When Johann Bessler’s largest wheel, the two-way version, was demonstrated at Kassel, it was recorded that the sound of eight weights were heard to land softly on the side towards which it turned. I have often suggested that there might have been ten weights, but two of them, one in each half of the wheel, given a thick layer of felt to deaden the sound of their impact, giving the impression that there were only eight weights. However if that was the case, the rhythmic thumping noise heard from the wheel, turning at 26 rpm means each turn took 2.3 seconds. Counting 8 thumps every 2.3 seconds it’s no wonder von Erlach said “about” 8 thumps per turn. Even so, if there were two silent weights operating, their silence would have introduced two gaps in the rhythmic thumping. Surely this would have been mentioned?
The description of each weight landing “softly” suggests they were all felted. The official reports specifically mention the great evenness of the wheel’s rotation which I think, obviates my suggestion of one or more silenced weights. So perhaps there were two sets of eight weights each set driving the Kassel wheel in a particular direction. The reason why I introduced the idea that there could have been two inaudible weights was because I could not understand why some researchers said that they were trying to make a two-way wheel which according to Bessler was very difficult; while others were using the eight weight description which applied to the two-way Kassel wheel to make a one-way wheel. We have no knowledge of the sounds emanating from the one-way wheels other than that they were very noisy.
The Kassel wheel was designed to turn more slowly than its predecessors each of which were able to turn at about double the speed. The Kassel wheel was built to withstand the wear and tear it expected to undergo during the endurance test of 30 days which, in the end, ran for 54 days before it was stopped. It’s speed of rotation was slowed by a half to preserve the integrity of its bearings and I assume this was achieved by reducing the distances of the movements within the mechanism. This design might have reduced the mechanical leverage obtained in the previous wheels, but increasing the mass of the weights might retrieve the lost lifting power. This may explain the increase in the thickness, or depth of the Kassel wheel, compared to its predecessor, the Merseburg wheel. In support of this suggestion Bessler said that he could make wheels turn very slowly and lift greater weights or turn very quickly, of small size or of great size.
All this tells us that we have documented evidence of one wheel using eight weights, turning at 26 rpm and nothing about the others except they each rotated at around 50 rpm yet were all of different dimensions. That sounds to me like 50 rpm was the best speed available with Bessler’s design, regardless of size and the 26 rpm version was the modified design. If the mechanisms inside the Kassel wheel moved through a limited range compared to the others, then perhaps there were more of them inside than in the others - 8 or more? Fine if you are committed to building the two-way wheel, even though you don’t know how the one-way wheel worked, but I think the one-way one is the way to go!
Above courtesy of
JC
John wrote "So perhaps there were two sets of eight weights each set driving the Kassel wheel in a particular direction. "
ReplyDeleteThat's basically the Ken B approach to Bessler's two way wheels. He thinks Bessler used a delicate "cat claw" latching system to always make the wheel turning opposite the direction it wanted to turn in lock down all of its eight lever weights against stops attached to the inside of the drum. When that happened their CoG moved to the center of the axle and the drum was then driven completely by the overbalance of the other wheel's eight still unlocked and free to swing lever weights.
Such a latching system is mechanically simple, but I can see how installing two of the little latches on sixteen levers would be a real pain. I agree that the focus should be on making a reliably running one way wheel first. With that there's no need for a two way wheel because one could always use a simple reverse gear system on the axle of a one way wheel to make a parallel axle turn in the opposite direction if that was needed for some purpose.
jason
Good response Jason. In reality it would have been the way to make the output turn in the reverse direction. Bessler’s need was to attempt to show his wheel wasn’t wound up, by showing it could turn both ways.
DeleteJC
Sorry John Collins; I'm being a bitch, it just that it happens every so often. When I click on publish, it all disappears, all of it gone----------------------Sam
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSam, for years my comments have disappeared as soon as I sent them, but I find the only answer to this is to “select all” of your comment, copy and if the comment try again or use another browser and paste your comment in post it. I know it’s a pain and I don’t know why it does this but it is what it is.
DeleteJC
Derek, I don’t know why you decided to delete your comments, but I wish you hadn’t. Of course I’d watch your video of a working wheel, we all would.
DeleteJC
I too would have thought that a missing knock, every half turn would have been mentioned. I also think, if the noises had no rhythm whatsoever and were more chaotic knocks, it would also have been mentioned, although i am a bit less convinced of this.
ReplyDeleteWhen we consider the theory of doubled up weights for the bidirectional wheel, it could be that only 4 weights were actually doing the magic, and the other 4 were just knocking every turn, because they were not firmly held and had a bit of play. Which could have been intentional to mislead the observers. This i would have thought, would have changed the knocking sound of every other weight, and i also think it would have been audible. Would it have been mentioned, is another question.
"All this tells us that we have documented evidence of one wheel using eight weights".
Which documents are you referring to?
Bessler said the weights "take it in turns to apply force to the wheel" paraphrased.
16 weights (8 pairs) with one of each pair knocking every rotation, is a wheel using 16 weights, not 8, and an observer would be none the wiser, if all they have to go by, is the number of knocks.
Are there documents which indicate there are 8 weights in a wheel or are you assuming there are 8 weights because the 8 knocks are well established, with valid documentation?
In my opinion, 8 knocks is well established with documentation, not eight weights. the wheel having 8 weights is speculation, not fact.
We have evidence of what the observers thought, we don't have any evidence that their thoughts were correct.
A correction to your statement would be; All this tells us that we have documented evidence that one wheel was thought to be using eight weights.
We are, of course, free to think exactly the same as the observers, that 8 knocks = 8 weights.
All good comments RH, eight knocks not necessarily eight weights. I was thinking more about the task some people have set themselves in trying build two way wheels before they’ve solved the one way wheels. It’s truer we don’t know anything about the cause or the source of the eight knocks.
DeleteJC
My plan is to make a wheel that rotates clockwise, and stand the other side when i want it to go anti-clockwise. That's plenty good enough for me.
ReplyDeleteHaha! Brilliant! You know I always thought that never got to say it, nice one.
DeleteJC
John, so it's a normal condition for it not to work. I know what I can do, I'll do a test each time to see if it's working, before trying to send a long paragraph----Sam
ReplyDeleteI’m not sure it’s normal Sam, but it happens to me. Sometimes it go for two weeks or more without any problem, and then almost every comment takes two three goes to publish. Trying a different browser sometimes works.
DeleteJC
I will not help you with the wheel, but might help you with disappearing comments, it seems when your browser is set to block popups it will not allow captcha to pop, thus when you click "Publish" button captcha will be bypassed and your comment will be erased. In other words it will disappear.
DeleteHave fun
BNR
Hi John, right; normal wasn't the best word to use. Possible, would have been better. What I started to say aa couple of days ago, is; what ever drives the wheels will be the same for all four. And, two wheels back to back is the only way it could have been done. The most logical way would be with both wheels in neutral while stopped. A push either way would activate that side. However it was done it was a neat trick-----------------------Sam
DeleteThanks for the suggestion BNR, I’ve altered the settings and I’ll see if it helps….or makes it worse. 😀
DeleteJC
I agree Sam, two wheels back to back. 👍
DeleteJC
I have difficulty convincing myself of the two wheels back to back theory.
DeleteIt doesn't correspond, in my opinion, with Bessler saying it was a headache,or a pain in the arse, or whatever it was he said to describe the difficulty he had in building the bi-directional wheel.
Building exactly the same thing twice, may be tedious or time consuming, but it would not be difficult. Adding a mechanism which determines which does the magic and which does nothing doesn't strike me as rocket science.
Obviously we can't be sure of anything until we have a runner, but i find it highly improbable that two wheels back to back will be the answer for a bi-directional wheel, once we have a unidirectional.
Bessler’s said in Apologia Poetica, “ I constructed my great work, the 6-ell diameter wheel. It revolved in either direction, but caused me a few headaches before I got the mechanism properly adjusted.” To me that sounds like the mechanical adjustments required to make the two opposing wheels work with each other.
DeleteJC
John,RH46, It's the great difficulty in getting it to go in one direction which makes it nearly impossible to change the direction of rotation of a single wheel.
ReplyDeleteIt would be like trying to reverse the rotation of a gasoline engine. It can't be done. However there must have been away to stop one and start the other--Sam
Sam, two stroke petrol engines can be run in the opposite direction.
ReplyDeleteWhen i was younger one of my mates was famous for push starting his moped backwards, and we would all laugh when he struggled to keep it going for as long as he could, before he inevitably lost balance and fell off. It is impossible with a four stroke though.
For this to be possible it wasn't really a headache, you just needed to set the timing at TDC and it didn't matter which way you started it, it would run. It wasn't as powerful as when it was correctly set to run in only one direction. Fixing another two stroke engine, set correctly to run in the other direction, would be a headache.
Bessler could well have doubled the mechanism, i don't deny it, or suggest it to be impossible. i just think it very unlikely.
RH46, I'm surprised to learn that gasoline engines will run either way. I stand corrected! In some ways a gravity engine is fairly simple, if the weights shift in on the up side and out on the down side the wheel will turn. The best I can tell; it can be set up to run either direction but not both. Maybe you've found a way to do that but I doubt it-----------------Sam
ReplyDeleteI’ll do a blog about the two-way wheels next time.
DeleteJC
I agree with you, no need to build one. Also, I'm finding out that a drive for a gravity wheel isn't simple, if I'm on the right track that is. Only the most skilled craftsman in the country could have built it. I think Karl, like all salesman, was pumping it up, a little, to get a sale--------------------Sam
DeleteGrusse an alle meine guten Bessler freunde!
ReplyDeleteIch war in den letzten wochen nicht in der stadt und habe verwandte besucht aber jetzt bin ich zurück. Ich fand heraus dass Hans mir ein weiteres Bessler geschenk geschickt hatte das ich mit Ihnen teilen sollte. Hier ist es also.
https://hosting.photobucket.com/images/i/JEEB1717/rad_nvfqw.jpg
JEEB1717
Please take your so-called ‘gifts’ and post them elsewhere. None of the gifts work and have nothing to do with Bessler.
DeleteJC
Thanks for making yet another interesting contributor here feel unwelcome, John. No wonder this blog has been going down the drain since the second half of last year! JEEB1717 told us months ago that he thought none of the designs he was having drawn for us by his artist friend would work. He was not trying to convince anyone that they would. They were only meant to show what kinds of designs Bessler was thinking about before he finally found one that worked. They show great creativity on the part of Bessler and how obsessed he was with finding a solution. Maybe you are jealous because you did not think of any of them?!
DeleteIch war traurig zu lesen dass die zeichnungs geschenke aus meinem fruhen Bessler buch hier nicht mehr willkommen sind. Ich werde keine weiteren von ihnen schicken.
DeleteIch werde mir nicht mehr die muhe machen, den armen Hans jetzt fur dich die schwierige zeichnung der besten maschine im buch zu machen. Ich betrachte seine schuld mir gegenuber als zuruckgezahlt was ihn glucklich machen sollte. Ich verabschiede mich nun von all meinen guten Bessler freunden hier und wunsche ihnen alles gute fur ihre zukunftigen suchen.
JEEB1717
The English translation of what JEEB1717 wrote in German is:
Delete"I was sad to read that the drawing gifts from my early Bessler book are no longer welcome here. I will not send any more of them. I will no longer bother to make poor Hans now for you the difficult drawing of the best machine in the book. I consider his guilt (maybe this should have been translated as "debt"?) to be paid back which should make him happy. I now say goodbye to all my good Bessler friends here and wish them all the best for their future search."
Sorry to see you leaving, JEEB1717. I for one found your "Bessler gifts" very interesting and thank you and your friend Hans for making them available to us. Hopefully, we'll see the entire original book of early Bessler pm machine drawings you claim to have someday after it's bequeathed to that rare book library you mentioned. Until then "Live long and prosper" as Mr. Spock of Star Trek says.
Anonymous and PROUD of it!
I'm sorry to see you are leaving too. I would very much have liked to see more of the drawings you were willing to share.
ReplyDeleteI'm disappointed by John's behaviour, and i find it very unfortunate that we no longer have the possibility to evaluate them ourselves, because he has decided for us.
RH46