Briefly, when Bessler first exhibited his first two perpetual motion machines, or ‘wheels’ as most of us tend to call them, he was accused of tricking his audience with a device which required winding up. Proving that this was not true presented a problem.
One idea which he took from Leibniz and arranged was the two month endurance test under lock and key and guard, but he needed something more immediate. His idea was to try to make the wheel able to turn in either direction, and I think he decided to build a wheel with mirror image mechanisms which would be capable of turning the wheel in either direction.
In order to test the feasibility of this idea I constructed a model of a Savonius windmill which has a vertical axle. This is analagous to Bessler's wheel although using a different force. Thus the wind blows horizontally turning the windmill in one direction. The Savonius rotor consists of two or three or more scoops. Looking down on the rotor from above, a two-scoop machine would look like an "S" shape in cross section. Because of the curvature, the scoops experience less drag when moving against the wind than when moving with the wind. Anemometers, used for measuring wind speed, are also similar in design, although some have three and four scoops.
Having built the test model I made it spin by placing a fan nearby. Once I had tested my model, I placed another Savonius rotor on top of the first on the same vertical axle. This one was a mirror image of the first and designed to turn in the opposite direction.
Once placed in the path of the wind from the fan, both windmills turned in opposite directions at the same time, on the same axle. The next thing was to link the two windmills so that they could only rotate together, in the same direction.
When linked the two windmills remained stationary, just like Bessler's bi-directional wheel. But as soon as the combined windmill was given a gentle push in either direction, the whole assembly began to rotate in which ever direction it was started, accelerating to about half the speed of each single windmill when not attached to its twin, again like Bessler's bi-directional wheel. This action mimics perfectly how Bessler’s bi-directional wheels performed.
In a Savonius windmill the concave surface has higher resistance to the wind than it’s opposite blade which presents a convex surface. With two opposing surfaces facing the wind there is balance with neither giving way to the wind. But when you give the assembly a push what happens?
Let us assume that you gave the upper rotor a gentle push, so that it moves with the wind while the other one, lower on the axle, resists. Giving it a push allows the side moving with the wind to take advantage of the wind while the opposing rotor is fighting against the wind. The windmill takes the path of least resistance and so begins to turn faster while the other side resists but is only able apply a braking effect.
The backwards turning mirror image mechanism has resistance on both blades, whereas the opposite, forwards turning other mirror image mechanism, has none on one blade and limited resistance on the other blade. The side which moves with the wind has its convex side moving against the wind while it’s concave moves with the wind. But the opposite side that moves against the wind is resistant as well - both concave and convex.
So in my opinion Bessler tested that theory in the same way as I did, with a Savonius rotor. Of course Savonius hadn't invented his design then, but we know that Bessler was familiar with the concept because the windmill he fell to his death from was a vertical axle windmill. There are some vertical axis windmill still functioning in Iran believed to be at least 1000 years of age (panemones), and for several centuries vertical axis windmills were also in use in China and Egypt.. It's possible that Bessler saw one in Italy during his travels, or even England, or Ireland.
JC
JC
John, I see that you have studied the movement of nature and its direction, but does it give an answer?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that Bessler was preparing to mount Panemone.
His drawings, the windmill's design confirm this, especially on the top of the roof, the flag and X.
I think that we need to look further, deeper.
The first and probably the most basic system that only turned one direction, would seem the easiest to build because of the sheer number of parts. So to be expedient I think we should stay focused on the one way wheel. The toys page shows many of the items that would be related to a working wheel. There are also a number of the drawings that list other key items about the essential elements.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion it can’t be stressed often enough that working on a bidirectional wheel seems to be an unnecessary complication. I am constantly mystified by the many people who seem to concentrate on building the bidirectional wheel. They also constantly include eight weights which of course was heard in the Kassel wheel, a bidirectional wheel, but the eight weights seem to be included in the unidirectional wheel in some cases.
DeleteAny way you make a good point Gravittea!
JC
As Mr Leibniz puts it, he can not unravel it. It is simple in action - that's what Prince Karl declared but confusing from the geometric side. That's why he did not buy a wheel from Bessler, because he simply did not understand this phenomenon even though it was easy to do.
DeleteAre there drawings in MT that work well?
I think it is a good path for searching.
IMO, the most important and telling clues come from the one-way wheel.
Delete- The most important being the ability to self start - which implies overbalance. The hard part is finding the mechanism that did the lifting of the weights to the overbalanced position (ie, the prime mover).
- The second being the ability to maintain overbalanced force regardless of turning speed. This has to be surmised as there are no direct comments from the examiners of the wheel, but I think you can bet that the examiners held on to the wheel as it rotated to see if they could detect changes in torque. Had the wheel exhibited spurts or lack of force at times that would have been something worth mentioning. This observance, or actually the lack of observance, implies the prime mover produced force that was independent of the speed of rotation.
Yes it’s very frustrating not get those details. Fisher von Erlach spent two hours examining the wheel but there is little in his report to indicate what he did during those two hours.
DeleteJC
When I look at the toys page with your 5 horizontal red lines I see (right to left) :-
ReplyDelete5 x levered 'pantograph' type mechs, with the top one having some further clue (A B)
On the top hammer toy, the hammer heads are equal up/down spaced indicating balance (no life), the lower toy the line is thro' the centre of the lower hammer head indicating imbalance. They have the same 'form' like the spheres but one is alive(sprung and will move back after displacement) the other is dead (no potential movement).
Upper right handle knob end aligns with the 'joint', lower right handle end does not (imbalance), note both toys are not level, deliberate?
And why two similar toys if not for comparison? Hints at unsprung position is upper toy, lower toy is in the opposite position when under tension (rh sprung man looks 'tight' not loose), under tension is out of balance, hence the preloading or unloading 'twang' reportedly heard.
The scissor, not sure what to make of the 1, 1, 1.5, 2, 3 progression from bottom to top (if anything) but I note the sprung lower toy contacts one scissor arm, pressure here would cause it to extend/rise. The top 'arrow head' feature doesn't work mechanically if a fixed thing, renders the scissor inoperable, never seen any other scissor device like it (I've looked) so maybe just there to indicate force/rising/movement ?
The arrow aligns perfectly in height with the B A detail on the 'jacobs ladder' on the right, could have been longer/shorter but it isn’t, does this link across to the ladder making a circle? (down the ladder, across the bottom toy, up the scissor, across to the ladder top)
The E in the scissor is split by the line thro' the hammer head, is it a letter ?
Two springs per mech? or would it just have been too obvious to only have one man shown twisted? note opposing up/down hat brims
Regards Jon
Excellent interpretation Jon. I shall have to study the Toys page again while I read your comment. I thought I’d discovered everything there was to know about the Toys page but a fresh pair of eyes can bring new insights into what Bessler was trying to tell us. I always suspected there was more to it than the standard view that it depicted a Jacobs ladder etc.
DeleteJC
John, I read your post Thursday, August 2, 2012.
Delete... "Newton himself suggested that gravity shielding could be possible." ..
If Newton knew about Bessler, it means that it must be his original thoughts on the subject.
I do not know in which year the article has been published, but it tells me that Leibniz knew Newton's article.
If the research is still carried out, it means that it is definitely an important path.
There is much to learn from actually building a model, as close as you can, to the toys page. The action of the mechanism is just amazing, how it turns a movement from one direction into its 90 degree push. Then the actions can be moved from the center to the pivot point. The angular action lets the mechanism to perform its task
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI have shown the toy page to many people not familiar with Bessler or what the potential items represent in terms of mechanical devices. Not one of them had any clue as to how the items shown could be arranged or connected. There is no "amazing" to it. How about showing something on YouTube if you have it.
DeleteAnonymous,
DeleteThis is a bit of a reach, but if I'm right it's the parallel link toy. I.E, two parallel rods with a spring in between will slide a sliding weight back and forth / in and out by taping one of the rods a few degrees to form a ramp, (maybe). Sam peppiatt
(Should be tipping, tipping the rod
DeleteThere are 2 but one is the parallel link toys..... nothing else will do what it does...
ReplyDeleteThe principle of this movement is active - you must not forget.
DeleteEvery classic: D is smarter and closer to D.
I must big big dummy, I don't have a clue what that means, Sam
DeleteFWEIW,
ReplyDeleteThe requirements of a prime move arn't any different just because it runs on gravity. It has to stop, always start up in a preferred direction, or be able to switch the direction of rotation. Bessler's wheel won't be any different; what ever drives the wheel will be the same for both types. By pushing the wheel one way or the other had little or nothing to with making it run, and every thing to do with, selecting the direction of rotation.
So; figuring it out won't be much easier, just because it only turned one direction.
I expect the first time he got a wheel running, it would inadvertently start up in either direction. This problem was fixed in some way to insure that it would always start the sane way. Then, he got the idea to make it *switchable*, or bi-directional. Again, FWEIW. Sam Peppiatt
FWEIW?
DeleteJC
John Collins,
DeleteFor what ever it's worth, (FWEIW). Sorry about that, (Probably nothing)
Anyway, I'm leaning to the idea that, fundamentally, Bessler's Wheel had the ability to turn in either direction. If that's true, then a bi-directional wheel has to be a consideration. What I'm suggesting is; a successful design will have that capability. But I agree; get it rotating one way first, then add something to control the direction of rotation later, and I suspect Bessler did just that.
Sam Peppiatt
John's idea of the bidirectional wheel makes perfect sense. The bidirectional wheels were about twice as thick and running at only half speed and you had to push them. This exactly matches the attempt John made with the Savonius windmill. In addition, the bidirectional wheels were louder. That could therefore come from the fact that the mechanisms that ran backwards could not be dampened.
ReplyDeleteovaron
Thank you Ovaron, it’s nice to get agreement from time to time.
DeleteJC
Ovaron
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't seam practical to me. Building one wheel is a lot of work; building two would be even more work. Wouldn't it be a lot easier to find some way to reverse it. I mean you wouldn't have two engines in your car, right? One for going forward and another for backing up. Maybe the worst part of it one wheel
isn't doing anything-------------------Sam Peppiatt
Sam,
Deletefrom the practical use it makes no sense at all to build a bidirectional wheel. Bessler built it solely for the purpose of proving that it was not driven by a spring or wounded up.
John proved with the Savonius windmill that you can build a bidirectional windmill by connecting two counter-rotating windmills. The wheel gets twice as thick, half as fast, and needs a push to run. Exactly the same with the Bessler wheels. Everything fits together wonderfully. Of course you can not exclude that Bessler did it differently. Who knows….
ovaron
Ovaron,
DeleteWhat can I say-----------------I give up! Sam
John, may be you can go to Elon Musk and sell the wheel. I think he would give a lot of money. The wheel seems to fit his agenda. What do you think?
ReplyDeleteI have occasionally wondered how anyone might proceed following a successful pop wheel. I did consider a few people with the money and influence to take over development, but I have a supporter of some years who only a couple of weeks ago promised to help ‘globalise’ the wheel when successful!
DeleteJC
Had Bessler never shown the one-way wheel, all examiners would know is that by pushing on the wheel, it would take off on its own after a certain speed. To me this would indicate CF or inertia as the driving force -vs- gravity and overbalance. Further, nothing in MT absolutely enforces the idea of overbalance as the driving force. Our perception today would be much different had their not been a one-way wheel.
ReplyDeleteKind of screws up your theory does'n it? Like it or not the wheels turned on gravity. Why do I get the feeling that you are a scientist------------
DeleteSAM Peppiatt
But the two-way wheels began to accelerate as soon as the sound of the first weight falling was heard. Too soon for CF to have an effect.
DeleteJC
It is most likely a critical equilibrium between gravity and CF.
DeleteI think Sam is right. There’s only one mechanism and it is symmetrical. The critical equilibrium is caused by the mechanism. It falls to the left or to the right and once fallen it is very hard to ‘reset’ it to turn the other way. The internal mechanism collapses on itself causing an overbalance. You could prevent this by hanging the mechanism in springs. Then you need to give it a little push before it collapses and start turning.
John said:
Delete"But the two-way wheels began to accelerate as soon as the sound of the first weight falling was heard. Too soon for CF to have an effect."
John, do we know how fast the wheel was turning when the first weight fell? His bidirectional wheels were large in diameter, and we know that CF=mr^2w. If r is large, it would compensate for a small w.
But, the square root of zero is still zero, or very close to it.
DeleteSuppose each wheel has 5 hp; with a reversing link or gear, both wheels could pull in the same direction. Now you have 10 hp, or more, sense they are working together. It would be like the shift lever on an automatic transmission. Forward, reverse, and neutral or, stopped position. Doesn't that make a lot more sense?
I still think, it's a lot better way to do it. Sam Peppiatt