Wednesday, 7 April 2021

Johann Bessler’s One-way and Two-Way Wheels.

When Johann Bessler, aka Orffyreus, first demonstrated his perpetual motion machine, he showed that it would begin to rotate as soon as a brake was released. It measured 4.6 feet in diameter and only 4 inches in thickness, and would accelerate up to its maximum speed of about 50 rpm.  Although subsequently he demonstrated much larger wheels which could turn in either direction, they were motionless until they were given a gentle nudge in one direction or the other, at which point they accelerated to their maximum speed in two or three turns.  The instant over-balancing feature of the early wheels indicated that their internal mechanical arrangement was in a state of perpetual imbalance, hence the need to apply a brake and locking attachment.

It has been argued that the wheel was stopped at a certain point at which it was out of balance, but in my opinion this is unlikely.  Witnesses were encouraged to adjust the speed of the wheel by screwing and unscrewing a bolt and I’m sure that some people would have brought the wheel to a full stop or at least slowed it down almost to a stand still.  It would quickly have become obvious if there were any points during rotation where imbalance was not detectable, or to put it another way, they could stop the wheel at a point at which the wheel didn’t continue to rotate. 

Bessler himself described the action within the wheel, as if it was constantly hunting or seeking balance,  but not finding it, and I believe that without this feature perpetual rotation wouldn’t happen.  The later two-way wheels were invented in order to dispose of the suggestion that they were wound up.  Whether or not they were as efficient in their use of the same mechanical advantage as the first two wheels remains to be seen, but they must have been more complex in their internal arrangements and therefore more likely to suffer break-downs.

I have always believed that Bessler sought to make the latter two wheels rotate in either direction by installing a mirrored version of the original wheel.  The idea being that both directions would cancel each other out thus leaving the wheel motionless.  Giving the wheel a nudge would engage which ever drive would propel it in that direction, leaving the alternative drive to either work in reverse, or lock up.

I tested this concept using two Savonius turbines on a single axle but with each designed to turn in opposite directions and I placed them in the path of the wind from a powerful fan, they did indeed spin in opposite directions.  With both turbines on the one axle but now connected to each other neither moved, predictably, but with nudge in one direction, they began to rotate, one forwards and one backwards, but only achieving half the speed of the two disconnected ones.  I have a video of the experiment which I will post when I find it! This supports the conclusion that mirror imaged mechanisms might hold the answer to the two-way wheels.

I know that other people don’t accept the mirror image design, speculating on a few alternatives, but I think this principle is something that would occur to Bessler first of all; two wheels on one axle each designed to turn the opposite way, but linked together.

Alternative  ways of producing wheels which turned in either direction required some kind of mechanism designed to make the internal mechanism change direction and I think this would be difficult to achieve, especially as there are no reports of Bessler operating some kind of lever to engage or disengage the internal mechanism.  Reports just say that the same technique of gently starting the wheel in a desired direction worked equally well for each direction. This leaves just an automated reaction to the change of direction of the wheel.  This in my opinion complicates the mechanism too much.

I know many people are working on the idea that there were about eight sounds being emitted from the side of the wheel towards which the wheel turned.  This sound was described as a “weight landing gently”, but what ever the cause of this sound, it was only with reference to the two-way wheel, and not the earlier one-way wheels.  I have asked the following question many times without ever receiving a simple logical explanation. “Why try to build Bessler’s two-way wheel, which are likely to be more complex than the one-way ones? The eight sounds of weights applied to the two-way wheels, but I know some are incorporating the eight sounds into their one-way wheels and that seems to me equally inexplicable.

Finally I have also reminded people that Bessler admitted that he had on previous occasions muffled the sounds coming from the wheels obviously with the intent to confuse or deceive the impressions of the design of the mechanisms within the wheel to the audience.  The same technique could have been applied to the two-way wheel. Added to this we should not rule out additional sounds made by extra weights installed to further confuse.

But in the end I know almost everyone has their own ideas about Bessler’s wheels and I just hope someone proves to be right and soon - I just need to know how he did it!

JC

60 comments:

  1. John, I feel the only reason why the wheel started it's own is because it was already primed because they were stopped quickly while still being over balanced,this is why they had to be released first.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that it is easier to accept that Bessler told the truth and his wheel was always out-of-balance, and I think that is a vital feature of the wheel for it to turn continuously.

      JC

      Delete
  2. Ok, so that means the later wheels were always in balance, they had to turn before the CG was offset

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. Hi Stephen, it was an off-the-cuff comment, but nevertheless true. Obviously I want to know that someone has demonstrated the solution and that it is in line with my interpretation, but if it isn’t, so be it. I remain confident that my interpretation will prove largely correct.. I assume you’re referring to my posted design which the sim proved unworkable, it was not a full and accurate interpretation. I have never been willing to reveal my work before building has been tested and proven, not unlike yourself?

      JC

      Delete
    3. Ok John,if you will, just picture this; If you take the latter wheel that needs a push to start and if you stop it quickly in it's over-balanced state,that means that I can release it at any time and it will selfstart. Is that not logical?

      Delete
    4. I see where you’re going with this Trevor, but referring back to my Savonius windmill experiment, as soon I stopped the two rotors they remained still because the wind was equal on each side, same with gravity on each wheel image.

      JC

      Delete
    5. Is that not because there was just not enough blades, after all the Bessler wheel itself would only go properly after he increased it to eight weights.

      Delete
    6. You have no proof of that statement Trevor, only supposition based on assumptions. No where dies it say he used eight weights and there are other factors which cast doubt on that idea.

      JC

      Delete
  3. Very well summerized John. Clear and on point; facts delivered with the accuracy and impact of an Exocet. Your deductions logical imo.

    Below I have taken excerpts from your AP book (digital copy). I have separated some of the text to highlight certain context and importance to your arguments, and also BOLDED some for clarity that cannot be missed (even allowing for translation nuances).

    The take-away for me being that he had at different times wheels working on DIFFERENT principles (mechanical). Then he devised the two-way wheel 'variation' to answer critics.

    "AP Pg 338 digital : XXIX (b) The clattering in my machine is (says Wagner) just
    for appearance's sake.

    Herr Wagner says that my machine does not, under any circumstances, derive its motive force from the noisy weights. In other words, he declares that the mechanism that causes all the
    clattering (which was commented on earlier and which was noted by so many people) is not, in fact, the thing which causes the rotation of my Wheel.

    The clattering noise you refer to is, I assure you, a phenomenon caused directly by the real motive power of the machine, and nothing else. You also wish me to inform you why the Draschwitz machine did not create a similar noise; well, I'll tell you.

    The two machines can easily be contrasted, as they WORKED ON QUITE DIFFERENT PRINCIPLES.

    The former (Draschwitz) one turned in only one direction, but the latter (Merseburg ) one turned, as everyone could see, both ways. The former was provided with felt coverings, but the latter was as bare as a bald head.

    I have many other machines of various types - some, for instance, with weights, others without. Your questions are extremely irritating. ..

    AP Pg 326 digital : XI (b) Wagner's assumption as to the principle behind my device

    He writes that if anyone with mechanical knowledge were to step forward and place his ear to my device, he would easily unravel its structure. Indeed, he goes babbling on that the clattering inside the machine is there just to prevent anyone from becoming acquainted
    with the movement. Again, as for the inner turnspit mechanism, I'd decided to keep the public well away by the use of railings.

    The clattering was not "pro forma" (i.e. just for appearance sake).

    You're an absolutely downright liar! You don't seem to know that many
    hundreds of people were allowed, for the sake of viewing the craftsmanship, to enter within the railings - until we came up with the idea of putting large holes in them. .."

    -f

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks fletch, I like your metaphors! I’m sometimes accused of making unsupported assumptions but I think we can believe Bessler’s accounts of his machines, and at the same time not assume that one feature recorded by witnesses will necessarily apply to other ones.

      JC

      Delete
    2. Also, unless I misread or misinterpreted Bessler's words above, no where does he equate the banging to the number of weights within the wheel. That said, there really is no evidence pointing at the number of weights used, but please correct me if I am wrong and please point out the wording where Bessler's states this.

      Delete
    3. Hey John .. I think your comments in is blog topic are on safe ground and no major assumptions were required. I believe B. was quite clear at times, and you nailed it putting it in the one place. The reality is that B. had one-way and later two-way wheels. He says the two wheels worked on different principles. This means there is at least two different mechanical embodiments of his wheels (setting aside the latter two-way variation). One tangibly mechanically different from the other tho unlikely to be a complete change-out of all components for other systems. They will have shared his ONE Principle of Perpetual Motion. And that dominant Principle controls all subservient mechanical principles used and imagined downstream from it, imo.

      -f

      Delete
    4. Anon 20.12

      Fischer von Erlach examined the wheel for two hours in the Landgrave’s presence and wrote to Sir Isaac Newton that ‘at each turn of the wheel the sound of about eight weights landing gently on the side toward which the wheel turned.’

      JC

      Delete
    5. Agreed fletch, finding either principle would be brilliant, and yes I think the one principle which makes everything else work is the key.

      JC

      Delete
    6. So Erlach heard "about" 8 sounds per revolution. Since Bessler does not confirm the sounds heard by Erlach equate to the number of mechanisms within the wheel, or if they were actually due to weights hitting the side of the drum, it would be foolhardy to assume as much.

      Delete
    7. Exactly anon 16.37. That was my point in my blog.

      JC

      Delete
  4. Well Stephen there is no proof like a working model...... U still up in Chi Town

    ReplyDelete
  5. I haven't been to Butch McQuires or the Tiny Tap in a while might be a good time to head up for a good meal and brew

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  8. JC,
    What's your take on the bit about the wheels featuring the ability to be serviced while still in motion or still in use?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. On the face of it that comment doesn’t make much sense. It maybe that the translation mangled the intended meaning. It might have meant that the wheel didn’t need to be dismounted for repairs or servicing to take place. I’m sure Bessler meant something sensible so perhaps another look at the original German might help. I’ll give it a try.

      JC

      Delete
    2. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    3. Hhhmmmm - it’s not actually.

      JC

      Delete
    4. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. This quote from DT, “ But let everyone be assured, at this juncture, that if crucial areas of the device are constructed of very durable materials – e.g. iron, steel or brass - it should be capable of a period operation of several years. If it should then need repair, this can be carried out quickly, easily and cheaply, and the machine can then return to service just as before.”

      JC

      Delete
    7. "...crucial areas of the device are constructed of very durable materials – e.g. iron, steel or brass..."

      https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/i/JEEB1717/Bessleruvw.gif?width=450&height=278&crop=fill

      Delete
  9. SG finished the 2nd shot 3 weeks ago, but still keeping the distancing stuff and mask routine. Still building, still dreaming how bout U ? I have forced my 8ft wheel to 30 RPM and its is scary to be that close to all that energy. If his wheel was larger, but only going 26 RPM that is Oh My Gosh crazy.... you can just feel the pulsing, think I may have found a little beam of light, but will take some time to get the build up to speed.

    ReplyDelete
  10. But, but John, your own literature says there were eight weights.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, just Fischer von Erlach reporting the sound if about 8 weights landing gently...etc


      JC

      Delete
  11. I think he was right because you need at least eight to get a proponderance John.I remember him remarking that with one crossbar it would only turn a bit, but with more it turned much faster.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Vorrei contribuire a chiarire alcune cose nella confusione di indizi lasciate da Bessler.
    Il tintinnio o incudine che riceve molti colpi sono le coppie dei pesi delle ruote unidirezionali che si trovavano veramente uno contro l'altro, queste coppie di pesi
    sono sono sostituite nelle ruote bidirezionali da un cilindro forato al centro per scorrere dall'alto al basso, questo cilindro mostrato da Bessler al pubblico con il consiglio di non toccarlo al centro era solo per evitare che il lubrificante sporcasse le mani e i vestiti, non c'era nessun mistero sotto il fazzoletto.
    Otto suoni di atterraggio soffice erano i cilindri che atterravano nella parte bassa ammortizzati da molle a compressione che potete vedere nella pagina dei giocattoli avvolte nei due elementi D.
    Ringrazio John per le traduzioni, io ho 81 anni e ho iniziato a lavorare molto presto un saluto dall'Italia.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. PG wrote, “
      I would like to help clarify some things in the confusion of clues left by Bessler.
      The rattle or anvil that receives many hits are the pairs of one-way wheel weights that really stood against each other, these pairs of weights
      are replaced in the bidirectional wheels by a cylinder perforated in the center to slide from top to bottom, this cylinder shown by Bessler to the public with the advice not to touch it in the center was only to prevent the lubricant from dirtying hands and clothes, not 'was no mystery under the handkerchief.
      Eight soft landing sounds were the cylinders landing in the lower part cushioned by compression springs which you can see on the toys page wrapped in the two D elements.
      Thanks to John for the translations, I am 81 years old and I started working very early a greeting from Italy.”

      Thank you for your comment PG, I’ll respond later.

      JC

      Delete
  13. I’m somewhat confused, and not by Bessler,
    This comment:
    John Collins 8 April 2021 at 07:22
    "Thanks fletch, I like your metaphors! I’m sometimes accused of making unsupported assumptions but I think we can believe Bessler’s accounts of his machines, and at the same time NOT ASSUME THAT ONE FEATURE RECORDED BY WITNESSES WILL NECESSARILY APPLY TO OTHER ONES."

    Clearly contradicts this part of main article:
    "Finally I have also reminded people that Bessler admitted that he had on previous occasions muffled the sounds coming from the wheels obviously with the intent to confuse or deceive the impressions of the design of the mechanisms within the wheel to the audience. THE SAME TECHNIQUE COULD HAVE BEEN APPLIED TO THE TWO-WAY WHEEL."

    In addition: “Bessler admitted that he had on previous occasions muffled the sounds coming from the wheels obviously with the intent to confuse or deceive”
    I did not read your books, so I don’t know, did Bessler admit he muffled the sounds to confuse or deceive?
    Because there is another possibility, Bessler used felt pads as shock absorbers, (for my tests I used foam pads), the sliding, rolling, falling down weights after landing will bounce back (at least once, mostly more than once) and this bouncing will disrupt wheel rotation. I fail to see here any intent to confuse and deceive.
    Have nice day

    BnR

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’m tempted to respond by telling you to read the books then perhaps you will understand. I get slightly exasperated by questions which can be answered by reading the books I wrote and published twenty-five years ago!

      Your comment is wrong, the first quote refers to witness statements about different machines, the second one refers to Bessler’s own statements about different machines.

      You seem intent on trying to discredit me, but I have no idea why. I think you are a troll who is
      intentionally trying to instigate conflict, hostility, or arguments in this blog. Please go away.

      JC

      Delete
    2. I second that JC.

      Delete
    3. https://relativity.tripod.com/webonmediacontents/animatedportrait.gif?1344277865890

      Delete
    4. Anon 19:47, what is the purpose of animating the Bessler portrait with distortions?

      Delete
  14. I also strongly believe that there is only one design or one principle available or ever invented by Bessler... The two way wheels also make use of the same principle... The 26 rpm is just half the speed of the one way wheels which ran at 50 rpm... This may mean that the two way wheels utilized half the principle or half the weights of the one way wheel When in operation in either direction or something to that effect...

    This difference in the speed or RPM rate of both the wheels could hold the understanding...

    It took a lot of time for Bessler to find the secret principle... It is hard to believe that he would have gone through all the hardship again just to convince the non-believers by finding yet another new principle that would make the wheel run either way...

    Imo, Gravity is an unique force and their could only be a single approach to derive power from it... Since Gravity makes things fall it is important that a weight be raised for Gravity to act... And, Bessler found a this amazing way to make weights rise up each time...

    There's just no complicated way involved but a very simple method...

    It just doesn't occur to everyone... That's all... We don't seem to be thinking the right way...

    Some have just died away pursuing this simple principle like Ramesh Menaria... Great disappointment, indeed...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Suresh, I believe there is only one technique that allows more weight to be lifted than drops, but I see many mechanical ways of making that happen. This could account for Bessler saying he has many designs/principles.

      Delete
  15. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  16. La "Storck Bill" est une façon de lever les poids à la verticale.
    expérience du Week End:
    j'ai levé un poids de 2,5Kg avec un poids de 1Kg par l'intermédiaire de ce simple système, il aurait pu être de 3Kg si ce mécanisme avait été plus affiné.
    JB

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. JB wrote, “ The "Storck Bill" is a way of lifting weights vertically.
      Weekend experience:
      I lifted a weight of 2.5Kg with a weight of 1Kg through this simple system, it could have been 3Kg if this mechanism had been more refined.

      Delete
  17. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Le poids de 2,5Kg est monté de 317mm
      Le poids de 1Kg est descendu 1231,5mm
      Tout comme pour un système palan la charge se déplace moins que le brin de traction en fonction du nombre de poulie.
      Graphiquement avec huit Storck Bill il reste les positions 5h de rétractation ou inversement du mouvement et 11h de déploiement.
      à 6 h le système c'est contracté complètement.
      à 12h le système est déployé complètement.
      JB

      Delete
    2. JB wrote, “ The weight of 2.5Kg is mounted by 317mm
      The weight of 1Kg went down 1231.5mm
      As with a hoist system, the load moves less than the traction arm depending on the number of pulleys.
      Graphically, with eight Storck Bill, the 5 o'clock position for retraction or vice versa of the movement and 11 o'clock of deployment remain.
      at 6 a.m. the system is completely contracted.
      at 12 noon the system is fully deployed.”

      JC

      Delete
  18. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hi John and everybody ,

    John, have you ever considered translating your books into different languages ?
    it would surely be interesting for many people who do not have the facility to communicate in English . And how much even one knows English, there must be certain technical terms which should prevent reading after a while. . .
    I think the translation in German or French will be great ;-)

    Thanks John and everyone. . .

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi RoBessler, my books by Bessler are also in their original German, or did you mean my biography of Bessler. If you want French translation of the original German, I think that would be beyond my capability and my wallet, but a nice thought nevertheless.

      JC

      Delete
    2. Thank you John ,

      Yes , your biography of Bessler and other books ( https://johncollinsnews.blogspot.com/p/johann-besslers-books-and-biography.html ) . The translation in French will be perfect for me ;-) . And also ( mostly ) for a lot of poeple speaking French language . Personaly ,
      i bought your book "maschinen tractate" a few years ago ( there are lots of illustration ;-) ).
      Often i tell friends about you and your research on Bessler like a reference but i think it's not easy to get interested without French / German versions .
      you also have to be realistic and tell yourself that this only interests a very small number of people. The day someone finds the solution (I hope it will be you), the interest and sales of your books will take off.

      Robert . . .

      Delete
    3. Thank you for the suggestion Robert, I guess if the solution is found, versions in other languages would appear. Many years ago I would have arranged for a French translation but I’m too old now! In fact I had been signed up for a German translation of my book, which was to be paid for by the publisher but even though I received an advance, the contract fell through, they felt the subject was too much of a specialised and would not be profitable.

      JC

      Delete
  20. John, I think there is something significant about Besslers remark that one or another weight would fly up; it denotes the randomness that stems from the exuberance of lively weights.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Hey John! How are you? I see you are still working on the wheel.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi yellow, perpetually working on it! But not at this moment as I’m between two houses and living with my daughter.

      JC

      Delete

The True Story of Bessler’s Perpetual Motion Machine - Update

At the end of March we sold our house and moved in with my daughter, son-in-law and granddaughter, expecting to be there for no more than tw...