Thursday, 14 April 2022

Johann Bessler’s Various Perpetual Motion Machines

There is a curious consistency about all four of Johann Bessler’s wheels, which is interesting and leads one to certain speculations about them.  The details which follow are all taken from www.orffyre.com.  This website is run by an old friend and correspondent of mine dating back to our earliest research days, and his information is accurate to date. From the afore-mentioned website:

(Bessler used the Leipzeg ell in his measurements - 1 ell = 22.3 inches


First wheel - Gera


Diameter = 4.6 feet

Thickness = about 4 inches

Speed = over 50 RPM unloaded

Rotation = uni-directional, required restraint when not in use

Axle = unknown

Sound = unknown

Power = unknown


* size in ell units: reported diameter = 2.5 ell = 4.6 feet; reported  thickness = 4 Leipzeg inches = 3.7 inches *


Second wheel - Draschwitz


Diameter = 9.3 feet

Thickness = 6 inches

Speed = over 50 RPM unloaded

Rotation = uni-directional, required restraint when not in use

Axle = 6 inches diameter (probable diameter = 1/4 ell = 5.6 inches)

Sound = loud noise

Power = unknown


* size in ell units: reported diameter = 5 ell = 9.3 feet; probable thickness = 1/4 ell = 5.6 inches *


Third wheel - Merseburg


Diameter = 12 feet

Thickness = 11.15 inches

Speed = 40 RPM or more

Rotation = dual-directional, required gentle push start in either direction

Axle = 6 inches diameter (probable diameter = 1/4 ell = 5.6 inches)

Sound = banging noise at descending side of wheel

Power = estimates range from 20 Watts to 100 Watts


* size in ell units: reported diameter = 6 ells = 12 feet; reported thickness = 1/2 ell = 11.15 inches *


Fourth wheel - Kassel (Weissenstein Castle)


Diameter = 12 feet

Thickness = 18 inches

Speed = 26 RPM unloaded - 20 RPM under water screw load

Rotation = dual-directional, required gentle push start in either direction

Axle = 8 inches diameter (probable diameter = 1/3 ell = 7.4 inches)

Sound = about 8 bangs per revolution at descending side of wheel

Power = estimates range from 25 Watts to 125 Watts


* size in ell units: reported diameter = 6 ells = 12 feet; probable thickness = 3/4 ell = 16.7 inches

Bessler's apparent use of the Leipzig ell suggests he probably built his wheels to whole ell units and simple fractions thereof. The above diagram shows feet and inches derived from Leipzig ell conversions as listed in the data above.)


Ok, this me!  The first thing to notice is that the first three wheels turned at a speed close to 50 rpm. Given the difference in the sizes of all three devices we might have expected a larger variation in their output.  The fourth wheel, the Kassel wheel, the largest one tested, only rotated at 26 rpm, but given that it was designed to undergo an endurance test of several weeks, it would be surprising if Bessler had not designed it to turn at approximately half the speed of the others.


It seems likely that he increased the thickness of the wheel to compensate for the reduced weight-lifting capacity caused no doubt by reducing the speed or the actions  of the internal mechanisms, thus slowing its rotation.  Although we know little about the interior of the machines we can speculate on what alterations he might have made to the mechanisms within the fourth wheel,  (the Kassel wheel) compared to those earlier ones to make turn more slowly.


In the most basic terms, we know that there were weights which must have moved about relative to the axle, and they had to be able to move from one place to another, and then return within one rotation.  There seem to be limited potential  variables, and I ruled out alterations in the mass of the weights. This leaves only a variation in the number of weights, and the distance they can move.


Again if we take into consideration the common rotational speed between the first three wheels, (Gera, Draschwitz and Merseburg) we might speculate that although the distances the weights moved might vary from wheel to wheel, perhaps their effect was controlled by the amount of torque each one could produce, and regardless of weight and mechanism size, perhaps no variation could occur, other than a reduction in top speed due to friction or work.


The first two wheels (Gera and Draschwitz) would begin to spin spontaneously as soon as a brake was released.  We can infer that they were both in a state of permanent imbalance.  I ignore suggestions that the wheel was stopped in a certain position in order to provide this effect.  Besides Bessler stating that they had to be locked to stop them continuing to rotate, there is plenty of evidence from onlookers that he spoke the truth.


The second two wheels (Merseburg and Kassel) did not have this feature, but would begin to spin after being given a gentle nudge in the desired direction.  They were capable of being started in either direction from which point they accelerated to their  top speed. Clearly their two-way capacity led the two directions being balanced when stationary.  This leads us to another question.  If the first two wheels could attain a speed close 50 rpm, it seems surprising that the third wheel (Merseburg) also achieved the same speed in either direction.  We can leave aside for the moment, the slow-turning Kassel wheel because we know it was designed to be slow.


One might think, as I did, that the two-way wheels had a second set of mechanisms designed to turn in the opposite direction, which allowed the wheel to be turned either way, but that might seem to create resistance in one mechanism being turned the wrong way which would either prevent the wheel turning, or lead to it turning more slowly.  This apparently did not happen because the two-way Merseburg wheel was able to match the speed of the earlier one-way wheels. If a duplicate, but mirror image mechanism was installed within the Merseburg wheel, it was twice the thickness of the second wheel which would probably provide enough space for a double mechanism.  


Given this problem perhaps he had found another way to allow just one set of mechanisms to cause rotation in either direction, this would have been the ideal solution, it would have simplified things.  But we cannot work out how he might have done this until we know how his one way wheel worked. 


So what is it that seemed to allow the first three wheels to reach around 50 rpm?  Well we do know that several witnesses remarked on the great regularity of all the wheel’s evenness of rotation.   There was no jerkiness nor bumpiness in each rotation.  I presume there would be a limit to how fast the weights could move and this could be a limiting factor, regardless of size of any internal mechanisms.  This could possibly be improved in these modern times, not just by reducing friction but by improving the configuration of the each mechanism.  It would be a curious feat if one could improve the speed up-to 60rpm, measuring exactly one minute.


A single second was, historically, established by calculating the time it takes for the Earth to rotate once about its axis and dividing the time by the 86,400 seconds in each solar day, (60 x 60 x 24 = 86,400).  Of course we have a much more precise method now, but in 1656, Dutch scientist Christiaan Huygens invented the first pendulum clock. It had a pendulum length of just under a meter which gave it a swing of one second, and an escapement that ticked every second. It was the first clock that could accurately keep time in seconds. By the 1730s, 80 years later, John Harrison's maritime chronometers could keep time accurate to within one second in 100 days.

But, if Christian Huygens pendulum clock had a pendulum length of just under a meter which gave it a swing of one second (39.27 inches), might that give us a hint at the length of levers in Bessler’s clock? Were they also just under a meter in length to time the wheel to close the 60 rpm? Allowing for friction that might have slowed the rotation to what it actually was.

I suspect that Bessler’s weighted levers had a much longer swing than Huygens’ 6 degree swing because it was generating force rather than measuring minutes, but given the work they did, they moved more slowly than any clock pendulum, so being close to 60 rpm may or may not be just coincidental.

JC

35 comments:

  1. John,
    "In the most basic terms, we know that there were weights which must have moved about relative to the axle, and they had to be able to move from one place to another, and then return within one rotation."
    This statement of yours may help you understand what i have been going on about for over two years.
    The statement is only correct for gravity wheels "without" the fundamental difference.
    Gravity wheels that do have the fundamental difference, make your statement incorrect.
    You state that; "we know ... and they had to be able to move from one place to another, and then return within one rotation". This is not a factual statement.
    We do not know that the weights moved to another place, and then moved back within one rotation, this is purely an assumption.
    Every wheel ever made, that did have weights move to another place, and then move back again within one rotation, have all failed miserably.
    Gravity wheels with the fundamental difference, do not have weights that move to another place, and back again, within one rotation.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I’m not sure what fundamental difference you refer to Robin, unless it’s a specific piece of the mechanism which has not, so far, been tried or even thought of. It’s still a gravity wheel though.

      I would disagree with your “this is not a factual statement”, because Bessler describes such movements by the weights.

      Do you have something in mind that equates to the thing which adds something fundamentally different to ordinary gravity wheels? If you do, we might be on similar paths.

      JC

      Delete
    2. John, i know that the expression of my thoughts isn't clear.
      The use of the word fundamental can be ignored, if this makes it easier to understand the difference.
      Some wheels, must, just as you have stated that Bessler's wheel does, have weights that go to another place, from where they were, and return to their initial place, within a single rotation (360°).
      Other wheels, have weights that do not do this. The weights go to another place but do not come back to their initial place, and/or they do not do it within a single rotation of the wheel.
      Your statement applies to the vast majority of all gravity wheels, but it doesn't apply to 100% of them. Therefore assuming that Bessler's wheel did have weights that behave the same as the vast majority is incorrect.
      We do not know that the weights moved to another place, and then moved back within one rotation.
      "Do you have something in mind that equates to the thing which adds something fundamentally different to ordinary gravity wheels?"
      Not having pivot points that are fixed to the wheel, allowing the weights to evolve radially independent of the wheel.
      "If you do, we might be on similar paths."
      If you tell me what path you are on, we can discuss if we are going in the same direction.

      Delete
    3. I see what you mean Robin, but I’m still being guided by Bessler who said his weights do move in and out. But I do have what you might call a fundamental difference in my design, but it’s more of a unique mechanism addition. Anyway we hope to finally move into our next house in May, then I shall get to work in my new workshop and build to my design. I think I misunderstood you and thought we were maybe heading in the same direction, but I think not because of the different views on the weights. If my design fails I’ll be in touch in case we can help each other.

      John

      Delete
    4. I have difficulty believing that you see what i mean John. If you did, you wouldn't have replied "but I’m still being guided by Bessler who said his weights do move in and out."
      Weights can move "in and out" on both types of wheels. The in and out movement of the weights with regard the central axle, are no different, the excess weight is caused by the weights being further from the centre one side than the other. It's the relation with the wheel that changes, in one type but not the other.
      An additional mechanism that can take the weights off the wheel, to later, put them back at a different place, on the wheel, even if it is the same place in space, can achieve this.
      As long as the weights dance around the same axle as the wheel, but are completely out of step with the wheel, it doesn't matter what dance they are doing. Most wheels have weights that dance in step with the wheel, those are the ones, i believe, that are destined to fail.
      I hope your move goes well, and as planned, so that you can make some progress with your current thoughts.
      I am also having a go at a build, now that the sun has risen high enough in the sky, or more accurately, the north pole has leaned far enough towards it, so that i have enough electricity to run tools. I will be making some variations of the simulations, and animations, that i have been sharing recently. I'm so much looking forward to a real third dimension.
      RH46

      Delete
    5. RH46 said "An additional mechanism that can take the weights off the wheel, to later, put them back at a different place, on the wheel, even if it is the same place in space, can achieve this."

      That certainly sounds "...so simple that a carpenter’s boy could understand and make it after having seen the inside..." Lol!

      Delete
    6. Anon, if you are familiar with the Buzzsaw, you will see that the inner wheel can take a weight, off the outer wheel, rotate 360 degrees, and place it back on the outer wheel at exactly the same place in space, as where it took it from, but at a different place on the outer wheel because the outer wheel would have rotated more, or less, than 360 degrees. The village idiot's son could probably have a pretty good go at making it, once he had seen it.

      Delete
    7. I did understand Robin, but I don’t think you are right about my weight movements, but I guess time will tell.

      I would not describe the buzzsaw as simple and although some people believed it worked, I’m not one of them.

      Delete
    8. Where's a village idiot's son when we need one to help us with our builds?! Lol!

      That "buzzsaw wheel" was analyzed to death over on bwf years ago and, iirc, several sims of it were made that proved it was a nonrunner. Its outside wheel could constantly keep its inside wheel's descending side weights shooting back up to the top of the inside wheel when they reached the bottom of the inside wheel, BUT the outside wheel used all of the torque of the imbalance of the inside wheel to do that and no torque was left over to actually accelerate the inside wheel.

      When the inside and outside wheels had their weights in place, their gearing caused their torques to be in opposite directions to each other which caused them to just cancel each other out. If built, the buzzsaw wheel would just sit there and the builder would have to turn it by hand to make its inside and outside wheels turn at all.

      Delete
    9. My mention of the Buzzsaw, was simply to refer to something that most of us are familiar with, which allowed the explanation as to how it could be possible to mechanically achieve the movements of the weights, in a manner, somewhat similar to what i had suggested.
      Explaining things, generally makes them seem a hell of a lot more complicated than they actually are. It was said that a carpenters lad could reproduce the wheel once he had seen the mechanism.
      If Bessler had explained the mechanism, without showing it, i don't think there are many people who would be able to replicate it.

      Delete
  2. JC wrote : re approx 50 rpm "This apparently did not happen because the two-way Merseburg wheel was able to match the speed of the earlier one-way wheels."

    Mornin John .. fwiw IF the Merseburg wheel had duplicate mechs it would obviously add considerable mass to the wheel. The effect of this extra mass would not necessarily limit top rpm. But it would get to that rpm much slower i.e. it would have a slower acceleration because of the extra inertia. Yet when we read the reports there doesn't seem to be much difference - 1 or 2 turns, IIRC. And that seems consistent across all the wheel formats IINM.

    The conclusion I could possibly reach is that the internal mechs actually didn't have much mass, except for the weights portion. And if the number of mechs was halved for each direction then total weights (and inertia) would remain relatively constant. Thus the up to speed in 1 or 2 turns. But I would expect to see a Power difference. Unfortunately we don't have 2 wheels to compare side by side to confirm these speculations.

    -f

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Joseph Fischer's 1721 letter to Desaguliers said:

      "But to my astonishment I observed that the rapidity of the wheel augmented little by little until it had made two turns, and then it regained its former speed, until I observed by my watch that it made the same twenty-six turns a minute as before, when acting freely; and twenty turns when it was attached to the screw to raise water."

      Notice that he did not write "...until it had made two turns BY WHICH TIME it had regained its former speed...". He only tells us he watched it slowly accelerate for two turns and THEN it regained its former speed. That word "then" suggests a certain amount of time AFTER the wheel completed its first two turns. Fawk, that could have been ten or more minutes later!

      Delete
    2. Your quote comes from :- letter from Joseph Fischer to J.T. Desaguliers, 1721

      And this is the quote from the letter from s'Gravesande to Newton about the Kassel Wheel that Fischer refers to in your quote above (but your wrong conclusion).

      "When I turned it but gently, it always stood still as soon as I took my hand away. But when I gave it any tolerable degree of velocity, I was always obliged to stop it again by force; for when I let it go, it acquired in two or three turns its greatest velocity, after which it revolved at twenty-five or twenty-six times a minute."

      - letter from Willem Jacob 'sGravesande to Sir Isaac Newton, 1721

      Delete
    3. - Certificate for wheel tested at MERSEBURG, signed 31st October, 1715

      Quote from part of the signed Certificate.

      "The machine was started by a very light push with just two fingers and accelerated as soon as one of the weights, hidden inside, began to fall. Within about one revolution, the machine had acquired a strong and even rotation, even when a box was lifted, which had been filled with six whole bricks weighing together about seventy pounds."

      Both the Merseburg and Kassel Wheels quickly accelerated up to rpm within a few turns, as did the earlier one-way Wheels.

      Delete
    4. Anon 01:10 quotes the 'sGravesande to Newton letter of 1721:

      "But when I gave it any tolerable degree of velocity, I was always obliged to stop it again by force; for when I let it go, it acquired in two or three turns its greatest velocity..."

      He obviously did not COMPLETELY stop the wheel because, if he had, he would have had to push start it again. He probably just applied some drag to its drum and it slowed down a little. When he then released it, it still had most of its maximum angular momentum and was able to come up to full speed again in only two or three turns.


      Anon 01:16 quotes the certificate issued after the official test of the Merseberg wheel:

      "Within about one revolution, the machine had acquired a strong and even rotation..."

      There is no mention of the actual speed that the Merseberg wheel had after it completed a single rotation and "had acquired a strong and even rotation". Fawk, it could have been turning at 10 rpm's instead of 40 or more.

      There is no real evidence that the Merseberg and Kassel wheels were able to achieve maximum speed in only a few turns. Considering how ponderous they would have been with all of the lead weights they contained and how low their starting torques were, it is highly unlikely that they could have achieves the maximum speeds noted for them in only a "few turns".

      Some want to believe that Bessler's wheels were tremendously powerful. If that had been the case, then he wouldn't have had so much trouble trying to find a buyer for the invention. Those engineers examining his wheels realized that their torques were too low for the industrial purposes they wanted to use them for. That's the real reason, rather than "bad luck", why Bessler and his invention got nowhere while those working on coal fired steam engines made steady progress and had no problem finding buyers for their inventions.

      Delete
    5. All fair points, but the comments still have to make assumptions. Unfortunately despite the efforts of those reporting the circumstances we still lack enough precise details to learn as much as we’d like.

      I think Fletcher makes a good point when he writes, “ if the Merseburg wheel had duplicate mechs it would obviously add considerable mass to the wheel. The effect of this extra mass would not necessarily limit top rpm. But it would get to that rpm much slower i.e. it would have a slower acceleration because of the extra inertia. Yet when we read the reports there doesn't seem to be much difference.” Without more information this suggests that there wasn’t a duplicate mechanism inside the bi-way wheels. Unless the reversing mechanism has no braking effect on the wheel’s rotation.

      JC

      Delete
    6. We are all guilty of making assumptions by trying to read between the lines to get at the facts. Anon 05:13 You are doing it too. You assume that sGravesande didn’t completely stop the wheel, but all he is doing is comparing the speed of reaction between giving the wheel a gentle push with giving it a “ tolerable degree of velocity.”

      You also suggest that Bessler’s wheels were not as powerful as most of us believe and that is why no one bought them. Not true, it was the price that put everyone off, and given that the Newcomen was cheaper, plus he supplied expert engineers to set up his engine, plus his engine was capable of pumping water up from much deeper mines than Bessler’s could.

      There is no reasonable limit to how powerful you want your Besslerwheel to be, as long as you increase it’s size and add more in series on the same axle.

      JC

      Delete
    7. Two things about Bessler's two 12 foot diameter wheels seem obvious to me from the descriptions of their construction and the tests done on them that we have.

      First, they had to have been massive because of the thick axles they used. The Kassel wheel's 8 inch diameter x 6 foot long axle would have had a fracture strength up in the tons! If his wheels only weighed a few hundred pounds then they wouldn't need axles that thick.

      Second, these wheels had very low torques. There was one test of the Merseburg wheel that said the wheel at start up could only lift a 60 pound weight attached to its axle when some sort of pulley arrangement was used to multiply the lifting force more than four times. Assuming it was five times, then that means a rope attached directly from the wheel's 6 inch diameter axle down to a suspended weight could only lift a weight of about 12 pounds. That's an axle lifting torque of only 3 foot-pounds. That's about the torque you'd have to apply to a screwdriver handle to loosen a tight screw! Now imagine if Bessler put a slot into the tip of one of the metal pins at the ends of the Merseburg wheel's axle and then tried to accelerate the axle and attached drum with all of its lead weights by hand using a screwdriver! If the bearings were virtually frictionless, then the wheel would start to turn, but would do so very slowly.

      At 40 rpm's maximum speed for the Merseburg wheel, everyone seems to assume that each of its first few turns only required 60 seconds/40 rpm or 1.5 seconds to complete which would suggest that once given a push, this wheel took off like rocket! Imo, that is impossible.

      However, with such a low torque and a wheel mass that was probably in the hundreds of pounds at least, there is a way that the Merseburg wheel could have reached its full speed of about 40 rpm's by the end of its first few turns. This could have happened with even a very low accelerating torque as long as the first turn took maybe close to three minutes to complete, then the second one maybe a minute or more, and then the third 30 seconds or more until after about five minutes the wheel was finally turning at 40 rpms after completing only three turns.

      These are all just rough estimates, but they would allow these huge massive wheels to reach full speed in only a few turns without needing extreme torques to do so. All that is necessary is to greatly increase the progressively decreasing times for each of those first few turns to much more than everyone assumes they had to be. It would have been nice if those testing the wheels had measured how much time it took for them to reach full speed, but for some reason they did not do that. Maybe they did, but were purposely not reporting that information to make the wheels sound more powerful than they actually were in order to help Bessler attract buyers for his invention?

      jason

      Delete
    8. Anon 05:31 referred to the s'Gravesande to Newton letter part which read:

      "But when I gave it any tolerable degree of velocity, I was always obliged to stop it again by force; for when I let it go, it acquired in two or three turns its greatest velocity..."

      Anon 05:31 then said:

      "He obviously did not COMPLETELY stop the wheel because, if he had, he would have had to push start it again."

      If Ken B is right, then 'sGravesande wouldn't have had to push start the Kassel wheel again to get it moving after completely stopping it. Based on the performance of sims he made of these two direction wheels using the clues for their mechanisms he found in the DT portraits, Ken discovered that after push starting one of them in either direction and then later bringing it to a complete stop again, it was necessary to back rotate its drum about two thirds of a turn opposite to the direction that the drum had previously been turning in order for the drum to remain stationary again when released. If he completely stopped one of his two direction wheel models and then just released it at that time without back rotating its drum, then it would immediately start turning by itself in its previous direction and accelerate right back up to its maximum speed again which for the Kassel wheel was 26 rpm.

      I also agree with Jason that it would have been possible for either of Bessler's two direction wheels to reach its maximum speed in only a few rotations, but they would have to be rotations requiring far more than only a few seconds each to complete. With the high mass of two one direction wheels inside of their drums and low torques this is how these two directional wheels must have started up. Bessler's wheels were tested, but that testing could have been more thorough. We don't know exactly how long those first few turns took to complete. It definitely was not a few seconds as many believe.

      I think the main purposes of the tests done on Bessler's two 12 foot diameter wheels were just to officially establish that they were not being powered by some cleverly hidden outside energy source and that they could run continuously far longer than they would have if they just used the energy of tightly wound up springs inside of their drums as most of the skeptics believed they did back then.

      Also, Happy Easter to those that celebrate it.

      Delete
    9. "Within about one revolution, the machine had acquired a strong and even rotation"

      Cognitive dissonance - says it all!

      Delete
  3. I’d just like to point out for anyone who would like to access all the information quoted above, that is, witness reports, certificates and drawings relating to Johann Bessler, aka Orffyreus- it’s all available from my books, see top of right hand panel.

    ReplyDelete
  4. FWEIW, I'm thinking that all four wheels had continuous torque and were driven by a Roberval style drive, which is easily reversible. The last two wheels had a gravity brake to hold them stationary. I.E., weights on the spokes, would slide down to keep it bottom heavy. This explains why the last wheel turned so much slower then the others. The gravity brake put an additional load on it, which caused it to run slower ----------Sam

    ReplyDelete
  5. It never ceases to amaze me what great lengths some people will go to, to sh*t on Bessler's wheel, for the lack of a better term. I wonder why------------------Sam

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think most people have been convinced by our schools that wheels like Bessler's have to all be fakes including his. Some of them are actually angry that what they consider Bessler's fake wheels haven't been exposed yet and consider anyone trying to figure out how they worked doesn't know physics and is just wasting his time. Almost 100% of those skeptics are totally ignorant of the Bessler story and aren't interested in learning it. Maybe they feel it is their duty to sh*t on the subject so that others won't waste their time with it? They probably feel like they are doing people a favor by doing that!

      As Einstein once said, "Only two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity and I'm not sure about the former." I wonder if Einstein knew about Bessler's wheels and, if so, what he thought about them?

      Delete
    2. Anon 04:47 wrote "I wonder if Einstein knew about Bessler's wheels and, if so, what he thought about them?"

      Einstein would have insisted that no machine can make energy out of nothing which is what a lot of pm seekers actually believe. He would say that any energy the machine puts out is either somehow gotten from its environment or is already inside of the machine. I think he would have liked the Ken B approach which says the energy coming out of Bessler's wheels was already in them and slowly drained out of their lead weights as a wheel spun around. Even Bessler would not have realized it was already there. But, I'm wondering how that energy drain happens if the weights on both sides of a wheel rise and fall through the same distance?

      Delete
  6. Because their mind is overwhelmed by the information reported by the observers. They can't believe that anyone who saw the wheel can be objective, and accurate. Like KB, they shamelessly bend the written accounts to suit their own pet theory. And the marginalizing of the wheels is a way to vent their frustrations and feel better about their lack of progress and abilities.

    ReplyDelete
  7. JC wrote : "I think Fletcher makes a good point when he writes, “ if the Merseburg wheel had duplicate mechs it would obviously add considerable mass to the wheel. The effect of this extra mass would not necessarily limit top rpm. But it would get to that rpm much slower i.e. it would have a slower acceleration because of the extra inertia. Yet when we read the reports there doesn't seem to be much difference.”

    Without more information this suggests that there wasn’t a duplicate mechanism inside the bi-way wheels. Unless the reversing mechanism has no braking effect on the wheel’s rotation."

    Hi JC .. Regarding acceleration and power. The Kassel long duration test wheel reached top rpm of 26 in 2 or 3 rotations. With water screw attached 20 rpm. The Merseburg translocation and various work test wheel reached top rpm of approx. 40 in about 1 rotation. This did not change noticeably for the lift test conditions. They were very similar in diameter. The upshot being that the Kassel wheel got to a much slower operating rpm (about 1/2 under load), in more rotations than the Merseburg wheel. That would seem to suggest a much lesser acceleration factor for the Kassel given that they were both bi-directional. From either the internal weights moving a lesser distance (generated torque bias), or lesser number of mech sets in action etc, imo. However the power output was similar and fits with what B. said about able to make them big or small, fast or slow etc (paraphrased).

    -f

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It’s tempting to try and find a simple solution that fits all the evidence, but perhaps once the simple solution to the first wheel is understood, all the possible variations to output in differing forms become clear …….eventually!

      JC

      Delete
  8. If there was a way to suddenly tension a spring like a muscle can be tensioned in one's body at will, then the mechanism could be made more efficient, then power would not be lost from weights hitting the side of the wheel.

    ReplyDelete
  9. There's always energy wastage from impacts. It's unavoidable where contacts occur. But it did not stop Bessler's wheels having enough power to more than compensate. Just not great power density given they had such wide diameters, which must have been an essential engineering consideration he could not find a work-around for.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I was awake all night thinking how to do that with a spring and now I have it, I know how to do it, it is in MT, he must have known about it because the idea is in there.

    ReplyDelete

  11. I’d just like to point out for anyone who would like to access all the information quoted above, that is, witness reports, certificates and drawings relating to Johann Bessler, aka Orffyreus- it’s all available from my books, see top of right hand panel.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi John .. the links to your books worked for me. Your books have the witness accounts and certificates, but I find that PM-AAMS? has additional letters etc, IIRC.

      I also thought I'd browse your web sites - some were 404..ed. fwiw I think people should have access to Wagner's Critiques. Your website for those doesn't appear to be available in the right panel, tho it is still active.

      http://www.free-energy.co.uk/

      -f

      Delete
    2. Thanks for the feedback fletch, I will try to clarify that’s available. Over the years I’ve tried to improve information available from this website with the result that various bits of information get kind of disconnected with each other. There are still many links at the bottom of the right hand panel, but they are not readily visible.

      JC

      Delete
  12. The wheel definitely works by gravitational proponderance.In other words it is dragged around gravitationally by the weights that have been already loaded which exeeds the work load required to load one set.

    ReplyDelete

Why did Bessler Use Embedded Codes?

It seems clear enough that Bessler had always intended to insert coded information embedded within his publications, because by applying a s...