I know I've covered this briefly in the past, but an email I received, suggesting the writer knew that Bessler's wheel was not permanently out of balance prompted me to rehearse my arguments against that conclusion again, here.
According to Johann Bessler, his wheel would begin to turn as soon as the brake was released. This statement is supported by witnesses. But some people have suggested that Bessler stopped the wheel at a certain point so that the wheel would begin to spin as described because it was stopped at a point where its internal mechanisms were in an overbalancing position.
However it is reported that the visitors to the wheel were allowed to stop and start the wheel as often as they wished, and I 'm sure that someone would have commented on the fact that the wheel had to be stopped in a certain position for it to begin to rotate of its own accord - and without a push - if that was the case.
If this spontaneous start was only possible when the wheel was in a certain position, then that implies there were what I might call flat spots during each rotation. If the wheel was only out of balance on either side of these flat spots then the wheel would turn unevenly, but the witnesses all noted the extreme evenness of its rotation.
Also when the wheel was lifting the weight of 70 pounds from the castle yard to the roof, the flat spots would have become much more obvious. In an unloaded rotation the impetus from the overbalancing portion of each rotation would carry the wheel over the flat spots but when under load they would be emphasised and, I repeat, the very even running of the wheel was noted, I think we can believe what Bessler told us, and that is that the wheel started spontaneously.
If a state of permanent imbalance existed in the first two wheels then the latter two wheels, capable of being rotated in either direction, would, with mirror image mechanisms, remain in a state of balance until manually started. This implies that rotation was generated by the movement of the weights, and the alternative mirrored set of mechanisms moving in reverse, might add a braking effect but not cancel the overbalancing caused by the forward moving set. So there were two effects present.
In the one way wheels, there was the initial overbalancing and secondly there was the result of rotation which repeated the overbalancing which had been present initially. In the two way wheels with the overbalancing not present initially, the mechanisms required to be in motion before they could begin to overbalance the wheel. The mirror image mechanisms would not achieve overbalance even when moving in reverse, but they did remove the permanent overbalance present in the one way wheels.
I think it is possible that with fewer mechanism the wheel might have experienced flat spots during rotation but we won't know for sure until some one builds one.
JC
10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.
I agree...
ReplyDeleteHi Oystein,
DeleteI did enquire as to your health a while back, but no response, glad you're OK.
Thank you, I am still recovering, and it seems I will have to live with some symptomes. I have only had energy to do more research into BEssler writing and found more marvelous stuff :-)
Delete;-)
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeletethree coincidences in a row !
I'm not saying my idea is correct, but it does start spontaneously, and because the weights are sequentially overbalanced, when one weight is fully extended, the previous one is half way back, and the one after is half way out, this produces a smooth rotation.
Well, at least it did on my partially completed model. :-)
I've always assumed that all of Bessler's one-directional wheels were always out of balance and always self-starting. I see nothing in his writings to contradict this. They did not need to be "primed" by being rotated into a certain orientation before a start up.
ReplyDeleteI also am convinced that each of his two-directional wheels really contained two one-directional wheels in a "back to back" configuration. After being given a push, whatever one-directional wheel was then forced to counter rotate from its "preferred" direction of motion, would have the center of mass of its weights quickly retracted back to the center of the axle where it could contribute no torque to the axle. In effect, the one-directional wheel so disabled became a "dead wheel" and was just along for the ride while the other wheel, allowed to function normally as a one-directional wheel, provided all of the torque to the axle.
It requires a special mechanism to create this interesting, but really unnecessary bi-directional effect with two back to back one-directional wheels. It took me several dozen models over the course of a month or so to find what I believe is the mechanism Bessler used. It is a novel, yet simple mechanism using latches that must be attached to all 16 of the levers found inside of a two-directional wheel. I would advise anyone who attempts the reconstruction of one of Bessler's large wheels someday to just initially concentrate on making a one-directional wheel that works in order to keep the construction as simple as possible.
I have an 8 weight test wheel, similar to MT9. The wheel is 1ft in radius and each weight is 2lb. The weights shift outward at 1:30 and back in at 4:30. The weight extension is around 2 inches. Even with this limited overbalance, the wheel starts rather quickly and steadily speeds up thru the next 45 degrees. At this point the next set of weights are ready to be pushed out and pulled in, and this usually brings the wheel to a stop, but it does so with a snap and a jerk. I think people underestimate just how quickly the wheel can get moving from a stopped position.
ReplyDelete(the next weight movement)
There are several factors which determine how fast an imbalanced wheel will accelerate. Obviously, the more massive the center of mass and the farther out, horizontally, it is from the center of the axle, the faster the wheel will accelerate because the torque will be greater. The moment of inertia of the wheel is also very important. The closer to the axle the weights are located, the lower will be the moment of inertia of the wheel and the faster it will accelerate for a given torque. I estimate that the maximum torque of the Merseberg wheel was about 40 inch-pounds which, with a 6 inch diameter axle and a 5x increase in mechanical advantage using a compound pulley system, would allow it to slowly raise a 60 lb weight continuously. This torque is surprisingly low considering that the wheel was 12 feet in diameter. But, the reason is because the center of mass of the one-directional wheel that was driving it was only projected out about 1/2 inch from the center of the axle!
ReplyDeleteYour weight test wheel uses heavy weights for only a 2 ft diameter model. It's snapping to an abrupt stop because all of the kinetic energy developed from it being imbalanced and rotating through 45 degrees is being used to supply the gravitational potential energy needed to raise the two weights at the 1:30 and 4:30 o'clock positions. Bessler would have solved this dilemma, I believe, by using spring tension to counter balance the weights at those positions so that they could be raised more easily.
I mounted the weight levers on a larger bicycle wheel rim. This simplified the design considerably. You are right about the snapping to an abrupt stop. The weights would be yanked up quickly and almost made it to their stops before the wheel came to a stop. I switched between 2 and 5 pound weights and the lever mechanisms behaved the same. The change in weight didn't really seem to have any adverse effect on the wheels operation, the wheel just had more overbalance.
DeleteSome time ago, someone on this site or BW.com mentioned that a Bessler Wheel would take a few turns to get up to speed. From the observations of my test wheel, the wheel was moving pretty quickly when it came to the next lift position (after 45 degrees). Had it been able to keep turning and accelerating at the same pace, I can only wonder how fast it would have been turning after just one revolution. The test wheel was just for learning and observation.
I can't find any information about how fast Bessler's wheels accelerated, accept for one reference that said they got up to full, unloaded speed within two complete turns. But, it did not say how long it took to complete those two turns. I suspect, however, that they probably reached full speed in about 30 seconds. That's fairly rapid for a 12 diameter wheel weighing hundreds of pounds.
DeleteI had a wheel once that actually self started and made it through several rotations. I was really excited until I stopped it and then tried to have it self start again. Nothing happened. I discovered that, as the wheel turned, the metal pins that the weight levers were mounted on were actually sagging under the weight. This caused the center of mass of all of the weights to slowly drop a fraction of an inch as the wheel turned that first time and allowed it to accelerate a little. The effect, brief as it was, was identical to what would have happened if I had hung a weight equal in mass to all of the wheel's weights on a cord that was wrapped around the axle and let it drop an inch or so.
Bessler's wheels, however, had centers of mass that did not drop as the wheel rotated. They were carefully constructed to use spring tensions developed on their ascending sides to move weights out toward the periphery on the descending side. This would cause initial acceleration, but, then the acceleration would drop to zero as they reached their maximum unloaded running speeds. I think their upper speed limits were due to the effects of increasing centrifugal force on their weights.
"then set it in motion - it is essentially a roughly 6 ell diameter wheel, about a foot in width. He did this with little difficulty, moving it by hand until a single weight inside it was heard to begin falling; it then began to rotate of its own accord with such a force that within a minute it had rotated 40 and more times, and could only be stopped by applying great effort." - pg 247
DeleteIt didn't take 30 seconds to reach full speed in two turns or it wouldn't have enough time left to reach 40-50 rpm in the next 30 seconds. It probably only took 5 seconds or so to reach full speed.
You're welcome.
@ dougsubous. Full speed in only 5 seconds!? No way! That's way too fast an acceleration. If we're talking about the Merseberg wheel reaching its full freely running speed of 40+ rpm's in only 5 seconds, then the wheel would complete 440+ rpm's in the next 55 seconds of its first minute of operation. Way too fast, imo.
DeleteIn my last reply above I think I confused the turn rate of the wheel with the total number of turns it could complete in a given amount of time. The question is how soon after the initial push did it reach its maximum turn rate of 40+ rpm's. We are told that speed was reached in two or three revolutions, but not how long those initial revolutions took to complete. While 5 seconds still seems too fast an acceleration to me, I do think the wheel accelerated fast enough to impress those that viewed it. Hopefully, if my current model works, I'll be able to "build" the 12 foot diameter version and, knowing its axle torque was only about 40 in-lbs or so, I'll be able to put in various masses for the axle and drum and see how soon the full maximum running speed is reached.
DeleteIt could complete 40-50 turns in a minute, That's only 1 turn every 1.5-1.2 second. If it took 5 seconds to make two turns, and it had 55 seconds to make 38-48 more turns, that would be in the ballpark for the first two turns.
Delete55/38=1.44 turns per second.
55/48=1.14 turns per second.
The more time you add to the first two or three turns, the less time it has to make the next 38-48 turns. And the eyewitness said it made 40 or more turns in the first minute. Ergo ipso facto, it didn't take that long to reach 40-50 rpm.
See the results of the model Merseberg wheel I made that I posted in the next blog. My test of the model indicated that it should have taken 10 minutes for the wheel to accelerate up to 40 rpm's! Unless there's a big problem with my model, then there's no way it could have reached its terminal rotation rate within the first minute.
DeleteKen said:
ReplyDelete" They were carefully constructed to use spring tensions developed on their ascending sides to move weights out toward the periphery on the descending side."
For an MT9 like wheel I'm with you all the way Ken.
In MT15, additional weights with radial movements were added to the earlier MT9 like designs. Bessler says the illustration shows the "superior" weight. The overall weight is more so why make the obvious statement that the illustration shows the superior weight (superior meaning greater in amount). I wonder if what he was really trying to say is that the added weights (or more specifically their paths) are superior.
In MT 15 Bessler says that the figure does not show the "prime mover". That's because he illustrates one of the radial weight rods (it runs from the 7 o'clock to 1 o'clock positions of the counter clockwise rotating wheel) suddenly rising for no apparent reason. When Bessler says "superior" weight he is actually referring to the center of mass of all of the weights which in MT 15 is located on the left side of the axle. Thus, "superior" does not mean greater, but, rather, refers to where the center of mass is located. Perhaps the word translated as "superior" should have been more accurately translated as "preponderance of weight".
DeleteJust finished my small model, unfortunately it didn't work.
ReplyDeleteMainly due to the fact that the elastic bands I'm using instead of springs, are too strong !
Since I can't scale down, next step, full size.
The bands are the weakest I can get.
We've been obeying the "watch this space" command for quite awhile now. ⌛️
ReplyDeleteI just noticed something interesting about the Kassel wheel illustration published in DT. The vertical supports for the axle are not directly attached to the floor and ceiling, but, rather, are attached to what appear to be metal bridge pieces that are themselves bolted into place. This means that were were air spaces between the vertical supports and the floor and ceiling! If I am correct about the illustration showing metal bridge pieces, then this would prove that there could be nothing concealed within the vertical supports such as a long metal rod with a barb on its end that could have engaged an axle pivot and thereby powered the giant wheel. Bessler's former maid was a liar!
ReplyDeleteHi John , Just a comment on your post.
ReplyDeleteYou state "In the one way wheels there was an initial overbalancing and secondly there was the result of rotation which had been present initially. This is correct statement. I agree. The next sentence is correct also. But wheel does not have mirror iimage mechanisms in two direction wheel as I think you mean, but has different design weights which enable wheel to turn in either direction with an initial push. This caused me a lot of frustration in my research until I understood the one way and the two way design wheels and I could see them both in the drawings in MT. Hope this helps. Just my humble opinion BIBLEAL
http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index.php?title=Portal:Chronology
ReplyDeleteHi John, just testing.
ReplyDeleteHi John, in the light of how my wheel is working out, maybe I can add some light on the matter.
ReplyDeleteThis is just my opinion, so you can take it or leave it.
The self-starters and the no-starters were essentially the same.
The only difference being whether or not the wheel was stopped quickly or gradually.
If stopped quickly, some of the weights would still remain primed, so they easily start on their own.
Conversely if the wheel was slowed down gradually, the pendulums would no longer have the momentum to keep the weights primed, so the wheel would eventually keel.
That's my two cents worth!
In the one directional wheel design I am now working on, it does not make a difference how fast the wheel is stopped. This is because deceleration tends to cause all of the weights at the ends of their levers to swing back toward their rim stops and any stretched springs attached to the levers to contract back to their starting lengths. The big problem with my or, rather, Bessler's design is when the wheel is forced to accelerate at a rate faster than it would naturally do by itself. That's when there is risk of both the 10:30 and 12:00 o'clock levers, which have weights attached to their ends, swinging excessively far away from their rim stops and getting themselves tangled up in some of the ropes that interconnect them. Should this tangling occur, then the wheel will be disabled and not be able to keep the center of mass of its weights on the descendings side and will come to a halt. When this annoyance kept happening to Bessler with the Draschwitz and Merseberg wheels, he would have to open them up and manually untangle the ropes and levers. However, he did come up with a very simple way of preventing this mishap (I've only found two clues so far which suggest it) which works perfectly and which I believe he eventually added to the Merseberg wheel. No doubt, this mechanism he used to prevent over acceleration entanglements was incorporated into the Kassel wheel. Although the mechanism is small, each lever must be equipped with one which means that the Merseberg and Kassel wheels had to each contain 16 of these mechanisms. It simply would not do to have some representative of an interested rich buyer give the Kassel wheel a shove and thereby cause it to be completely disabled and rendered useless. Bessler knew what prospective buyers wanted to see and hear and he always tried to satisfy them as much as possible without giving away the "big" secret.
ReplyDeleteBehrendt my man, the "big" secret was/is . . .
DeleteBut, that would be 'telling' would it not?
Who here might be so very, very bold as to command to me "OUT with it, James! Tell to us the secret worth all the gold in the world; just GIVE it to us communicating friendlies, and DO IT NOW!!!" after all of the contemptuous ignorin' that's gone-on here? Hmm?
(To that, authentic intelligence will find The True Answer one self-asserting.)
Also, silent moderator Collins ruminates as to the possible presence of "flat spots," which I would take to mean ones 'warm and hot' which I would suggest IS the actual case.
James
"The Iconoclast, like the other mills of God, grinds slowly, but it grinds exceedingly small." - Brann
I made another important discovery in the clues earlier today. I think I now know the exact spot on the levers to which the last rope is attached. If soon to come testing proves me right, then I believe I will finally, at long last, have "it". Eventually, I will publish the "secret" and I think everyone will agree that the design is very simple. Yet, it's not exactly that simple or it would have been found centuries ago. All of its parts must be precisely shaped and its ropes and springs of fairly precise lengths. A clockmaker / organ maker would have no problem achieving the necessary accuracy. Neither should a skilled craftsman. Bessler's design does some very interesting things in order to maintain the imbalance of the wheel's weights. As I've mentioned before, it only involves levers, weights, ropes, and springs and nothing more. But, it's how they are all put together that counts and it's taken me over a thousand models to finally find that arrangement. I've been working on it intensely ever since I left another discussion board back in 2006. It's been a long and tiring journey, but it'll be nice to finally see this damned mystery solved. Shortly after the publication of the design, I'm sure we'll see a few serious craftsmen attempt a physical build. I don't think they'll be disappointed. What may be a disappointment is that Bessler's wheels put out so little power relative to their sizes and weights. That is the major drawback to using gravitational forces instead of electrical or magnetic ones. But, the important thing for me is to see this mystery finally put to rest.
DeleteJohn,
ReplyDeletea while ago I asked if Bessler used ropes or chains in his wheel, well I've just seen some stuff called Spectra Rope, something worth considering in modern versions.
3mm dia. weighs 0.8 Kg. per 100 metres, and has a tensile strength of 726 Kg.
Amazing !
@STEVO, I think it's very important that whatever material one uses for "ropes" in a pm wheel design be as inelastic as possible. The less stretching it does under tension, the better. Chains are ideal, but noisy. Pre-stretched leather straps are acceptable. Bessler probably used some sort of tightly wrapped hemp rope which be fairly inelastic while still being flexible. I assume that your "Spectra Rope" is made from some sort of synthetic material like woven Nylon. This is fine, too, although some "purist" craftsmen might want to use the same materials as Bessler would have used in his wheels. To each his own. I have no problem using modern materials in the reconstruction of Bessler's wheels because they will allow them to run longer before servicing is needed.
ReplyDeleteI've some good news to report. Earlier today I tried the new rope attachment point to my design's levers and it worked perfectly! My current test wheel consists of two parts or groups of counter balanced levers and weights. Each part must work flawlessly by itself and, if that is the case, I then interconnect them and see if the two parts work perfectly together. If further testing proves that to also be the case, then I think I will be able to claim to have rediscovered "the" design Bessler used with a very high degree of certainty. I should know by the end of this week! This could finally be it: a workable solution to this annoying centuries long mystery.
ReplyDeleteHooray.
DeleteThanks for the support. More good news is that I tested the second group of levers / weights a few hours ago and they too are working perfectly! I can feel the excitement starting to grow. The next test will interconnect the two groups and see what happens. All my levers are perfect at this point as far as their shapes are concerned. All of the ropes are in place and the correct lengths (note that there are several types of ropes and each has its own precise length). If my spring constants are correct, then the interconnected groups of levers should work perfectly together. If not, then I might have to tweak their k values a bit. If the wheel can rotate through only 45 degrees of rotation while keeping the center of mass of its weights at a fixed location on the descending side and all of the levers are back in the same configuration after the segment of rotation is completed, then this is "it". I should know in a few more days.
DeleteI had to make a last minute 20% increase in the spring constants of my design's springs due to a new clue I found concerning the spring constants. This change seems to make the ascending side levers a bit more "spritely" and has not interfered with delicate internal counter balancing of either of the groups of levers. Today, I'm interconnecting the groups and will try to do quick test of their "connectedness" tomorrow. If that goes well, then I'll turn on the wm2d feature that lets me track the location of the center of mass of the weights and levers during wheel rotation. Hoping I'll finally see what I need to see. If so, then it's on to making a fresh set of 4:1 scaled up levers with their attached end weights (which are scaled up by a factor of 64 so they'll each weight 4 lbs) to see if the design works with a 12 ft diameter wheel. If it works with the 3 ft diameter wheel, then I don't see why it would not also work with the larger version. But, when it comes to pm wheel research, I've learned the hard way to always expect the unexpected! And, those "surprises" so far have all been "bad" ones. Maybe this time it'll be different.
DeleteWas it different this time, Ken?
Delete