivots at the 7:30, 9:00, and 10:30 positions that are preventing them from displaying the "Bessler Effect" EARLY in a 45 degree interval of drum rotation. If those problems can be resolved, then success WILL follow.
I will have to just keep "building" and testing while analyzing the two DT portraits and also PRAYING that I will be THE luckiest post-Bessler / Asa Jackson mobilist who ever lived!
TG,..Even Bessler commented that it looked nothing like a wheel inside.
DeleteThe round casing was there just to hide and protect the mechanism from dust.
@Trevor
DeleteCan you be more specific as to Bessler's comment regarding the wheel not looking like a wheel on the inside.
Trevor wrote: "...Even Bessler commented that it looked nothing like a wheel inside."
DeleteThe "right track" design I continue to work on does NOT look "like a wheel" inside. Rather, it is just a collection of 8 weighted levers whose configuration is maintained by the interconnecting cords and tensioning springs attached to the weighted levers. When all parts are PRECISELY counter balanced against each other, this configuration will "persist" (relative to an outside observer, that is) despite the rotation of the wheel and keep its weights' CoM always located on the wheel's descending side. It's almost as though the 8 weights were moving along INVISIBLE tracks within the wheel that both guided and supported them!
Zoelra wrote: "Your build is influenced as much by your interpretation of the clues as the clues themselves. There is a change [should be "chance"] that you could actually come up with a runner that is not Bessler design, and you won't even know it."
That's the whole idea! The reverse engineering Bessler mobilist who strives to complete his journey down the "right track" to successful rediscovery of Bessler's secret OB PM gravity wheel design and the two DT portraits must enter into a bizarre "feedback loop" with each other wherein test results influence clue interpretations and clue interpretations influence future designs to be tested. Eventually, this "dance" will spiral down to a PARTICULAR design and THAT design will be THE one!
The clues are so many in the portraits that it would seem to me that the chance of deriving anything other than Bessler's design from them with structural features that agreed with ALL of clues would be EXTREMELY small. I'm not really worried about that happening. IF I find a working design based on the portrait clues, then it will be Bessler's as far as I am concerned.
The following seems to have similarities to TG's design:
ReplyDeleteWithin a glass case about the size of a common Yankee Clock, is held a brass wheel and its adjuncts composing the machine. The motive power is gravitation, operating upon weights thrown off from one side of the wheel. Leaden weights slide along the circumference of the wheel; to each of these is attached an arm, occupied with a brass bar, in such a manner as to throw out the bar with a brass weight attached to the extreme end, unfolding these bars in turn, much as if the hand that had been held drawn up to the shoulder, were thrown outward from the body by the straightening of the elbow joint, the extended clenched fist occupying the position of the brass weight. The brass weights carry their side of the wheel downward, and as each leaden weight, which had slidden forward and downward upon its passing the vertical point, passes the opposite point below, past which it is carried by the gravitation of the brass weights, it slides or falls back, and this movement in turn moves the inner end of the bar to which the brass weight is attached, in such a manner as to cause the weight to fold themselves up. This position they occupy with the circumference of the wheel until again the leaden weight passes the vertical joint, and they are in turn acted upon from the wheel as before. A cord passing around the shank of this lower motive wheel, is carried over a wheel above, carrying what may be called the escapement works of a clock with a pendulum. The pendulum, and the motive wheel below will continue its revolutions; stop the motive wheel below, and the pendulum above stops, showing that the motive power lies in the wheel with its weights below, and not in the works above. Loosen the cord that passes over the shank of the motive wheel below and carries the works above, and at once the motion of the large wheel below is accelerated, constantly increasing in speed with its own revolutions, and throwing off the weight with a rapidity and force that, unchecked, would cause the machine to tear itself into pieces. The inventor finds it necessary to keep the cord quite tight around the shank of the great wheel, in order to prevent his machine, when in motion, from destroying itself by the mere force of its own propelling power.
Regards R.
@R
DeleteCan you share where you found this information?
@ Zoelra
Deletehttp://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3886
Several very interesting examples here.
Regards R.
@ R
DeleteThanks for the material on this device. To bad we can't post images here, though, since that would make it easier to see how this device worked. I can assure everyone here that the "right track" design I am working on is NOT the same as what is described except for having weights on levers that are carried by a wheel around its axle.
Basically, this is yet another example of the MANY bogus PM machines that were constructed by clockmakers over the centuries (why do so many of them automatically assume that they should be able to duplicate Bessler's achievement?!). If one takes such a bogus device and disassembles it, it will be seen that the "motive wheel" is, in reality, only BEING driven by the clock part and NOT the other way around as one is led to expect by viewing the assembled device in operation. Somewhere in the clock part there will be a hidden source of energy / mass which is usually a tightly coiled mainspring cleverly concealed within the base of the device.
Well, I just completed about an hour of motor assisted testing of my latest "85 Degree 7:30 / Contact AFTER 3:00" 4:1 scale computer model wheel which I previously referred to as my "detour" wheel design. As I had expected the test results were very disappointing.
ReplyDeleteAgain, the "Bessler Effect" could only be produced very late in the 45 degree interval of drum rotation and, even then, only if I made the k values of the primary springs attached to the weighted levers so high that it actually kept the weights pinned against their rim stops as the levers' pivots approached the drum's 7:30 position. The start of interval horizontal projection of the CoM of the design's eight 1 ounce lead weights onto the descending side was only 0.14000 inches away from a vertical line passing through the center of the axle and, after rotation commenced, quickly sank to the punctum quietus and then over to the ascending side of the wheel.
This failure has FINALLY convinced me that the "Contact AFTER 3:00" type wheel design is NOT the one that Bessler used. Hereafter, I will be focusing exclusively upon the "Contact BEFORE 3:00" type designs.
My next design to try was going to be a "Contact BEFORE 3:00" type in which the weighted lever at the 7:30 drum position was rotated 10 degrees CW away from a VERTICAL line passing through the lever's pivot. Using my nomenclature system, this would have been referred to as a "80 Degree 7:30 / Contact BEFORE 3:00" wheel design since the 7:30 weighted lever can also be considered to be rotated about its pivot CCW by 80 degrees from a HORIZONTAL line passing through the lever's pivot.
However, I have recently been spending more than the usual amount of time with the two DT portraits and, incredibly, I've managed to locate TWO additional clues in the second portrait that SEEM to indicate that the 7:30 weighted levers inside of Bessler's wheels were actually rotated 15 degrees CW away from a vertical line passing through their levers' pivots! So, in order to save as much time as possible since these modifications require redesigning my "magic" levers, I've decided to skip the construction of the "80 Degree 7:30 / Contact BEFORE 3:00" wheel design and go straight to a "75 Degree 7:30 / Contact BEFORE 3:00" wheel design (in this case the weighted levers can also be considered to rotated 75 degrees CCW about their pivots from a horizontal line passing through their pivots). If the "Bessler Effect" can not be produced early in the interval with this design, then, obviously, it would not have been produced by the skipped design either.
An early indication that this "75 Degree 7:30 / Contact BEFORE 3:00" wheel design is THE one will be the quick static test I use to determine the horizontal projection of its weights' CoM onto the wheel's descending side. Any distance over 0.20000 inches will be a VERY "good" sign. If I get 0.25000 inches or greater, I will dance in the street outside of my home! LOL!
I should be able to have the modified "magic" levers "crafted" and this design using them completely "built" and tested BEFORE this Tuesday, December 25th which, of course, is Christmas Day and observed by over a billion Christians globally. This would have been a VERY important holiday for Bessler and he would have made allowances for it in his work and research schedules. IF a GREAT deal of luck is with me, then I just MIGHT be able to make a REALLY important announcement HERE on Christmas Day of the 300th Anniversary of the public demonstration of Bessler's Gera wheel!
Tg,your tracks will take's you to the cliff,maybe you should start rethink your methods to achieve your goal.I am still working on my device (physical),like i said before, it is not a wheel, and i have no illusions, i just keep working on it,the problem is the amount of things combined,it will take long time to go throughout all the combinations.
Delete"Tg, your tracks will take's you to the cliff..."
DeleteTime will tell, vincent. I do know that I am now beginning to work on a design that I have never tried before because I did not previously have the clues or their interpretations that would have led me to it. I'm keeping my fingers crossed that this will, finally, be IT. But, if not, then, perhaps, a little bit of modification will do the trick, but that would have to wait until after the holidays. Be nice, though, if the rediscovery could officially take place on Christmas Day as a tribute to the Master and acknowledgement of his strong religious beliefs.