Interpretation is an extremely subjective activity. The act of explaining the meaning of Bessler’s words and drawings results in an opinion which is bound to reflect the author’s personal convictions. I have published many interpretations which most people regard as speculation, but I stand by them, because I’m convinced of their authenticity.
The problem is exacerbated by other researchers also publishing their own opinions/speculations which may be correct but often leads to confusion among their readers. This looks like criticism but it isn’t, it’s just the way it is and in my opinion it’s better to have as many interpretations available as as possible, in the hope that one will lead to a reconstruction of Bessler’s wheel. I think that people will go with their favourite interpretation, one which accords with their own thoughts.
It is over three hundred years since Bessler published his work, and that was in German, which immediately creates the potential for confusion. It’s hard enough to get the precise meaning of every word written in English three hundred years ago, but trying to do the same translating into English from the original German, plus the idioms of Bessler’s time, and then add in some of his favourite obfuscation - ambiguity - and valid interpretation becomes fraught with perplexity!
But the drawings are another matter, there are no language barriers to hinder our understanding. But something which may appear to be an obvious mechanical design is not always the case, particularly where Bessler is concerned. His 141 illustrations known as Maschinen Tractate (MT) is full of designs which all appear to be failures, however his unfinished notes which accompany some of them, hint at subtle variations which could be helpful. But for me his most useful illustrations are the ‘Toys’ page and the one preceding it. What follows is my interpretation, but you may call it speculation!
MT 137, includes hints at 5 and 7 mechanisms. MT138,139,140 and 141 (Toys page) has almost everything you need to build his wheel, but there a few details without which it won’t work, but they are detailed elsewhere. I believe that the key to understanding the Toys page lies in looking at each figure without any preconceptions. In other words, trying not to see them as pieces of mechanisms designed to work as you would think they would, but as shapes, possibly designed to act differently to how you imagine..
So seeing item A as a Jacobs ladder is wrong. It is simply showing the five mechanisms linked together. Item B shows a twisted version of A. Items C and D show the same individual parts of A. The parts of the mechanism include one C and one D, but D is twisted so that one end points the opposite way. Item E looks like scissor jack but Bessler suggests that some items should be applied differently, and that, I believe is a crucial clue.
Bessler thinks highly of the scissor mechanism but his suggestion to apply it differently opens up a number of potential variants. I at least, believe I’ve interpreted the Toys page, but of course without a working model it’s just speculation!
Link to my granddaughter’s gofundme site https://www.helpamy.co.uk/
Link to my granddaughter’s gofundme site https://www.helpamy.co.uk/
The toy page also shows eight X shape parts to the vertical scissor mech on leftside. Arrow shaped piece at top points up and shows they must work together to lift turning wheel's center of gravity as it tries to fall. That can be interpreted to mean he used eight mechnism in his wheels instead of five to keep wheel unbalanced. The littel hammer guys could represent levers holding weights on opposite sides of wheel flipping to and away from axle to make wheel unbalanced and not any motions of two weights inside a single mechanism. One man's interpretation will be another man's nonsense. Just as Bessler intended them to be!
ReplyDeletei think you have to avoid taking bessler's mt clues as literal drawings of mechanisms he used. you have to take them as only slightly symbolic or you get nowhere trying to use them.
ReplyDeleteYou have to build the wheel first; then you will know what the clues mean, and which MTs are helpful, but not before.
ReplyDeleteSam Peppiatt
I agree, SamP. KenB. claims he was only able to find and accurately decipher dozens of new clues in Bessler's DT portraits after building many wheels. But, all he's really "built" so far are computer models which he claims work. I don't think he's a liar, but what if he's just plain wrong about them working? He mentioned in one of his youtube video comments that he used wm2d which is known to be "buggy" and has to be used with great care to be accurate. He also doesn't seem to be interested in actually building a real wheel claiming anything he made that worked as his simulations predicted it should would just be dismissed as a hoax which it probably would be unless others also produced real working wheels using the same design he has obtained and claims is what Bessler used.
DeleteHenryL.
Henry L.
DeleteI'm inclined to agree with you. A sim would be good though, to demonstrate a working wheel. I'm skeptical of Ken's wheel also, to say the least.
Sam
Simulations aren't buggy -/- people are buggy. Simulations conform to rules. When plotted the acid test is does the simulation gain momentum over time and maintain that trend? As a double-down can the simulation do this while coping with energy losses such as doing Work?
ReplyDeleteI don't think KenB. showed any supporting graph trends or loading information. His Youtube video of his simulation showed a constant rpm, or was looped. There were other inconsistencies in the objects and constraints used. Altogether the simulation is far from a proof.
Interpretations, speculations, and opinions are fine as far as they go. In the final analysis a theory of where the momentum gain is going to come from is required and the mechanical principle to allow this gain.
Those who haven't seen KenB's wheel video yet can find it here
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5nP7KY6_EAM
It may be running at constant speed because he increased the sim's air drag to slow it down from over 60 rpms to a constant speed of about 2 rpms which he said he did to allow the lever motions to be better studied. There's also a simple explanation for the inconsistencies in the joint and attachment point icons that make them look like they are orbiting around as the wheel turns. That weird effect is a kind of optical illusion that shows up in some of the later versions of wm2d. Those versions always keep the icon, which is usually a small circle or square, to the lower right of the actual location of the joint or attachment point. As a result any icon near the edge of a part that is attached to the wheel or near the rim of the wheel itself will look like its rotating around the actual location its supposed to be attached to as the wheel rotates. I've seen this effect in wm2d models made by others. Earlier versions of wm2d did not have this problem because the icon was centered right over the location of the joint or attachment point.
All you have to do Ken is start the simulation from stationary position with 0 rpm and no residual velocities in any of its components, checked in Properties Menu. Plot its rpm increasing trend over time to 60 rpm you mention. Put this on YouTube with a disclaimer that no motors ect. are used or other means to give the wheel impetus, and that it starts from imbalance of mass and continues to accelerate because of this continued imbalance of mass. If the disclaimer is not there then there is a reason.
DeleteFalse positive, sim error, GPE asymmetries are impossible.
DeleteHe's got a wheel design I haven't seen before. But, the center of gravity of its weights is so close to the center of the axle. That means low torque. Anyone building this better make sure it's very accurately constructed if he expects it to run smoothly.
Deleteits just a simple spring boosted lever wheel. then i notice the action of that extra rope connected between the 900 to 600 levers. looks good. but there are lots of wheels that look good and still don't work when built. i'm not sure if this will be one of them. maybe he finally got it? hope so.
DeleteJohn Collins,
ReplyDeleteI'm trying to build a wheel, (out of iron), with two cross-bars, 4 mechanisms, 4 weights, 4 spokes. All even numbers. I've thought abut it a lot, maybe odd numbers would be better, maybe a lot better.
Can you tell me how say 3 of everything would be better. I would love to know.
Sam Peppiatt
Hi Sam, I’ve explained this many times but this is just my opinion. I say that you need odd numbers and two of the mechanisms will need to work together at a time. Two mechanisms working as one. So if you have four mechanisms then you have, in effect, only three actually working. If you have three mechanisms you end up with two working. You need a minimum of five, then you have four working together.
DeleteJC
John, I think you lost me; but let me think about that-------------Sam
Delete@Sam P. I don't think the number of mechanisms you use is that important. You could probably get a working design just using two weights on opposite sides of the wheel if they were linked together the right way. All that really counts is if they can automatically shift around fast enough to always keep their center of gravity on one side of the axle as the wheel turns (remember Bessler's AP quote "But the weights, which rest below must, in a flash, be raised upwards, and it is this, that Wagner cannot force himself to accept."). If they can't make those shifts fast enough, then any wheel build will only become another nonrunner for one's collection of failures. Bessler hints in MT 14 that the wheel shown "...may be used..." and it has 24 levers in it!
DeleteHenry L.
Henry L,
DeleteYou are quite right. It may not make any difference at all. It's not the number of weights that I'm asking about, rather odd verses even??
Why is one better than the other?? Sam
@Sam P. I think some hope that an odd number of mechanisms will keep more weight on one side an axle than the other. But that only alternates an extra mechanism's weight from one side of the axle to the other every other certain portion of a wheel's full rotation. There is no real advantage to it and you then have to divide a 360 degree wheel by an odd number to find out where to place its mechanisms. That seems more of a problem then dividing by an even number which places the mechanisms more symmetrically around the wheel and makes balancing everything out prior to testing easier. I'd rather be placing a mechanism every 90 degrees in a four mechanism wheel or every 45 degrees in an eight mechanism wheel than every 51.4286 degrees in a seven mechanism wheel! But, each to his own. Some are more attracted to odd numbers than even numbers for some reason.
DeleteHenry L.
Hi Henry L!!,
DeleteYes; even is easier for me too, for the very reasons you pointed out. Like a cross-bar, I can put it straight across, in one piece, at 90 degrees, a lot easier than say, one spoke every 120 degrees. I think I'm catching on to what Jon is doing. maybe it's that his mechanism works better with odd numbers of weights. Maybe it won't work with even Nos of weights. I thought that it had to do with the performance of the wheel in some way. I can be really slow at times.
Sam
John,
ReplyDeleteI think you totally misunderstood my question. I'll take another stab at it. Why would odd numbers of weights be better than even number of weights?? Haven't you stated that odd numbers of weights would be better than even numbers of weights? I will repeat the question. Can you tell me how, or why odd numbers of weights are better than even numbers of weights??
Sam
maybe this help you?
Deletehttp://www.besslerswheel.com/html/why_5_mechanisms.html
"A", Thanks, I went there. However it just suggests that the more the merry-er, which I have to agree with. Nothing about why odd might be better than even. Every thing about a gravity wheel changes, switches/reverses every 180 degrees, so for now I will stick with even Nos of weights. If that works I won't worry about it. Sam Peppiatt
DeleteBecause levers with weights can fall when in the right position. If connected to others with pulleys and ropes then when one falls downwards a neighbor can in the right position rise upwards. This principle of wheel unbalance might be dependent on odd numbers only.
ReplyDeleteYes, you are right, Sam
DeleteBefore Christmas and before the end of 2019.
ReplyDeleteDear John.
06 December 2019
Santa brought a gift and there was no stick in it, but there is a message that in people Bessler's vision will certainly begin to revive.
Bessler from the portrait looks and smiles kindly.
I haven't made a working wheel yet.
I will write as God willing.
'A' and 'B' depict a series of 5 asymmetric angular accelerations:
ReplyDelete• each vertical bar upon 'A' represents a 180° rotation of 'B'
• two bars connect from left-to-right, but only one bar goes back from right-to-left
• these are 'torques' or 'momenta' - the system has a directional bias, ie. clockwise momentum > counter-clockwise
• the difference is a per-cycle gain
• 5 such momentum gains yield a KE gain (something extraordinary)
• each cycle is thus 25% efficient, dissipating 75% of input energy per cycle
• a 75% KE loss corresponds to either a 3:1 mass / MoI ratio between the two main interacting inertias in a series of reactionless accelerations & inelastic collisions, or else a 1:1 mass / MoI ratio but with a further 50% of input energy lost per cycle
So 'A' and 'B' are definitely portraying momentum & energy gain about an axis.
'C', 'D' and 'E' are the interactions whose inter-reactions are causing that per-cycle momentum asymmetry.
Momentum can only be gained from gravity's constant uniform acceleration by manipulating rising vs falling flight times in a statorless cycle, such as by employing inertial torques (the ice skater effect); ie. the kiiking principle. If this detail seems like gibberish, keep at it til it clicks because it's axiomatic, sir..
We CANNOT have KE gains from a closed loop GPE interaction (because gravity, mass and height are constants)...
..but we CAN have momentum gains, at energy cost! That, sir, IS possible!
Therefore the inexorable path to OU is laid bare, in the balance of what IS possible, versus what isn't..
• Momentum gains from kiiking (gravity * time) depends upon being statorless.
• Mechanical unity (CoE) usually depends upon momentum being raised against a stator; input energy thus squares with rising RPM, as does output KE.
• Ergo, a momentum gain which depends upon statorless operation has also lost dependence of CoE upon that same condition - its energy cost of accumulating momentum needn't necessarily square with RPM any more, even though the resulting KE still does..
"In a true PMM, Everything Must Go Around Together" (EMGAT) - a generalisation, sir, in the most concise and informative sense; literally, the reference frame of the input energy workload has to be rotating with the system, not stationary relative to external coordinate space, such that the same rise in momentum per cycle costs the same input energy, in spite of rising RPM. That is the physical definition of mechanical OU, and the only one that can be formulated in a self-consistent - let alone Bessler-consistent - manner.. The fact that it IS fully consistent with all the Bessler evidence is all but garden-pathing us towards resolution..
Thank you Vibrator!
DeleteJC
Vibe,
DeleteI'll be the first to admit I don't fully understand your reasoning, but I think I get the gist.
My thoughts are these, the A with the bent crossbar could represent a stork's bill, with extended sides. The letter B is the shape that is formed by the hammers of the blacksmith toy.
Lay the A on it's side, and attach a weight to the lower arm, and then fix the pivot point of the crossbar to the blacksmith toy.
As the wheel turns the "A" weight will drop, and operate the toy.
The weight dropping will be a negative on the wheel, the blacksmiths moving will be a positive.
Does this make sense ?
STEVO
I found this weird trailer on YouTube for some sort of musical play put on in Berlin, Germany last August that involves Bessler's wheels:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kLfVnWEW8E
The sloppy google translation of the description with the video is:
"PERPETUUM City without hardship. Berlin premiere at Tempelhof Field, August 1, 2019. A groundbreaking discovery makes humanity venture an urban utopia. The reason: The complete plan of a Perpetuum mobile was found. The inventor is Johann Bessler aka Orffyreus - Medicus, Mechanicus and Alchemist of the early 18th century. Once triggered, his "eternal wheel" once turned for many weeks. Theater ANU stages a city without hardships. The Futurist Paul Scheerbart is visioning his idea of "Perpehs" by means of a crazy projection apparatus. In an impressive experiment, visitors can admire the so-called "butterfly effect". And in front of a big cross, "Ms. Mehr" ponders about a world that God no longer needs. Science has long since banished the perpetual motion machine into the realm of the impossible. And yet: Do not we live in a perpetual world wheel that once set in motion, can no longer be stopped and produces a "more" of everything? The profound and richly detailed dance shows six poetic views from the fields of religion, art, science, vision of the future and history and thereby poses the question of the city of the future. How can the social human being live in a future community if all that surrounds it is only designed for the individual well-being of the individual? Schedule: 01.-04. August and 07-10. August" 2019 The production begins at 9:30 pm."
Looks interesting, especially the full size Bessler wheel prop at the end. 300 years later and Bessler's wheels are still inspiring plays!
Henry L.
********Mechanicus******** I love it!! Sam Peppiatt
DeleteHenry L,
DeleteFollow up. Are you building wheels? If you don't mind me asking. Sam
@Sam P. Nope. After years of trying, I was finally forced to call it quits. Just don't have the energy or health anymore to chase the wheel. Now I'm just another burned out armchair philosopher type with nothing but advice to offer those still in the chase. But, I'm not alone. That's how 99.99999 % of everyone chasing the wheel today will eventually wind up whether or not he wants to believe it and assuming that he lives long enough! Bessler was a very lucky man who comes along about once in a millennium. Everyone wants to be another Bessler. Doing that is like hitting the jackpot in some government lottery. Not impossible, just very improbable. But, like a lottery "you got to be in it to win it". I'm out of it.
DeleteHenry L. Sorry to here that Henry. I'm 79, and as you say running out of time. Still I would dearly love to prove the scientist wrong. Thanks for your insight as to odd or even Nos of weights. From the very first I have always envisioned two directly opposed weights on each cross-bar, but don't know if that's right.
DeletePlease take care, Sam
Thanks, Sam. My doctor says she can give me a boost by using a hormone treatment on me that involves a skin cream that I'll have to apply daily. She says it can restore my ambition again as well as physical stamina. I'm going to give it a try in the new year and see if it can turn back the clock for me. Right now if I had that ambition, I'd take a crack at building that wheel Ken B. shows in his video since it seems to match all of the Bessler clues. After years of struggle, I, too, would like to see the smug know it all scientists proven wrong. They have been putting us wheel chasers down for centuries. Time for some long overdue payback!
DeleteHenry L.
Henry, If that stuff works, let me know. I could use about a gallon of it!
DeleteKen's wheel would be impossible to build. So there's know way to know if it would work or not. Anyway, I see a lot of problems with it-----------------but what do I know, Sam
The stuff definitely works, Sam, but you have to be careful not to overdo it or it can cause side effects. Only a pea sized amount of the cream is used per day. The idea is to restore a tired old man's hormone levels back up to what they were when he was in his 20's. That can then quickly reverse a lot of the symptoms of old age and might even prevent various age related problems from developing like dementia, depression, diabetes, obesity, osteoporosis, sarcopenia, etc, etc. Most doctors, unfortunately, are not competent to prescribe it or automatically assume senior citizens, male and also female, don't need it. They apparently think old people feeling sick and tired is "normal"! It's also supposed to be very good for one's love life! My doctor says she's treating several old timers like me and they wouldn't trade the cream for all of the gold in Fort Knox!
DeleteI agree that the design KenB. gives for Bessler's wheel will be a challenge to build. It uses forty cords arranged into five different layers inside the drum so they don't rub against each other when the drum is turning which would cause a lot of friction. He thinks the 3 foot prototype Bessler made can be slapped together in less than a month. Yeah, if one has a well equipped carpentry shop and is able to work precisely with small parts then that might actually be possible. I only used hand tools when I was an active builder and also had ten thumbs all of my life so, if I ever make one, I'll double the size up to 6 feet to make it easier to handle the parts.
Henry L.
Henry L, Even if I could build it; I have no faith in it------------Sam
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOne of the things a world renowned psychic had told me about the Bessler wheel was that Johann Bessler was the reincarnation of saint Ezekiel who lived 2600 years ago.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteStill choosing to talk in inane riddles Stephen. Even after a rare moment of lucidity you said Calloway had it with one small change to be made. God will be looking for another more competent messenger.
ReplyDeleteA variation of Calloway's design may already have been used successfully in the Asa Jackson wheel. He needs to try the same approach by hanging his shifting pendulums on the axle.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePunctuation makes things more readable and understandable. Try it.
DeleteSome people missed that English class when they taught us that sentences are supposed to begin with a capital letter end with a period. Then later they wonder why their posts on the internet tend to get ignored.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe one chosen to bring this to the bulk of humanity will need to have a heart of gold... and a humble and great love for humanity
ReplyDeleteHaving a design that actually works might also be useful! :)
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIf anyone had it they would already know, everyone in the world has been bugged with nanobots, they know what you are thinking even when sitting on the toilet.
ReplyDeleteNano-computer robots are in our brains, they know everything we think. Tinfoil hats will not save you.
DeleteI woke up with a bad headache this morning. Damn nanobots must have been really partying last night in my brain. Then again, maybe it was that bottle of booze I finished off before hitting the sack?
DeleteOnly an actual working wheel will be accepted, so to say..... "Aaaaa "I already had that idea" is just Hoky. and until one appears its just a lot hot air
ReplyDeleteWould there be any Germans who would know what his information means.
ReplyDeleteWell they can read what he wrote without having the translation difficulty and they can study his illustrations, so probably just as likely as we are to extract information.
DeleteJC
FROM STEVO,
ReplyDeleteFurther to my description of the mechanism I described in my reply to Vibrator, I realized that it would go from rim to rim, through the axle of the wheel, A on one side, blacksmiths on the other. This could be what Bessler meant by one crossbar, to fit more than one mechanism would make the wheel extremely wide.
Another design of mine using only a stork's bill would be the same. But, yet another design I have that uses springs and pulleys could be fitted into segments around the wheel. This could be what the Apologia is hinting at.
Although my designs are different, they all use the principle of either a falling weight, or a weight moving on it's own momentum to move a smaller weight.
from Apologia Poetica (see pages 361 to 363 in John C.'s version):
Delete"In a true Perpetuum Mobile everything must, necessarily, go round together. There can be nothing stationary on the axle."
The working parts in Bessler's wheels were out near the rims of the drums. As soon as you attach anything to an axle or even put it near the axle you don't have his design anymore and won't be able to duplicate it.
FROM STEVO,
DeletePlease excuse my poor description, everything does revolve together.
Thanks Stevo, understood.
DeleteJC