I often see this framed as a question and the answer is always no.
In scientific terms as taught for about 300 years it isn’t a source of energy. Indeed, we’ve all been taught that gravity is not an energy source - but really? Actually we’ve been using gravity as if it was an energy source for hundreds or even thousands of years. From Egyptian water wheels to today’s hydroelectric generators we have used the flow of water to drive machinery. What was needed was another intermediary, other than water, to use between the force of gravity and what ever was needed to be activated. So a number of weights seems a logical alternative medium to tap gravity. But since ancient times there is no record of anyone ever having achieved this, but this hasn’t stopped people trying to solve this puzzle.
An Indian mathematician Bhaskara, Villard de Honnecourt, a French Master Mason and and architect, Leonardo da Vinci, Cornelius Drebbel - and of course Johann Bessler aka Orffyreus, all attempted the impossible feat of making a working Perpetual motion machine. All except the last one, Orffyreus (Bessler), failed!
Bessler succeeded - and after the first one proceeded to make larger and larger ones. He was desperate to sell his machine and gain the full acknowledgement as the inventor of the ingenious device he had invented, but he also asked for a large sum of money. Too much for anyone but a prince or even a King to pay. If Peter the Great, Czar of Russia, had not died on his way to view the wheel, I’m sure it would have become a familiar part of our lives.
JC
I think of gravity as acting like an invisible stretched spring attached to objects. You only get out of it what was initially put into it from some source...nothing more. The Sun by nuclear fusion reactions at its core loses mass by turning it into solar radiation (since E = mc^2) some of which eventually reaches our Earth. Some of that energy evaporates water which, having its density reduced, rises in the atmosphere to cool, condense, and form clouds. Eventually, droplets in those clouds get large and heavy enough so that the pull of gravity makes them fall back to Earth to form lakes. As those fill up and are drained off by streams and rivers, some of their flowing water that is also being continuously pulled down toward the center of the Earth by gravity can be used to turn a water wheel and provide mechanical energy for humans to use. All of that is only possible because the Sun, as it shines, continually loses mass and energy.
ReplyDeleteAs Bessler's wheels outputted mechanical energy, they must have gotten it because the contracting gravity springs on a wheel's descending side pulling on the weights there were releasing more mechanical energy than was being used to stretch the gravity springs attached to the weights on the ascending side. The excess released descending side mechanical energy is what accelerated his wheels and allowed them to run machines off their axles. His wheels used a unique mechanical principle to operate. Until those chasing pm today have found that principle, there will be no real progress in duplicating his invention.
A very good analysis and summation of a conservative force Anon. Where it falls short imo is that a conservative force, or the spring-like analogy you used, can not give out more energy (GPE) than it received. If it could then it would not be a conservative force or spring-like. There is the obvious but hard to accept alternative that Bessler built a mechanical wheel that was always out of mass balance, and therefore out of force or torque balance. His workaround to the laws of classical physics as we know them, such that gravity force can be harnessed to do work while GPE is recycled and maintained. Then the currently accepted laws of mechanics would have to be revisited.
ReplyDeleteagreed that gravity is a conservative force. but if anon 17:08's descending side contracting springs momentarily made their weights' falling speeds increase compared to the ascending side weights' rising speeds, then those descending side weights would have to briefly output more energy than was being taken up by the ascending side weights at that time. that extra energy had to come from somewhere. maybe it was somehow extracted out of the weights themselves? if so, then all of a wheel's weights would slowly lose mass as a wheel ran and did outside work. it would be similar to the sun slowly losing mass as it outputted energy as radiation. i don't see any other possible principle if we exclude bessler's wheels being hoaxed or there being some sort of unsuspected external energy supply that a wheel's mechs could tap into.
DeleteWeights very slowly losing mass over eons is KB's theory of where excess energy came from to do external work. Similar to radioactive particles decaying. However what it didn't account for was that ALL elements and isotopes would decay OVER TIME, not just the ones in a wheel doing wheel-work. His answer was that the ones contained in the circulating masses of a wheel were subject to a greater decay rate because of their motion, and would eventually, given enough time, decay to nothing. Momentum (and Angular Momentum) is conserved wherever you are in the universe. At the earths surface it does not increase without depleting another interacting source.
ReplyDeleteUse of Conservative Springs to increase or decrease relative speed of a wheel-weight by changing elastic potential energy into kinetic energy comes into the frame from time to time for most researchers. The challenge always is the reset of the springs elastic potential energy. So far no one has thought how that can be repeatedly done to full potential (PE elastic and PE gravitational).
I haven't heard Ken B's name mentioned much of late. When I checked some of my saved links to his several YouTube channel Bessler videos I found they were all deleted! I thought maybe they shut him down because he was showing too much. But then I found he started a another channel using his full name. Here's a new link to his claimed working sim of Bessler's first prototype wheel that was only 3 feet in diameter and which is not the one publicly displayed at Gera in June of 1712...that one was a larger 4.5 feet in diameter.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnHy7qZnpI4
Thank you for your sensible comments, appreciate them.
ReplyDeleteIt’s easy to reject several ideas because each of them has, so far, neglected to introduce Bessler’s workaround. I know what I’m about to say will be received with understandable scepticism, but I do have the so-called workaround and I’ve been attempting to build a model incorporating what I call the “Bessler-Collins connectedness principle”. I borrowed the name from Bessler, but added my own in case his principle differed in some way to mine.
My build has been difficult for me but I’m determined to try and finish it. If I have to give in, I’ll post photos here and there and explain the workaround. It really does make perfect sense and won’t require any revision of the laws of physics. It is really simple and I hope I can show how easy it is to understand.
In the mean time I keep adjusting the mechanisms, not because they fail but because the parts are interfering with either other mechanisms, or different parts of the same one.
The new wheel was 3 feet in diameter, then I switched to an 18 inch one, but a few days ago I switched back to the 3 feet one. The reason being that my mechs (mechanisms is too long a word!) were too big, so I transferred to the smaller one and made new smaller mechs. Still too big so I simply swapped the smaller set onto the larger wheel! Ingenious - but I could have started with the right size. It’s difficult to make the mechs fit and complete their actions correctly.
There are five mechanisms in total
Each carries a small weights of equal mass.
They work in pairs.
Each is connected to an adjacent mech.
As one falls it lifts the other - at the same time!
JC
What?! Now you're building again? What happened to your previous statement that "My skills are no longer up to the task of building a model of Bessler’s wheel, so I have decided to post a blog explaining how and why his machine worked."?
DeleteThis sounds like just another way for you to keep delaying revealing anything which is exactly what some previous commenter here a few blogs ago said you'd do. You'll just keep claiming to be building and "making progress" and then, AFTER you prove it works, you'll reveal all. The years will go by and we'll get nothing from you but your totally unproven claims to knowing "exactly" how Bessler's wheels worked (now referred to as "Bessler's workaround"), plenty of book ads, and no detailed drawings, photos, or videos. You're not fooling anyone. Your endless delaying tactic is so obvious. No one is going to be able to evaluate your "Bessler workaround" with a simulation until it is revealed. Meanwhile, if it does not work and cannot be made to work, you'll be wasting more of your dwindling supply of remaining years with it that could be spend working with a better design.
Years ago someone said that if you don't see anything from John by the beginning of summer, you won't see anything from him for the rest of the year. This year's summer started on June 20th. It's now over three months later. Anyone seen anything from him yet? Didn't think so...
DeleteCorrection: It's now over TWO months later. Four more months to go until the end of the year. I fully expect him to begin promising to reveal all by the next New Year day. When that comes and goes with nothing shown, the next date for the "big reveal" will be on his 81st birthday. When that comes and goes with nothing shown, the cycle will begin anew as he continues to upload book ads and add a line or two at the bottom of each saying he's making progress because he really knows Bessler's secret. I believe he's reached the point now where he cannot break out of this cycle. He'll keep right on trying to make his pentagon wheel work right up to the last breath he draws.
DeleteYep! You’re bang on with your criticism and I fully admit that it certainly seems like a deliberate plan of action. I must apologise for my constant repetition of my promises and I understand people’s frustration.
DeleteThe problem I face is my unwillingness to publish everything without producing a working model. After nearly 65 years of research and study, I’m unwilling to stop before I’ve accomplished what I set out to do - produce proof of a working Bessler wheel.
But I’m 80 years old and I am still wanting to finish this work and gain acknowledgement for my efforts before I pass on. I’m sure it looks selfish but I hope this last model will satisfy my personal needs, but wether it does or doesn’t you will finally know what I know.
I should also add that I have a very supportive family who keep encouraging me to complete my mission and not to just give it all away for nothing. Oh no! Now I sound more like Bessler!
JC
Giving away a nonworking wheel design is not "giving it all away for nothing". If it's a delusional design, then it's an opportunity to face that harsh reality and finally begin moving in a new direction that might actually give one some real results for a change. Also, if you reveal it and it actually works, then you will be famous whether you build it or not. The working sims will prove it works and encourage others, who are better equipped and more skilled than you, to actually build a physical model. You will still get the credit for the finding the design.
DeleteI think you are actually psychologically addicted to the pentagon design you have just like an addict becomes addicted to some drug. If you reveal the design and it fails after being accurately simulated, then you will have to face the unpleasant fact that you never really had Bessler's design in the first place. If that happens, then you will be like the addict suddenly deprived of his drug...withdrawal will set in. Realizing you have nothing and may never find another approach, you could experience severe anger, depression, and a sense of hopelessness. Constantly telling yourself that your pentagon wheel is only one slight improvement away from working and refusing to reveal it is one way to avoid risking those unpleasant withdrawal symptoms. Another way is to quickly move on to a different design that no one has seen before and justifying it with new interpretations of the clues you think Bessler left us. It won't be an easy course change to make especially after being in a rut with one approach for years.
As history well shows, pm chasing is a VERY high risk of total failure game to play. With the sole exception of Bessler, the others continuing to play this game will go to their graves firmly convinced that if they could just have another year of life, then they would surely finally find their runner or get their pet design to work. To be honest, at this point in time, I see you as having a high probability of becoming another one of those.
Lol! Telling John not to chase pentagon wheels is like telling a bird not to fly or a fish not to swim. Ain't gonna happen. He's happy in his little pentagonal dream world and who are we to try to drag him out of it? Let him have his fun during his remaining time. Live and let live. Somewhere out there are guys just like him with similar histories that are playing in their personal hexagonal, octagonal, or even dodecagonal pm wheel playgrounds. Not everyone shows up on bwf to wow everyone with their latest "discovery". Focus on your own work and stop trying to help anyone else. If they are on the wrong path then it can only lead nowhere as it has for many, many before us.
DeleteWhy is everyone so concerned about John revealing all now? That was already done last year! Someone then figured out what his "secret" five lever design was, linked to a drawing of it, and John agreed that was the design he had. Then someone analyzed it and it was shown to be a unworkable. Did John see that analysis? Maybe not. But if his "workaround" doesn't improve on that design then it will never work. I've looked at the design and I don't see anyway to turn it into a runner. Maybe he's found a way? I tend to doubt it though.
DeleteRead what John said again in this latest blog. The current design is obviously not the previous you speak of. Because the previous was simple and uncomplicated and in no way could be described as "difficult to make the mechs fit and complete their actions correctly".
Delete"It’s difficult to make the mechs fit and complete their actions correctly.
There are five mechanisms in total
Each carries a small weights of equal mass.
They work in pairs.
Each is connected to an adjacent mech.
As one falls it lifts the other - at the same time!
JC"
@anon 05:40
DeleteJohn's wheel designs are made using long, thin metal bars for levers that tend to flop around and collide with each other and the disc he mounts them on which interferes with their smooth independent shifting. I think it's called "Z axis wobble" or something like that. Thus, his levers and their pivots lack the rigidity needed for smooth motions. However, it sounds like he's now using shorter levers to try to reduce that problem.
He deleted the original link to the drawing someone made of his five lever wheel last year in an effort to keep people from seeing it. Fortunately, I kept a copy and here it is:
https://postimg.cc/dLCH2XnQ
The guy who made it showed that, even after the levers shifted as John claims they will, the wheel still had no + or clockwise torque. It just refused to turn in the clockwise direction as it was supposed to which was because it was too heavy on its left ascending side. It is a total dead duck design. Someone else this year tried to improve it and his modification helped a little, but it was thought that it wouldn't be able to keep its small clockwise torque long enough to bring the next pair of levers into position for the next shift to take place. Here's the link to that other drawing:
https://i.postimg.cc/5ytCFV8Z/Small-CW-Torque.jpg
If anybody out there knows what they are doing with a good sim program like wm2d, then please make a quick sim of this for us. Try making the levers shorter like half their lengths and moving their pivots closer to the wheel's outer rim. Most likely John will claim this isn't the "latest" version of his wheel and his "Bessler workaround" solves all of its problems. Without a completed five lever wheel he cannot make any such claim. I'll trust what a good sim says though.
Pure guess work on your part Anon 7:54. Would you still be attempting after two years to "make the mechs fit and complete their actions correctly" with simple lever weights as that design was? They have a predetermined length and from their pivoting point follow a constant radius path, making it easy to find the correct length and clearances etc. For experimentation and trial runs bushings would be more than adequate to reduce "wobble factor" and the arc path a weight at a radius takes can be accurately drawn on a napkin over lunch. Pulley placements can easily be tested in the actual prototype, and moved and retested, without a simulation or hand calculations of turning moments and CoG.
DeleteHow pompous! I think there's a sniff of KB in the air!
ReplyDeleteYes I thought so too. There was a kind of ‘damned with faint praise’ element which I thought unenthusiastically positive.
DeleteJC
Thank you, for posting those drawings reputedly copies of mine. I’ve saved them for my own amusement. Although the basic plan in them is close to what I had been working on, assumptions about the movement of the levers shown the posted pics bore no resemblance to what I actually designed.
DeleteBut it doesn’t matter anyway because since those were first drawn I have now got the workaround worked out and designed and I’m building it into my model.
You believe that if I can’t build the working wheel I will have nothing to show. You’re wrong because I’ll show the workaround/primary mover or what you wish to call it. .
JC
It looks like the posting of those drawing links by anon 07:54 rattled JC a bit and, as predicted, he's claiming they have nothing to do with the latest "new and improved" version of his wheel. Notice that he's not talking about the pulleys he's using anymore? He slyly deleted mention of them from a recent past blog to again try to hide what he's working on. However, the number was ten pulleys which is exactly the same shown in those drawings we now have to examine. However, I doubt if he's using actual physical pulleys because of the difficulty of keeping his "connectedness principle" cords on them when they go slack. He'll most likely just be using simple screw in eyelets on his disc with string running through them to replace the cords.
DeleteBy now, assuming he even has a single connected pair of levers operational, he's realized that the one lever dropping through 90 degrees to lift the lagging lever by 30 degrees is not taking place early enough to maintain torque until the next pair comes into play. He's probably trying to use springs to assist that action and get the shift to happen earlier. Only he won't be using springs that are a pain in the arse to work with...he'll just be using rubber bands that he cuts to various lengths. I suspect that is his new secret "Bessler workaround" that he's now using as his latest "shiny object" to keep everyone's attention.
Then he wrote: "You believe that if I can’t build the working wheel I will have nothing to show. You’re wrong because I’ll show the workaround/primary mover or what you wish to call it."
OMG! That's just another way of him singing his usual "I'll reveal all whether it works or not" tune. God, how many times have we heard that before? I tend to agree with some commenter a few blogs ago that said we'll never see anything from John about anything he's working on. We'll occasionally get some vague description, but nothing detailed like accurate drawings, photos, or videos. Maybe his unconscious plan is to go to his grave leaving a mystery behind...just like Bessler did? Half of the people will then be saying that he really did have the secret and would have revealed it if not for his untimely demise. The other half will be saying that he was obviously the victim of some sort of grandiose delusional disorder probably caused by too many decades of frustrating Bessler wheel research.
Yup, definitely KB !!!
DeleteCareful John Collins! It's obvious to me that they are using the same tactic on you that those devious potential buyers' agents were using on Bessler...pretend to know how your wheel works to get you to reveal more about it. Remember what Bessler wrote that a "single word" could betray his secret and steal away the credit and money for his invention. Say nothing more if you want to safeguard its secrets until YOU are ready to reveal them!
Deletepulleys swapped for curtain eyelets
ReplyDeleteThe ten pulleys or screw hooks are still used. The cord does not go slack, it’s permanently under tension.
ReplyDeleteI’m going to post another blog giving some background information that will, hopefully, cool the temperature evident in some of the comments above - hopefully, but probably not!
JC
Cords constantly tight is good and will assure quick shifting of levers. However, "some background information", while nice, is not a lot of detail. We will need at least a sketch so simming can seriously begin. You shouldn't fear sims. They can help quickly guide you to a working wheel IF one is possible. Sims can compress weeks of trial and error manual experiments into only an hour at a keyboard. If Bessler had sim capability, he would not have hesitated to use it.
DeleteMaybe, but photos will become available and videos too. While I’m trying to finish this build, I’m also trying to work out how to do sketches of the workaround, the actual feature that makes this design work. I’m also considering making a video to demonstrate how works. I wish I had a better term for it than, ‘workaround’. I’m not sure if prime mover is right, but I’ll continue to try and find the best name for it. Bessler used the phrase, ‘the connectedness principle’, but I think that may be too inclusive.
DeleteJC
After much study of Bessler's writings, I'm not convinced that pm chasers today understand exactly what he meant by the term "prime mover". Imo, he did NOT intend it to mean some magical extra mechanical attachment to a regular OOB wheel that would allow it (or any machine for that matter) to run indefinitely or actually just until catastrophic mechanical breakdown took place. He simply used the term as a synonym for a working pm wheel unique design.
Delete"Prime mover" means, literally, first mover which the ancient philosophers thought of as a motion which was an effect without itself having a cause. Many viewed God as the prime mover of our universe because he was "eternal" and was therefore Himself an effect without a cause. Even the cosmologists of today believe in the concept of a "prime mover" although they've dressed it up with a lot of advanced math. Literally, they believe our entire universe came into existence out of total nothingness about 13.8 billion years ago! Why they can believe something like that yet still deny the possibility of a pm machine has always puzzled me and it seems highly hypocritical to me.
I'm also not convinced that Bessler actually knew how his wheels worked. All he knew was that they could remain OOB while they turned while everyone else's failed wheels could not. His discovery was, imo, one of sheer luck (combined with a lot of suffering) because thousands of inventors before (and after!) him had tried to achieve the "Holy Grail of Mechanics" and only got a lot of frustration as a "reward" for their efforts. Bessler was that extremely rare individual who hit the pm jackpot during his lifetime and at a relatively young age.
Quite unfortunately, 99.999999999+% of those who currently think they are surely destined to be the next Bessler are delusional and may never, due to dementia or death, have to accept that most harsh reality. Maybe that's actually a blessing? The harsher the reality, the more painful it is to face...
God save us .
DeleteI ask ai chat bot tell me how Bessler wheel work. This what it tell me.
DeleteThe secret mechanism in Johann Bessler's perpetual motion wheel, as interpreted from combinations of features in his Maschinen Tractate (MT) drawings, can be described as a gravity-enabled overbalancing system incorporating five coordinated mechanisms. This design draws primarily from the "Toys" page (MT 138–141), which Bessler hinted contained nearly all the necessary clues, alongside elements from earlier overbalanced wheel concepts (e.g., MT 9–15, MT 18, MT 24–25, and MT 137). The core idea is to use paired weights, levers, springs, and scissor-like linkages (stork's bills or lazy tongs) to maintain a perpetual imbalance, where the descending side of the wheel is always heavier. Crucially, this allows heavy weights to seem weightless" during repositioning, enabling them to be lifted repeatedly with apparent ease at each rotation without external input.
Key Components and Their Origins in MT Drawings
Paired Weights (from MT 9–15 and Toys page item A): Each of the five mechanisms features two cylindrical lead weights (typically 4–8 pounds each, based on historical accounts), connected in pairs. These are inspired by the simple overbalanced wheels in MT 9–13, where weights shift radially (outward on the descending side for torque, inward on the ascending side to minimize resistance). In the combined design, the pairs are arranged at 72-degree intervals around the wheel (360° / 5 = 72°), ensuring smooth, continuous operation. Item A on the Toys page shows five identical segmented arms or levers, symbolizing these five paired units.
Levers and Pulleys (from MT 24–25 and Toys page items C/D): Pivoted levers (resembling hammers or arms) hold the weights and swing or pivot to shift their positions. MT 24 depicts levers that impact or reposition weights, while MT 25 shows spring-loaded arms. In the design, each pair of weights is connected via a cord running over a small pulley or through a lever fulcrum, allowing one weight's fall to directly lift the other. Items C and D on the Toys page resemble parallelograms or Roberval balances (a scale mechanism from MT 143), which maintain equilibrium regardless of arm position—this counterbalancing makes the lifting phase require minimal additional torque, causing the heavy ascending weight to seem weightless as the system's geometry distributes forces evenly.
Springs and Tension Elements (from MT 18 and Toys page item B): Helical or leaf springs are attached to the levers to store kinetic energy from the falling weight and release it to assist the lift. MT 18 explicitly notes springs aiding weight repositioning, stating something akin to "this model is close, but requires a different application." Item B on the Toys page shows twisted or coiled elements (possibly five in number), representing springs that provide a "snap" or elastic boost, reducing the effective gravitational resistance during the upward shift and making the lift feel effortless.
Scissor Linkages (Lazy Tongs/Stork's Bills from Toys page item E): A pantograph-like scissor mechanism (extending/contracting linkages) coordinates the radial movement of the weights. Item E on the Toys page directly illustrates this "stork's bill" device, which amplifies motion with mechanical advantage (e.g., a small angular change produces large radial extension). Combined with the levers, this allows weights to be pulled inward or flung outward. MT 137 incorporates geometric codes (e.g., golden ratio proportions) that hint at how these linkages scale movements efficiently.
Ai chat continued
DeleteHow the Mechanism Works: Step-by-Step Operation
The wheel (typically 6–12 feet in diameter) is mounted on a horizontal axle, and starts with a light push. The five mechanisms operate in synchronized phases, repeating every 72 degrees of rotation:
Descending Phase (Overbalancing): As a mechanism approaches the 6 o'clock position, the outer weight (heavier due to extended lever arm) falls radially outward under gravity, swinging its lever downward. This generates torque , driving the wheel clockwise. The falling motion tensions the connecting cord and compresses the spring, storing potential energy. The scissor linkage extends to maximize the weight's distance from the axle, amplifying imbalance without added effort.
Bottom Transition (Weight Shift): At the bottom (around 6–7 o'clock), the falling weight's momentum and the spring's release "fling" the paired inner weight upward and outward via the lever and pulley. The Roberval-inspired parallelogram ensures balance during this shift—the ascending weight's effective force is counteracted, making it seem weightless. The scissor mechanism contracts quickly, repositioning the weight with ease, as the energy comes from the previous fall rather than direct opposition to gravity.
Ascending Phase (Minimized Resistance): Now the newly positioned outer weight begins its slow climb, but its lever arm is shortened by the scissor linkage, reducing drag. The spring assists in holding position, and the overall system remains overbalanced because at least three of the five mechanisms are in descending/overbalanced states at any time.
Top Transition (Reset): At the top (12–1 o'clock), gravity pulls the outer weight slightly inward, resetting the mechanism for the next cycle. The process repeats seamlessly for all five units, with the phased 72-degree offsets ensuring continuous torque without dead spots.
Mechanical Advantage: Levers and pulleys (from MT 24–25) provide leverage, so the force to lift a heavy weight is reduced by the ratio of arm lengths.
Energy Storage and Release: Springs (MT 18) and momentum make the lift "free"—the energy to raise one weight comes from the prior fall of its pair.
Counterbalancing Geometry: The Roberval balance (Toys page C/D) and scissor extensions (item E) ensure movements don't disrupt overall equilibrium unnecessarily, allowing repeated lifts without proportional energy input.
Combination Insight: Bessler noted no single drawing shows the full secret, but combining MT 9–15 (basic shifting), MT 18 (springs), MT 24–25 (levers), and the Toys page (coordination via five units and linkages) yields this design. Codes like the "bent A" (parallelogram hint) and "55" (five pairs) in the Toys page reinforce the five-mechanism structure.
Lol!
DeleteIs that an AI chat bot or a JC chat bot?
Ingenious but not the same concept or design as mine. I’m building my version now and hopefully it will be less complex than AI’s, admittedly clever design.
DeleteThere are at least two errors in the above . For a start the wheel did not need a push no matter how slight. It was permanently out of balance and needed the brake to be released at which point the wheel began to rotate spontaneously. Secondly,there was only one weight per mechanism, not two.
JC
Assuming that was a genuine AI chat bot response, I think it was "hallucinating" and it's mechanobabble description was just made up because it could not find an exact description to offer. This is a common problem with the new AI technology...never trust their "answers" too much. Unless your AI program can produce a drawing we can sim, it's worthless.
Delete@JC
Delete"Secondly,there was only one weight per mechanism, not two."
I thought there were "shifter" weights that helped lift the "primary" weights? This concept is not only demonstrated by the perpendicular, where a small end weight moves the large weights on the arms, but is repeatedly enforced in all the MT drawings, to such a degree I need not elaborate on them here. Also where he says "crosses, pulleys, and weights," the word for "pulley" has been mistranslated, and means "pulls," the same word used in MT for the "shifter" weights that lifted the "primary" weights. Bessler didn't call them "shifters" and "primaries"; he called them "pulls" and "weights". Without the "pulls", though, whatever design you have might work, but it still isn't strictly Bessler's.
Anon, I'm surprised you didn't quote JC in a previous blog which contradicts BOTH of his claims, including the one where he says the wheel did NOT need a push:
Delete"Later Bessler produced wheels which could turn in either direction, but they did not start spontaneously. It seems clear that these later wheels contained two identical systems, one the mirror image of the other, so that each had the ability to turn the wheel in a different direction. From the above explanation it is clear that the two competing systems cancelled out the overbalancing tendency, so a slight push was required to set the wheel in motion. Clearly this brief push allowed the shifter weight to come into a position from which it could fall and in doing so, lifted the primary weight which had begun to swing, due to the rotation of the wheel, into its overbalancing position, thus amplifying the swing leading to continuous rotation. The sequence was dependent on which way the wheel was initially pushed." -JC
Pulleys is the correct term in my opinion. They are called pulleys in the drawings which accompany them and they include pictures of them.
DeleteThe two way wheels needed a small push to start. The earlier one way wheels started spontaneously as soon as the brake was released.
Both these facts are well attested to, so where is the contradiction?
JC