Going by the designs I receive by email, from time to time, I notice that the majority of people have devised fairly complex designs in their efforts to solve Bessler's wheel. Not complex in the way a petrol engine looks when you see an exploded diagram of one, but more complex than it might need to be. I think the following points are worth bearing in mind when attempting to solve this conundrum.
Bessler was worried that people would think that the wheel wasn't worth the asking price once they saw how it worked and how simple it was. He was also concerned that a glimpse of the workings or a careless word uttered, might give away the secret, and Karl, the Landgrave, described the wheel as being extremely simple
The Gera wheel, his first, measured 4.6 feet in diameter and only 4 inches in thickness. The framework which supported the weights and the levers, or whatever else was contained within the wheel, must have been formed to supply a certain rigidity in order not to deform or break down when rotating. We have no details on the size of the axle but assuming that it was of a sufficient size to keep the wheel stable and relative to the next thee wheel which were correspondingly larger, I think it must have been about 4 inches thick.
These figures suggest an internal thickness of three to three and a half inches maximum, which does not leave much room for the weights. I'm sure they weren't as heavy as the ones Christian Wolff described as being about 4 pounds in weight, and they would have to have some room to accomodate an lateral movement. The motion of the wheel was described as being accompanied by scratching and scraping sounds, and this suggests that the levers were rubbing against each other as they moved, or the weights were scraping the internal walls of the wheel.
Finally I remain fairly certain that there were five mechanisms within the wheel for reasons additional to the ones I've described elsewhere and this helps to confirm the basic argument I'm putting forward here, that the solution will be found to be extremely simple and not of a complex design - and the mechanisms took up very little room. The theory I've been working on for the last eighteen months or so, seems to suggest that although it looks simple there are at least two principles to bear in mind and I've recently found that I can distill the amount of mechanism down to fewer component parts and replicate the action I achieved with a more complex design. This will, I hope, enable me to fit five of them within the wheel.
.
JC10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.
John,
ReplyDeletehow about this for simple,
5 T shaped pendulums equidistantly placed around the rim, link 5 beams between the R.H. end of the T arm, using a straight beam would give a pentagon, this would also be off centre.
Can't think of anything more simple than that!
Hhhhmmm - I must think about that - thanks Stevo.
ReplyDeleteJC
John,
Deletejust a little more thinking, if instead of a T a F was used, you could have two connecting beams, it would give the pendulums vertical stability, and form a pantograph as well. It would still be carpenter's boy simple.
Some more thought on the pentagon shape,
Deletethis would of course be as near to a circle you could get, using as few "sides" as possible, which would make the construction less work.
John,
Deletethe F instead of T idea doesn't work, as the angles change as the wheel revolves,
now here's a big BUT, if stub axles are used, rather than one that goes through,
the wheel will work with just one beam.
With two pendulums directly opposite each other, at 12 and 6 O'clock, the beam would be to the right of centre.
With the two pendulums directly opposite each other at 9 and 3 O'clock, the beam would be positioned towards 3 O'clock, still out of balance.
This would also look very much like the pantograph.
Thanks John. I like the idea of concentrating on the Gera wheel rather than the possibly more complex two-way wheels.
ReplyDeleteI have asked this a few times but have not really gotten an answer so maybe you can respond. Are there any accounts of either the Gera or Draschwitz wheel being held and allowed to only spin slowly? The reason for asking is it would help dispel the notion that energy was somehow stored up in the wheel while running fast, and later released during start-up to get the wheel up to speed so it could continue to propel itself (possibly due to CF).
I would think that if the wheel could consistently propel itself while turning slowly, this would eliminate CF/inertia as a driving factor. This pretty much leaves weights, leverage, cords, and springs as the internal shifting components. I am of course leaving out all the other ideas that have been suggested such as water, mercury, vacuum pressure and the like as I don't think a design including these features would be considered simple.
I should correct one detail above, which makes the narrowness of the wheel even more immpressive. The quoted 4 inches are an approximation derived from the Leipzig Ell, and should actually read 3.7 of our inches.
DeleteJC
It does not say that, Zoelra, but I think that the tests carried out, which were mentioned in a general way with those two wheels, included trying to stop or slow the wheel down by physically braking it by hand, suggests that the energy used was not stored, but rather it tapped as required at each point in time - by being continuously over balanced.
DeleteWhen the wheel did some work, it slowed down and ran at the slower pace until the load was removed.
JC
Thanks John.
DeleteBraking by hand would be a good test of the wheel's power. I would imagine that anyone performing such tests would have wanted to hold on to the wheel for some time to feel the force of the wheel in their hands to see if the wheel turned steadily or faltered. If there were noticeable lapses or surges in the wheels power, the examiners would have taken note of that and recorded this as further evidence.
I agree about the simplicity, and the overbalance force was released "step by step" with decreasing force vs. increasing RPM/CF. (As also is evident from the known facts.)
ReplyDeleteAs you know, I claim to know every detail about the mechanism and also can prove any detail about how the invention was protected and patented. Now including text deciphering with a variation of standard rosicrucian aproach. I have started writing a book instead of the videos, as the whole story is better when put in perspective with a red line throughout the whole story. For those interested in the Bessler story, I asure you there are a lot of material giving you goosebumps and jaw drops. Today I reached page 100 of the documentary book of "Bessler hidden message". By the way, I sent you an E-mail with question regarding using references to your work. (Reminder here, if you have missed the mail).
I have just gotten access to a (empty) room in close vicinity, where I can start to build the complete the wheel myself. Just have to fill it up with tools and materials..
Keep it up. Bessler was genuine!