Despite including several drawings illustrating his wheel (although external views only) in his publications, Grundlicher Berchicht, Apologia Poetica and Das Triuphirende, most people have seized upon his unpublished work which I have called his Maschinen Tractate (MT) (although there is no such title contained within its pages) to try to find answers to the Perpetual Motion (PM) machine. The MT contains 141 illustrations prepared for printing and some of the pages have handwritten comments attached to them. But there is a note on the first page which warns the reader that he, Bessler, has destroyed or hidden any that show the workings of his wheel. He does stress that careful study of the remaining drawings could lead someone with a perceptive intelligence to find the solution.
Many people have taken this to mean that a careful study of every page is necessary to find the answers, but in my opinion, Bessler would not have included serious information in all 141 drawings or even some of them, which were completed over a considerable length of time. But also he would have had no idea that an arrest charge was imminent and therefore he would have had no time to add numerous drawings done painstakingly on wooden blocks for printing. I'm sure his original intention was to conclude the MT with an explanation of how his wheel worked, but due to the possibility of imminent arrest he removed those particular pages and replaced them with an illustration on paper. The page which I called "the Toys" page is numbered 138, 139, 140 and 141. This is the only page with more than one page number, therefore I think it is only necessary to study that single page. The fact that it includes four page numbers suggests that it replaces those original four pages, the ones showing how his wheel worked.
It is true that there are hints at othe hidden information within the preceeding 137 pages and perhaps he did insert pointers to additonal information but it is my belief that these little clues pointed to the some small features within his concept, not intended to convey the complete picture. If we assume that his MT was designed to be a tool for teaching his apprentices at his planned school then these small inclusions might have been there to raise points of discussion within his anticipated classroom.
So the 'Toys' page may well hold some important information that while not providing the full picture, might prompt us in the right direction. One other picture, MT 137, appears to be prepared for printing might have been added as additional clue. You can read my hypothesis about this page on my web site at www.theorffyreuscode.com :-
http://www.theorffyreuscode.com./html/mt_137_a.html
Check out pages '2' and '3' too for the full picture.
Note the drawings below include the original MT137 and below it, how to construct MT 137 taken from the web site linked above, and if you have read the above link you will know that I have always worked on the assumption that there were five mechanisms. There are several supporting clues which also point to the same number.
In the 'Toys' drawing below I have divided the drawing into five sections. I used the figure marked 'A' to guide me and included one of five pairs of depictions; one straight vertical and one pair of verticals in each division. In the 'Toys' drawing there are five letters, A, B, C, D and E - note that, five letters. An apparently hastily added sketch of a spinning top is labelled '5', not 'F' to follow 'E'. and he calls it '5', not '6'. Weird? Or is he trying to tell us something?
Splitting the drawings into five parts reveals some information. In each division in 'A', you can see, drawn vertically, two uprights surmounted by a single one.. They bear a striking resemblance to the figures labelled 'C' and 'D', which are shown horizontally. But why two 'C' and 'D's? I think only one hammer is needed in 'C' plus the parallel rods. The same in 'D' but the hammer used is rotated around the other way to point outwards or to the left.
The item marked 'E' is the storks-bill, lazy tongs, scissor jacks or whatever you prefer to call them. Item '5' is a spinning top, just in case no one makes the connection that this is all about a rotating device. I won't explain item 'B' as it would require too much extra explanation here, but obviously it has a connection with item 'A'. But I will show its meaning later this year, when I've checked a couple of things out first.
Lastly the text is hard to read at item '5' but has been variously translated :-
" 5. Children's game in which there is something extraordinary for anyone who knows how to apply them in a different way."
Mike, my translator had several goes at it and came to the conclusion that his version was right, but who knows?
JC
http://www.theorffyreuscode.com./html/mt_137_a.html
Check out pages '2' and '3' too for the full picture.
Note the drawings below include the original MT137 and below it, how to construct MT 137 taken from the web site linked above, and if you have read the above link you will know that I have always worked on the assumption that there were five mechanisms. There are several supporting clues which also point to the same number.
Splitting the drawings into five parts reveals some information. In each division in 'A', you can see, drawn vertically, two uprights surmounted by a single one.. They bear a striking resemblance to the figures labelled 'C' and 'D', which are shown horizontally. But why two 'C' and 'D's? I think only one hammer is needed in 'C' plus the parallel rods. The same in 'D' but the hammer used is rotated around the other way to point outwards or to the left.
The item marked 'E' is the storks-bill, lazy tongs, scissor jacks or whatever you prefer to call them. Item '5' is a spinning top, just in case no one makes the connection that this is all about a rotating device. I won't explain item 'B' as it would require too much extra explanation here, but obviously it has a connection with item 'A'. But I will show its meaning later this year, when I've checked a couple of things out first.
Lastly the text is hard to read at item '5' but has been variously translated :-
" 5. Children's game in which there is something extraordinary for anyone who knows how to apply them in a different way."
Mike, my translator had several goes at it and came to the conclusion that his version was right, but who knows?
JC
Lol! 3 days and 3 different layouts! I think I like the darker grey the best so far. Easier on the eyes!
ReplyDeleteWhy is no one posting?
Hutch
Good question Hutch. You may see some more layouts before I settle on one!
DeleteJC
Here it is in grey again, just for you, Hutch!
DeleteJC
My current interpretation is that 138 - 141 represent four mechanical interactions involving inertial and gravitational forces - ie. conversions / transfers of PE to KE via these mechanical exchanges.
ReplyDeleteAs such, the upturned whistling top represents a fifth distinct mechanical problem in its own right - it's a game any child who's played with such a top will have tried; getting it to balance upside down. And it's impossible - it cannot run stably inverted.
The fundamental reason why it cannot spin upside down is because rotating systems generally want to maximise their angular inertia, minimising their speed and thus energy. When spun the right way up however, a spinning top minimises its MoI - if it begins spinning with a slight wobble, ie. with its axis precessing, it'll auto-stabilise into an upright balanced position, maximising its speed, and thus KE, and emitting its characteristic 'turbine' hum...
Upside down however, it is unstable because gravity wants to pull the handle downwards - the system's center of gravity is too high for it to pull its precessing mass inwards and upwards against gravity, so all it can do is topple over onto its side.
A system which can passively reduce its own MoI is a potential route to over-unity, because it usually costs energy to pull mass inwards against centrifugal force, equal to the consequent rise in rotational KE. If however MoI can be reduced at free or discounted cost, then it is decoupled from the resulting RKE rise.
This is the extraordinary conclusion posed by this fifth game. It's a 'hieroglyph' for an OU principle involving the interplay of gravitational and inertial forces. The 'OU' is implied not by the system's raised GPE (which comes at the expense of RKE per the classic 'Tippy Top' toy), but rather its rise in RKE in spite of gravity and the tendency for MoI to want to rise (ie. centrifugal force).
I think Bessler started out looking for a gravitational asymmetry - the same way everyone does, and the very first thing that the Machinen Tractate deals with - and progressed on to thinking about how to capture and entrain the motive force itself, the 'vis viva'... principally the momentum, which led to his breakthrough, and then perhaps later, in terms of the RKE resulting from his discovered momentum asymmetry (an effective violation of Newton's 3rd law), which as a personal acquaintance of Leibniz we can assume he would've become intimately familiar with.
I suspect all of the other Toys page items are metaphors for components whose interactions' ultimate purpose is to cause an asymmetric distribution of clockwise to counter-clockwise momentum..
This is likely why he insisted that a 'true perpetuum' must be statorless, which would not be a requirement of a gravitational asymmetry.
Thanks for your input Vibe, I confess I don't know what Mol, or RKE stands for! I'm sure I should and it would help if at least once in a comment, the full version of each acronym was used.
DeleteBy 'statorless', I assume this means that there wouldn't be a non-moving part upon which some mechanical part could apply its force? Sorry if seem to be picking holes in your comment, Vibe, I'm not, it's just that I'm not up-to- date with much that is in common use now.
I agree that the drawings may be designed to show mechanical exchanges, although I still favour the idea that there may be more literal meaning in their presence, in other words their form may replicate the actual parts in a general sense.
Your analysis of the spinning top is interesting but I'm still thinking of Bessler's intention in leaving the 'Toys' page in place of the missing pages, which showed, in my opinion, how the wheel worked. This makes me think that perhaps upon consideration he thought that people might not 'get' the meaning of this page, so he included the top to make people think 'rotation' might be included and therefor come to the conclusion that this was a series of clues to why the page was included.
One more thing. The original MT was in the form of a loose collection of unbound pages and therefore not necessarily revealing a straight forward logical,path other than the sequence of page numbers
JC
John,
DeleteI'm pretty sure that Vib' is abbreviating thus:
1) PE = Potential Energy
2) KE = Kinetic Energy
3) MoI = Moment of Inertia
4) RKE = Rotational Kinetic Energy
5) OU = Over Unity (pretty sure we all know that one! lol)
6) GPE = Gravitational Potential Energy
I'll let him correct if I'm wrong on any.
Hope that helps!
Hutch
(thanks for the 'grey')
Thanks Hutch, now I feel slightly embarrased. I misread MoI as MoL, and I realise I knew the thers but had forgotten the RKE one!
DeleteJC
And finally . . . HE appears a'commenting!
DeleteIf only Vibrator (Himself!/Herself?) built as well as he/she thinks and writes about it all and so fulsomely, I am as sure as sure could ever be that Bessler's secrets would have been made out and about long ago. Oh yes!
Nevertheless that, also likely-so is the thereby presumed fact that, AFTER THE FACT of it's appearance, HE/SHE as no other will be able to dive the physical depths deeply, as to exactly and precisely how and why it all works. (Mechanicians merely make things go and so, merely. Yes, oh-so-merely.)
Too bad, is it not, that brilliant, advanced most impressive thinking cannot be back-engineered, thus bringing the tangible it so spectacularly speculates upon to near-giddiness (quasi-orgasmic), into actual being?
With alacrity but barely disguised, the next revelation we await . . .
Thanks guys, and yes i should've defined the acronyms first, Hutch got them tho. As for builds, all i'm currently doing is trying to cause a closed-loop gain in momentum in a rotating system, at any energy cost - this, because Bessler's wheels were outputting both energy and momentum, and the latter doesn't necessarily follow from the former.
DeleteFor instance if we could pull an orbiting mass inwards against centrifugal force (CF) for free, halving its radius will quarter its angular inertia, quadrupling its angular velocity, and four times the speed at half the inertia equals twice the energy, so we'd be 200% over-unity... except our net system momentum will not have increased. So, if we then harvest that energy gain, we'll inevitably also be creaming off our conserved system momentum. Over sucessive cycles the system would grind to a halt, despite being OU.
Whereas, if we instead focus on making a closed-loop gain of angular momentum, at whatever the energy cost, then gains in energy DO inevitably arise as speed builds up over successive cycles. So even if it costs a kilojoule per kg-m^2, if we can keep investing at that rate and accelerating the system, we'll reach a speed at which further acceleration would normally cost more than a kJ anyway, and from thereon we'd be in profit. The 'base rate' of momentum however is only 1/2 Joule per kg-m^2 so i don't actually envisage high energy antics - everything i'm currently trying begins with 1 kg at just 1 RPM..
I think gravity's role in Bessler's wheels was in estabishing an effective violation of Newton's 3rd law.
Consider the following proposition:
- an orbiting mass is drawn inwards, causing its angular velocity and thus RKE to rise. Its angular momentum however remains constant, since although its speed is increasing, its doing so because its angular inertia is decreasing, so conserving net momentum. So we're raising RKE without raising angular momentum.
- if we suddenly let go of it however, letting it fly off in a straight line, then something magical happens - angular terms no longer apply, its momentum is now simply its rest mass times its velocity, and now we DO have a rise in system momentum. It can be more than doubled this way.
Changing the terms of momentum mid-way through an interaction could form the basis of an exploit..
- if it was flung upwards from the ascending side of the wheel, after halving its radius, it could follow a ballistic trajectory and land squarely on the descending side, at its original radius. So now it's 'moved back out' without incurring counter-torque. It's returned to its original high radius, yet with a rise in momentum, velocity and energy. Granted it's not free momentum or energy yet - we had to perform work against centrifugal force to pull the mass inwards - but it IS nonetheless a reactionless rise in momentum in an otherwise closed system..
This is an interesting situation. Obviously, as speed builds up over successive cycles, so does centrifugal force, and thus input work / energy. So this is the make-or-break issue i'm currently focused on - does this rise in CF enforce the usual energy cost of angular momentum (RKE = 1/2 MoI * RPM^2), or is there an opportunity here to negotiate a different rate, owing to the absence of a counter-momentum reaction?
And this is why all i'm doing is theoretical, since momentum and KE are invisible, and must be derived by multiplying variable angular inertia by variable angular velocity - so even if i was building test rigs, i'd still be reduced to calculating everything manually, obviating a build in the first place.
If i can come up with a promising interaction, then it'll be build time..
"With alacrity but barely disguised, the next revelation we await . . ." - here quoting me own little scribbling self.
DeleteAnd for it we'd not long to wait, thanks bee to The Fates.
Post all the essential-technical expositioning, we arove finally at the very meat of it, it being . . .
"And this is why all i'm doing is theoretical, since momentum and KE are invisible, and must be derived by multiplying variable angular inertia by variable angular velocity - so even if i was building test rigs, i'd still be reduced to calculating everything manually, obviating a build in the first place.
If i can come up with a promising interaction, then it'll be build time.."
To this amateur it all seems perfectly reasonable and thus, we can now all know.
My best guess is that this contributor (whomever/whatever he/she/it may prove to be in-fact) will easily plumb the murky physics depths of the operation of any Bessler Wheel that appears finally, out of whatever quarter it might, this securely AFTER the fact of it and likely not pre, of course.
The splitting of symmetry mechanically so as to selectively choose this or that ( ) for a powering or a loss, is not at all obvious nor intuitive in any way for, if otherwise, it would have been rediscovered long ago, and by many. (Mightn't any in-camera have already? This would be Mystery itself.)
Here, prejudice and love for one's own mind's working gets four-square in the way of all success, as striven for.
In these "improved" modern days, love-of-self and for one's own abilities have grown to proportions MONSTROUS, this even though the inner being continues as a thing shriveled and uncertain and pathetic, and . . . OH! . . . what energies we do expend so as to appear otherwise to ourselves, and to lookers-on.
This fiendish reality with which we struggle is a taught/learned defect of behavior, and is a total waste utterly, just as intended by it's teachers. Rather, humility is the key unlocking the door marked "WORTHY!" in all things of true import.
"Worthy? Meaning exactly WHAT, James? Do pray tell?"
I am an accommodating sort . . .
Variously, at here and there, I've in the past drawn proposed analogies between the struggle for Bessler's triumph, and that of the pulling of mighty Excalibur from it's stony embracing sheath, of so long agoe.
In both cases I asserted (and do still) that only that One WORTHY will be allowed it's privy, that it is not a mere exercise in simple physics and laws real or supposed, but rather, is a search having a greatly more elevated dimension to it than low, to say of it leastwise?
Those of us that truly are but mere stamping swine and slobbering peasants (in actual truth as unvarnished from all the falsely elevating "all are equal" nonsense that some so-love) absolutely are NOT to be found this worthy One by any means.
A sad realization, isn't it?
No, a child's mind and ways rather would have better chance at success, than would we objective-obsessed, frantically-grasping adults'.
"No!!!" as I imagine now echoing through the JCN blogspot halls?
Then, I ask, what might be a truer reason for the so-far lack of any Bessler wheel found aspinning merrily, or not??? Mere accident?
A full three-centuries-plus have now transpired since that first demonstration of miracle at Gera, done before their reining highness's Heinrich XVIII Graf Reuss von Gera and the Regent Dowager Duchess Anna Dorothea von Schwarzburg-Sondershausen.
For how much longer are we to wait? Yet another three centuries' worth?
I invite polite commentary . . .
James
Vibe,
DeleteI think I get the gist of what you're saying, how about this idea?
It involves centrifugal force, percussion, momentum and overbalance.
Imagine a lightly sprung weight that can slide up and down on two rails, the spokes of a wheel perhaps. The spring pushes the weight towards the hub.
The bottom of the weight is wedge shaped.
Assuming clockwise rotation, to the left of the sprung weight is a wedge shaped hammer, it's pivot at the end of the handle, near the hub.
As the wheel turns, a cam touches the stamper on the outside, causing the wheel to pause, but not the hammer. The wedged hammer meets the bottom of the wedge ended weight and lifts it.
On the opposite side, the jolt, action/reaction of the top hammer blow and the force of gravity, makes the bottom hammer drop out.
I'm only talking small movements, controlled by stops etc.
Fell free to run a simulation if you wish.
John, can I ask, have you tried physically folding this page, horizontally, possibly along your red lines, or even at the 'hinges' of the scissors E?
ReplyDeleteMany thanks
A.N.Other
As as a matter of fact I did try it a long time ago, before I had even thought of dividing the page into five equal horizontals. You could always print a copy of the page and try it yourself. If you do, please let us know if you found anything of interest.
DeleteJC
John, I'm not sure what you've done, but it seems you've mixed up "The children play..." AP chapter 46 verse with "5. Children's games..." from the hand written text on the last page of MT. These are two totally different things, so it's no wonder the translations come out differently, right? ;-)
ReplyDeleteOops.....again! That's what happens when you hurry, sorry, ignore the first three quotes. I was looking in the BW forum for the text because I wanted to include Stewart's alternative translations and I copied and pasted the wrong ones. No wonder the meanings were so very different! Thanks for spotting that. I'll look later for the real alternatives.
DeleteJC
Corrected the above error by deleting it. I hope this does not confuse.
DeleteJC
John!
ReplyDeleteBut . . . what of the remaining "B" part? Any thoughts?
Also, the lit-up text as set against the darker background seems way easier to read, even KB's stuff would be, IF he were posting still. (Our good luck is holding-still.)
Many here probably watch YouTube, right? Well I cannot watch it without all surrounding as blacked-out. Just can't. Especially not any extended programming. There is an add-on for Firefox called "Black Youtube Theme 5.6.1-signed" by Panobabo, and it fixes this problem absolutely. This is what it says about itself:
"Dark style for Youtube. Also available for Google! This theme is for people who like it dark. If you're running a dark desktop, browsing at night, or just looking for a change, this is for you."
Link: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/user/panosbabo/?src=api
I've been using this in Firefox for well over a year now, and it works without a hitch. Also, speaking of that, there is what is called "FT DeepDark 14.1.2" which allows that browser to go all-black, this by one "steva".
Link here: https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/user/steva/?src=api He also has one for Thunderbird.
- James
Lots of stuff about item B, but I will publish it later in the year James. It interrelates with some other information I have.
DeleteJC
Aha! So . . . that omission was not accidental. I look forward to hearing what it might be, later. Thanx.
Delete- James
James,
Deleteanything I watch on Youtube, I use fullscreen, is that not easier?
STEVO, under normal circumstances 'yes' but, I use a large monitor for doing graphics work hi-res, and an older not so nifty computer running XP, and besides I just don't like all the brilliance. "Theater Mode" is about the best this thing can handle while doing YouTube stuff. Now when I read here at JC's the top matches well because of the Firefox Black Theme. I think you are a bit younger (JC and myself are 72) and are likely less sensitive to brightness, maybe? Regards. - J.
DeleteJames,
Deletehave you tried using a Tibetan eye chart?
I find the exercises help my vision, even if only temporarily after using a computer etc. You can print one off the internet.
Having said that, don't forget the Dali Lama wears glasses!
Gosh, I'd never even heard of it. I shall do as you suggest, STEVO. Thank you.
DeleteHe certainly does, that.
- James
For those whose eyesight is almost as dim as my own, I've enlarged the text. I hope this meets with general approval.
ReplyDeleteJC
John,
Deletethis old fogey worked out that by using Ctrl and +/- keys, you can increase / decrease the print. I have to make it smaller now !
I like the new look, good definition.
ReplyDelete3rd line down is equally between the hammer heads (weights) showing a 'pair' in balance, 5th line down is thro' one weight (head) only with the other higher, showing a 'pair' unbalanced, also check 2 full diamonds to the left for that action, one full 'diamond' section only for the lower hammer men.
regards
Jon
The way I read it, below second line down, there is one axe/hammer labelled 'C'. Below third line down, another axe/hammer labelled 'D'. With the red line divisions it looks as though Bessler stuck the letters 'C' and 'D' next to the axe/hammer he wanted us to use, but ignore the others which were not labelled. It only works if you have the red dividing lines.
DeleteJC
the top hammermen have arms (levers),the arm to the fore on each figure shows a 90 deg. and a 120 deg. angle.
ReplyDeleteThe lower men have no arms (levers)but do have 'wound/sprung' bodies, and after viewing many toys and contemporary pics Ive never seen any other figures drawn with wound bodies like that.
Also the twisted figures hammer heads have an element/look of a 'sear' and 'trigger' (as in JB's poem) they are curved(differently, and a sear has a slow curve and a fast curve on it like the two hammers) and again I have researched (inc. 17th/18th C blacksmithing tool books)and find no hammer similar. See also the note on the bottom of page, the number '5' is drawn two piece/strokes, looks just like the hammer/cock and sear in a flintlock.
Finally the 'E' in the storks bill has one long leg and one short leg...
regards, Jon
Interesting Jon. I hadn't thought of the lower figures as having wound or sprung bodies. I just assumed that they should be twisted around to face the other way.
DeleteBTW my 'E's usually have a longer lower leg, not deliberately, it just happens! But there may be an intent in this case.
JC
AHAH !
Deletenow, if those two guys are using what looks like an adze to shape a rectangular piece of wood, they wouldn't need to swing their arms overhead, which may be why they appear arm less.
So, if we take into account Vibrator's asymmetrical proposition, what about a spinning top with a rectangular body, pivoted slightly off centre?
PS,
Deletewhatever it is underneath the wood, does appear to be off centre.
Does the piece of wood, and the other thing the two guys above are hitting, move with the rocking or do they remain stationary relative to the parallel bars?
DeleteJC
Depends,
Deleteif you hold the left handle still, and move the right, the wood is stationary.
If you move both handles, it goes back and forth.
:-)
Ive seen many and the 'thing' in the middle is mostly an anvil (on blacksmith themed toys)lesser times its a chopping block on wood cutter themed ones, occasionally there are more individual ones (with two bears, man and bear, man/woman), there are fixed all ways, straddled and pinned/riveted/pegged/glued/wedged underneath, its not it seems relevant to its action or operation just ease of making.
ReplyDeleteTop left guys hat may be altered, from scull cap with rim braid style (you can see it if you look)wich is contemporary to the other three hats, the style its 'converted' to (more voluminious, baggy, lacey/embroidered type is about a 100 yrs earlier), at Besslers time men were more now into 'ridgid' hats and what 'soft' headgear still around was wraps for the poor, or closer fitted decorated scull caps for the middle class. I fall down when I reason why on earth you would do that...
regards
Jon
Thanks Jon, I can make out the anvil shape in the lower picture.
DeleteJC
I have been interested in the bessler wheel for many years. I have a theory about it. I think he was trying to sell one, he invented more than one type, but because he was trying to sell just one type, the one invented in may 1712, he had to make it appear that only one principle was discovered, otherwise the buyer would demand everything that was invented, the idea might have been to sell one and then after it was sold he would reveal that more than one principle had been discovered, otherwise the buyer would demand everything before they handed over the money. Maybe he had to tell some half truths before it was sold or even a lie, that lie being that only one was invented, otherwise the buyer would have owned everything. If true then there is more than one principle to be discovered.
ReplyDeleteI like this idea Derek. Bessler gives the impression that there are different ways of producing the same effect, but I assumed that he was referring to differing designs using the same principle, but now you've put the idea in my mind I must think about it!
DeleteJC
Bonjour John
ReplyDeleteBonjour!
DeleteJC
Bonjour John
ReplyDeleteJe pense que les trois premiers jouets sont liés dans le système en rotation.
j'ai réalisé cette fusion il me reste à l'implanter sur une roue pour voir le comportement, le système est prometteur mais je ne sais pas ci c'est le bon
Cordialement,
J. B