A blog about Johann Bessler and the Orffyreus Code and my efforts to decipher it. I'll comment on things connected with it and anything I think might be of interest to anyone else.
The ‘Bessler’s Books’ button at the top of the right side panel, will take you to a page giving access to all Bessler’s books. Simply click ‘home’ to come back to my blog.
Note the copyright notice.
Friday, 26 September 2025
Latest News about Bessler’s Wheel Reconstruction.
My version of Johann Bessler’s perpetual motion machine, his “wheel” as many people refer to it, proceeds at a snail’s pace, seemingly! But in fact it still proceeds. The main problem, apart from my procrastination, is constantly having to revise the five completed mechanisms. Yes I’m confident that there has to be five mechanisms.
I’ve said before that the mechanisms needed to be rearranged in order to stop them interacting with each other, or more often sticking during their action. There is a small amount of lateral motion which causes two pieces to bump into each other. I’ve tried bending the levers a small amount to force them away from their nearest part but that is not effective. But this lateral motion can be reduced by tightening the locking or stiff nuts holding the parts together. But tightening them reduces the ease with which they rotate about their pivots. However, including thin, rigid but wider washers has improved things.
To explain how and why this happens is difficult to do without picture, but at this point so close to the finish, I’m unwilling to use a picture, at least not until either I’ve finished or run out of options. One way to imagine it is to think of each of the assembled mechanisms as being in two or three layers, sometimes one layer operating above or below another. What I’ve been doing is swapping some layers so that, for instance the top layer has been placed below the others and this seems to have improved things.
So once again I am back at my previous point, and I have to install the ten pulleys or screw eyes, to feed the cord through so that as one weighted lever falls it lifts the another fallen weighted lever. All cords are under tension which is a vital feature to provide continuous motion.
JC
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
-
It's not that unlikely. In the 1870s, two inventors, Elisha Gray and Alexander Graham Bell, both independently designed devices that c...
-
On 6th June, 1712, in Germany, Johann Bessler (also known by his pseudonym, Orffyreus) announced that after many years of failure, he had s... -
When someone finds the solution to Bessler’s wheel I don’t know how, or even if, it will affect the world we live in, but I do know that con...
Are you using springs to cause that tension? Or is the tension caused by the weights under the force of gravity?
ReplyDeleteSounds like that "z axis wobble" effect is getting in the way again. Maybe the major problem in your version of the B wheel is that you are only using one disc with tightly spaced, thin, flat levers that have to swing past each other and that was not how B did it. His design used a cylindrical drum formed from two parallel discs that were actually open wooden frames that had the levers swinging around steel pivot pins that were mounted between the ribs of the frames. His levers were not "flat" like yours but wide and made from two pieces that held a lead cylinder weight between their ends. That virtually eliminated any z axis wobble. Also none of his levers passed any parts of an adjacent lever so no chance of a collision between two levers was possible.
ReplyDeleteYou wrote "The main problem, apart from my procrastination, is constantly having to revise the five completed mechanisms."
Be grateful you don't have eight levers to deal with because then you'd be doing 8/5 = 1.6 or 60% more work! I think your "procrastination" is really just fear of failure (I know the feeling well!). The longer you delay completing and testing a construction, the longer you put can off having to face that you still do not have B's design despite all of the clues you are convinced that you've found. During the delay you can continue to happily believe that you've finally solved it all and will surely soon prove it to the world.
Trying to make sense of the clues B left us is like trying to figure out the next combination of numbers that will be drawn in some lottery. One can spend hours studying all of the past numbers drawn in the lottery and be 100% convinced that he can accurately predict the results of the next drawing. He then runs out and buys a bunch of tickets and begins to fantasize about how all of the prize money will change his and his loved ones lives. Sadly, after the drawing he discovers that he only has, at most, one or two numbers on a few of the tickets he purchased, but no prize. A depressing feeling sets in identical to that of millions of other players who put zero effort into predicting the numbers and just let some lottery machine randomly pick them.
I have no doubt that B did hide his secret pm design in his writings... particularly his drawings. But finding it will require a truly Herculean amount of work. In any century there might only be one or two "Hercules" that could do it and, most likely, they'll be occupied with some other pursuit. Maybe, as in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries, B's secret isn't destined to be found in this century. If so, then none of us will be around to see it when it is finally rediscovered...
Thank you anon 20:55, you put it just right, there is an element of fear of failure present in my procrastination! But I’m also concerned that at my age. 80, I might not finish it before I am able to, physically, finish it, due to health or my demise.
DeleteYou’re also correct when you say that my wheel is too narrow and lacking the stability of being.constructed between two parallel discs. For many years I used the proper construction method with two supporting discs, but the need to get on and find the right configuration led to the use of one disc with everything mounted on one side of it. From then on I just tried to prove to myself that I’d got the right design. I always planned to build a decent model once my proof of success was self-evident in my one disc trial model. So far no good, and if I ever get my one disc trial model to work, it will have to prove I’m right because I simply can’t be bothered to build a two disc version! Fingers crossed as ever.
JC
Even if your "runner" only manages to self-start when released and then complete slightly more than a single rotation, then that alone would be cause for celebration. After years of struggle I never managed to build anything that could pass even that one simple test. Good luck, JC! Let's hope that your last effort finally finds success for you!
DeleteThanks an 07:55. I hope it runs continuously.
DeleteJC
John wrote: "To explain how and why this happens is difficult to do without picture..."
ReplyDeletePerhaps this paint sketch of the "Bessler workaround" can assist you to better explain the difficulties you are encountering?
https://i.postimg.cc/25W4C7F6/Bessler-s-workaround.jpg
Interesting...putting all the eyelets near the outer rim makes it simpler than that last design someone linked to...but even if it has some small overbalance I doubt it could maintain it through 72 degrees until the next shift takes place...using eyelets has advantage over pulleys though...if Bessler used them he probably oiled his ropes to make them slip through easier...no wonder his hands got so greasy after removing weights from his wheels! Thanks for the sketch anon 19:55
DeleteThank you both, but the picture bares little resemblance to mine, I hope to post a picture soon.
DeleteJC
From anon 20:52..."I doubt it could maintain it through 72 degrees until the next shift takes place"
DeleteThat's the usual problem with all dead duck OB pm wheels that come and go over the years. They all look great on paper but when built they cannot remain OB long enough for gravity to shift their weights so as to keep them OB.
If a wheel has 8 weights, OB must last through 45 degrees. If it has 6 weights, then OB must last through 60 degrees. For JC's 5 weights through 72 degrees. For 4 weights it's 90 degrees. The less weights in a wheel, the longer OB has to last. That makes it seem like the higher the number weights, the better since the OB needs last through less degrees.
Bessler mentioned that Leupold's wheel could be made to work by using Bessler's connected principle which most assume means cords between its levers along with springs in some way. Leupold's wheel had 12 weights so its OB needed only to last through 30 degrees. For a wheel with 24 weights the OB angle drops to only 15 degrees.
John wrote "One way to imagine it is to think of each of the assembled mechanisms as being in two or three layers..."
ReplyDeleteThat made me remember a translation of something Bessler supposedly wrote which said that his wheels internal mechs were made in layers. I eventually found that description on a weird tripod website at:
https://orffyre.tripod.com/id41.html
Where it says:
"It works in layered parts but it fights force-loss-friction at all places possible, so as not to lose any of the precious force which in greedy fashion it sips out of the force -rich raging river of gravity."
Now my question is did some psychic guru dream this quote up or is it actually in one of the Bessler translations John got for us? I only have AP and I cannot find it in there. Anybody else know where it can be found IF it's actually something Bessler wrote?
Website of Dr. Ramesh Menaria, from Dialogues At The Castle Of Weissenstein
Delete“Tell us something how does your machine creates such an instant force”? Gravesande enquired.
“My machine is exceedingly force greedy or selfish or you may say "thrifty" if you prefer in that it greedily draws force to itself. It works in layered parts but it fights force-loss-friction at all places possible, so as not to lose any of the precious force which in greedy fashion it sips out of the force -rich raging river of gravity. My machine moves under influence of out flowing river of swirling force that we call gravity.” Orffyreus replied.
In my opinion Dr Ramesh Menaria is from another planet, there is not the slightest chance that any of his “Dialogues” contains any useful information which he claims he acquired from the “Vedas” and guru guide.
DeleteJC
Here's a new (I think!) pm wheel design to consider.
ReplyDeleteI always thought Bessler's 12 foot pm wheels were the biggest ever constructed, but no they weren't. Some English nobleman named Edward Somerset built one that was 14 feet in diameter! It carried 40 metal cannon balls that weighed 50 lbs. each so its minimum weight was 2,000 lbs. or one TON. At the time Somerset was in the Tower of London and scheduled for execution which he escaped by promising the then king that he could build him a working pm wheel. The king was happy with it because, during a brief test, it kept running after being given a good push start. It eventually stopped after the king left, however. The design's arrangement of chains caused the metal balls on the right descending side of the carrier wheel to hang a foot farther to the right of its center than the metal balls on the left ascending side of the carrier wheel. The problem was that there were always more balls on the left ascending side (20) than on the right descending side (18) and as a result the COG of the 40 balls was always located just below the center of rotation of the carrier wheel. That meant that there was no overbalance and the wheel only ran off of any initial momentum given it.
In looking over the design, it seemed to me that this problem could be solved by replacing the 40 ball weights on the carrier wheel with a single heavy, rigid metal ring which is shown on the right side of the linked sketch below. If the ring could be hung by chains just right, it might be possible to always cause the ring's COG to be located to the right side of the center of the carrier wheel's axle which should produce continuous overbalance and motion.
Something for you simmers out there to play with if you have the time.
Brad
https://i.postimg.cc/3xxb9qXp/new-version-of-somerset-wheel.jpg
Looks like it could work! Somerset was a diplomat and inventor and lived to the age of 65. He was born in 1602 and died in 1667. I found this portrait of him:
Deletehttps://coimages.sciencemuseumgroup.org.uk/21/743/medium_1903_0174.jpg
Sorry to put your idea down, but that design and variations on it have been discussed and discarded countless times.
DeleteJC
Looks like the Marquis of Worcester wheel. Apparently it was of a much different configuration than the one published by Henry Dircks, and incorporated some form of mechanical overunity:
Deletehttps://perpetualmotion21.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-marquis-of-worcesters-wheel.html
According to the Marquis of Worcester, he had found "a most admirable way to raise weights" in his wheel. Notice his description of his mechanism:
Delete"How to make one pound weight to raise an hundred as high as one pound falleth, and yet the hundred pound descending doth nothing less than one hundred pound can effect."
Source of quote ?
Deletehttps://perpetualmotion21.blogspot.com/2014/04/the-marquis-of-worcesters-wheel.html
DeleteI found Brad's modification of the Somerset pm wheel most interesting. It's a variation I've not seen before. What dooms the Somerset's design is the bunching up of the cannon ball weights on the wheel's ascending (left) side which is why there are 20 weights on that side and only 18 on the descending (right) side. Brad's use of a solid metal ring in place of the 40 individual weights would prevent such a bunching up of weight on the ascending side. I'm not into simming, but Brad's approach should definitely be simmed, imo. It might just be a working design!
DeleteYes, thanks to Brad for that info on the Somerset wheel and his clever change to the original design. From studying the original wheel you can see that from about 9 o'clock to about 3 o'clock the cannon balls are supported by short lengths of chain attached to the outer rim of the wheel, but from about 3 o'clock back to 9 o'clock again they are supported by the short lengths of chain attached to the inner rim of the wheel. That is what causes the circular collection of cannon balls to be off center with the wheel. But, as anon 03:49 noticed, it's the crowding together of the cannon balls on the left side that prevents the center of gravity of the forty cannon balls from being located to the right of the center of the wheel. Brad's solution looks like it would work to me. But, I've seen many other designs for pm wheels over the years that looked like they had to work, but further analysis showed that was only an illusion. Still, I agree that a quick sim would seem justified in this case.
DeleteI think, like Bessler's design, the Brad wheel would, as it sped up (assuming it's a runner, of course) begin to be disabled by increasing centrifugal forces acting on the metal ring. They would be greatest near the 6 o'clock part of the ring due to the added pull of gravity and tend to rotate the metal ring until its center of gravity was directly under the axle of the wheel. At that time no further acceleration would be possible.
I also don't see any reason why it won't work. As the wheel turns, the metal ring will also turn and always keep its CoG on the wheel's descending side. This "Brad Wheel" should be self-starting and one directional just like Bessler's wheels. I don't know how it could be made two directional, but who cares as long as it works. Also, unlike in Brad's drawing you don't need the full eighty chains. Probably just sixteen would work. Anyone trying to sim this will have to be able to make that ring which I think requires some sort of special script in wm2d.
Delete@all the three anons above (16:55, 9:54, 3:49)
DeleteThis "new" idea from Brad is, as JC correctly noted, not "new," as it was previously promoted here on the blog and tested in a construction model which failed. There is a reason why the cannon balls in the old model go towards the side. The "new" model, posted here some years ago, shifts the ring to the left, pulling the ropes on the right hand side at an angle to the left, putting the ring directly beneath the axle. With individual cannon balls, everything hangs straight, and forms the illusion that a ring holding everything equidistant would surely work. It might have worked if it didn't yank the ropes off to the side, but that's that.
In the meantime I will reiterate that all of these models are based on faulty assumptions made by Henry Dircks in his book based on the text-only description left about the wheel by the Marquis of Worcester. It was Henry, not the Marquis, who convicted that bogus diagram, which bears absolutely no resemblance to the textual description written by the Marquis, which describes a pound lifting 100 pound weights over the same height they fell (which seems to be similar to Bessler's description of his own mechanism, except that one pound lifted four pounds weights). Either way, it would be overunity, something which both the Dircks model and the ring model from Brad are quite obviously not.
Anon 20:44 wrote "The "new" model, posted here some years ago, shifts the ring to the left, pulling the ropes on the right hand side at an angle to the left, putting the ring directly beneath the axle."
DeleteCan you provide a link to that past design and it's "tested construction" that you claim disproves the Brad wheel? I like to see original sources whenever possible instead of just reading second hand interpretations of them.
If the Brad wheel's metal ring does automatically stay where he shows it is located, then the carrier wheel should turn continuously unless it is somehow "internally" balanced out. That is, it will not turn if all of the GPE lost by the ring as its COG begins to swing below the carrier wheel's axle center is completely used to raise the ring's COG up again to its starting location by increasing its GPE. If that is the case, then the carrier wheel will remain stationary regardless of what position it is turned to and then released. Like others here, I'd prefer to see an accurate sim of this design rather than read about someone's "tested construction" which might not have actually been made at all or, if it was, was poorly done and of little value in deciding if a design actually works or not. Sims, when properly made, tend to be far more reliable than hand made wheels.
To work as a PM wheel, the ring would, as the carrier wheel rotated, have to lose more GPE than was needed to raise the ring's COG back up again to its starting location. I'm not convinced that is impossible in a rotating system of weights and, in fact, is exactly how Bessler's wheels worked if they were not hoaxed which I don't believe they were. I'll leave it to others to debate what the source is of any energy such a genuine working PM wheel puts out.
I'm not convinced that Somerset's mentioning of a one pound weight falling a distance and lifting a 100 pound weight through the same distance has anything to do with his wheel. I'm equally not convinced that Bessler's "great craftsman" verses have anything to do with the mechanics of his wheels either. I view these teasing proclamations as attention getters both authors used which they got away with because they didn't have to provide any details about the process to a reader. That was a big secret, of course, which only they were privileged to know.
I noticed that several here have called for a sim of Brad's new version of that Somerset wheel to be made, but so far none have appeared. Well, I decided to take a crack at it since I do have an old free trial copy of wm2d. Unfortunately, when it comes to building anything, I have ten thumbs and when it comes to using sim programs I have nine thumbs!
DeleteI can't make rings so I had to settle for an octagon made of pinned together rectangles. What I came up with is a model that is about 6 feet in diameter. The large yellow wheel weighs 10 pounds and the blue octagon 40 pounds. My ropes are a mess, but I managed to run off a few seconds of the wheel and the ring turning. No continuous motion due to my messed up ropes, but I sense that the design has a tendency to turn just as Brad thinks it would and it definitely is not "internally balanced" as anon 23:45 suggested it might be. Anyway, maybe someone else with far better simming skills than me can give it a try?
Postimages would not take the upload of the gif for some reason, so I had to use another anonymous site called gifyu that would. I'm actually a little embarrassed to show this, but I guess it's better than nothing:
https://gifyu.com/image/bwv2m
Well, looks like another non-runner.
DeleteThanks for the sim.
"I'm not convinced that Somerset's mentioning of a one pound weight falling a distance and lifting a 100 pound weight through the same distance has anything to do with his wheel. I'm equally not convinced that Bessler's "great craftsman" verses have anything to do with the mechanics of his wheels either."
DeleteThe probability of these two guys coming up with the same joke (albeit with slight differences) as to how their wheels supposed to work is 1 in 4x10^14. That would be like trying to pick a single golf ball out of 13740 supertankers full of golf balls!
@anon 03:23
DeleteYep...that sim of yours IS "crude". But, I do agree that there is a slight tendency for the octagon to roll to the right to try to keep its center of gravity at its starting point. This design definitely needs a better sim using a proper ring with better placed ropes. Thanks for giving it a try though.
Even though it's a crude sim, the ropes do get pulled at an angle, just as Anon 20:44 said it would.
Delete"pulled at an angle". look closely, the ropes are not the same lengths & are not consistently attached to the same points.
DeleteNote the NEWS rope guide drawings in the Ord-Hume drawing.
Deletehttps://i.postimg.cc/fbzbcw6d/Sommerset-Marquis-Wheel-Ord-Hume1.png
I applaud anon 03:23's effort to provide us with something concerning Brad's wheel design. I'm thinking of making a sim which just uses 8 weights that are hung so they will behave like the ones shown in that drawing that anon 20:59 gave us a link to. If it looks good, I'll upload it somewhere and provide the link here.
Deletei applaud him too for making the effort to simulate it & posting the result for the rest of us to learn from, & i look forward to your 8 weight attempt of the original design. the more the merrier. upload it even if it doesn't look good lol, we might still learn something of value.
DeleteHere's a drawing of what Somerset's wheel looked like if anybody wants to sim this one:
Deletehttps://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1d7vQUo5lgWa2T5vhJEvfTFDTcQhixOiYCXcKQwomtO4g5Zytneg0H4jqtW488K9boPQcPWNDlpDYbhfxPiukM6wBS8BasIjZqEV5EbPP-0bfHT11BRmJiGzcDOtmyk1xM_Dcn8fToqi4/s280/MOWMark2-2.png
Yes Anon 3:09, that DOES look like the COG is kept to the right of the axle and elevated enough to cause the wheel to become overbalanced and rotate. However just because it looks like it will rotate doesn't mean it will. There have been MANY illusions made that really look like they will work but unfortunately don't!
DeleteOkay, I'm back. I made an "abbreviated" wm2d model of the Somerset pm wheel that only uses 8 weights and...it does NOT work! Surprised? It looked great for about a quarter of a cw rotation, but then it eventually stalled or, as they used say on bwf, "keeled". Most likely because I manually placed the blue boxes onto the wheel and, apparently not too precisely which means the wheel was already imbalanced even before I added the 8 weights to it. Anyway, it's obviously a nonrunner and it won't make any difference if it has 8 or 40 or 100 weights, imo.
DeleteSorry, Brad, but I don't see any way to make this work with a single metal ring. A ring would require the ropes to be attached to it evenly around its circumference, but, as can be seen in my sim model, the centers of the ball weights are not evenly spaced around the wheel. Maybe someone else can figure out how to make it work like you imagine it might. I give up.
https://postimg.cc/zytGkfMG
Anon 3:13 - "Yes Anon 3:09, that DOES look like the COG is kept to the right of the axle and elevated enough to cause the wheel to become overbalanced and rotate. However just because it looks like it will rotate doesn't mean it will. There have been MANY illusions made that really look like they will work but unfortunately don't!"
DeleteI beg to differ. It would be a terrific runner, if only there was someone to lift the weights back up at 6 and 12 o'clock.
Anon 3:09 - "Here's a drawing of what Somerset's wheel looked like if anybody wants to sim this one:
Deletehttps://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEg1d7vQUo5lgWa2T5vhJEvfTFDTcQhixOiYCXcKQwomtO4g5Zytneg0H4jqtW488K9boPQcPWNDlpDYbhfxPiukM6wBS8BasIjZqEV5EbPP-0bfHT11BRmJiGzcDOtmyk1xM_Dcn8fToqi4/s280/MOWMark2-2.png"
Somersets wheel was not a runner, it ran on for a time gradually slowing and then keeling. The design you show requires energy to lift the weights back up twice each revolution.
Thanks to everyone who tried to sim my modification of the Somerset wheel. The idea looked good, but I should have thought more about it before making the drawing and presenting it here. Bessler probably read about Somerset's wheel and immediately realized it was a dead duck that could not be made to work. But, I'm no Bessler.
DeleteBrad
Thanks for your input Brad, much appreciated. JC
Delete"Somersets wheel was not a runner, it ran on for a time gradually slowing and then keeling"
DeleteCorrection: the fake concoction promoted by the infamous Henry Dircks, who came around many years after the Marquis, is not a runner, and it didn't gradually slow, it never moved at all.
"Thanks to everyone who tried to sim my modification of the Somerset wheel."
Correction: you modified the Dircks preposterous model, which has absolutely nothing to do with Marquis wheel, which he would not have said had a wondrous rotation if it merely sat there like the Bhaskara contraption, and he certainly would not have presented it to the king in exchange for his release from jail, on pain of his certain death in event of a failure.
"The design you show requires energy to lift the weights back up twice each revolution."
Oh really?! Yeah, that's why the Marquis employed overunity. He describes a mechanism that causes a weight of 100 pounds to rise, as it is lifted by a falling weight of one pound, that falls the same height as the heavy weight rises. The design shown in that link actually exactly matches the way Somerset described the position of the weights: at the top, the weight suddenly hung farther out from the axle near the rim, and at the bottom, the weight suddenly hung nearer the axle. Exactly how does the design at the link you quoted differ from Somerset's own description?
"Bessler probably read about Somerset's wheel and immediately realized it was a dead duck that could not be made to work"
The only dead duck is Henry Dirck's lousy attempt to depict what he thought the positions of the weights were.
Most pm wheel chasers today have heard about the Somerset wheel and, of course, the Bessler wheel. But how many have ever heard about the Roberval wheel? What many don't know is that it was that earlier wheel by Roberval which helped inspire Bessler to continue his search for his own pm wheel design despite his years of failure.
ReplyDeleteThe French genius mathematician Gilles de Roberval died in 1675. According to long existing rumor, shortly before that, he invented and constructed a revolutionary pm wheel which actually worked! After his death, agents from the French Academy of Sciences raided his home, burned all of his notes and drawings, and, worst of all, destroyed the one existing model of his wheel. This was done because its existence was considered a threat to the then evolving science of mechanics. It was dangerous and needed to be erased from history and they were successful...at least for the last 350 years.
Roberval's pm wheel design, however, has finally recently been rediscovered thanks to the new AI technology and the efforts of a small team of dedicated researchers (who you won't find posting on any of the various time wasting internet free energy sites). Here for the first time in 350 years is Roberval long lost design:
https://postimg.cc/Z0JdWgb6
Those who made the rediscovery wish, for their own safety, to remain anonymous. I am only their humble "messenger boy".
Messenger Boy
Unfortunately you will have to report to your anonymous friends that the pivots are not equally spaced around the wheel. Notice the pivots on the sides are below the axle.
DeleteWow! Thanks, MB! I never heard of the Roberval wheel before. Bessler did a lot of research into pm and would have known about that wheel which was probably made only about a half century before Bessler began his own research. Now it's starting to make sense to me why Bessler put that Roberval like gadget into his planned MT book which he showed in MT143. Bessler wouldn't have wanted to steal Roberval's original invention, but only to try to improve upon it. Not to put you down, MB, but I agree with anon 23:47 that your drawing of the Roberval wheel could have been better done. Yet it does show the basic principle which is kind of like a quartet of isolated Roberval balances connected together (the Roberval "connectedness principle"?!) into a single giant rotating four mechanism balance and then fitted into a wheel. I've studied it for a while and I can't find any reason why it would not work! But then again I felt the same way about Brad's wheel until I saw some sims for it.
DeleteLOL these guys are taking the piss big time. there is absolutely no proof that the Somerset wheel was a runner . Henry Dircks & Arthur Ord-Hulme (mechanical engineers) published well researched books on the the subject of PM wheels . the so called recently discovered roberval balance pm wheel shown above is part of the joke . the 4 rod linked mechanisms are not equidistant and at the same radius making it bottom heavy . robervals are only balanced when they are vertical and anchored . we all know what happens when gears replace the robervals , the wheel stays in total balance .
DeleteMB's drawing of the "Roberval Wheel" is obviously poorly done. Maybe he misunderstood the description of it especially if he only got a short written description in an email and no sketches to go by? Anyway, I changed the locations of the box pivots and the rigid metal rods so that they have the same lengths and should keep all of the boxes and their contained Roberval balances level as the wheel rotates. It's "bottom heavy", but that's ok as long as the cog stays on the wheel's descending side.
Deletehttps://i.postimg.cc/kXJhLz5c/Roberval-Wheel-Improved.jpg
I find MB's tale of Roberval's invention to be somewhat plausible. FAWK, Roberval could have been a closet pm wheel chaser and it was while doing that that he came up with the design for his famous two pan balance. That would not be the first time something like that happened. Another famous 17th century French mathematician, Blaise Pascal, invented the roulette wheel while he was trying to make a pm wheel! I think the quest for pm has been behind a lot inventions only history has ignored that since, as everyone knows, "pm is impossible". Or is it?
Unfortunately, the above "improved roberval wheel" is drawn incorrectly. The boxes twist somewhat clockwise, bringing the lever diamond to the left, putting the cog directly underneath the axle. No movement.
Delete@anon 19:25
DeleteDoes it really matter to go through the trouble of trying to figure that out, or to sim it to find that out? A quick glance at any of these contraptions shows quite clearly that there is no overunity, and therefore it will not work. You don't even need to have to analyze where the COG happens to be. As far as Anon 2:26 is concerned in stating that there is no evidence that Somerset's wheel worked, he is quite correct. There is equally no evidence that it didn't work either. And there is no evidence that Bessler's wheel was genuine. I think we have all pretty much figured that out by now. If there had been evidence to prove that any of these wheels worked, we would have running wheels already. The only evidence of proof is a clear diagram of a runner. No such diagram exists.
"The only evidence of proof is a clear diagram of a runner. No such diagram exists." Hmm...there is someone who would disagree with you about that. He claims the secret was rediscovered in 2018 and actually published in 2019. Of course, if one has not seen it he will continue to think that no diagram exists. But, it does!
Delete@anon 21:23
DeleteThat's hearsay. Anyone can say someone discovered something. Prove it. Show it here. Or be proven wrong.
Hi,
DeleteAnon 21:23 is referring to Ken B's wheel.
@anon 22:52
DeleteKen's wheel is a joke and can hardly be called a clear diagram of a runner. My point is that there are plenty of diagrams of wheels by people who think they've discovered the thing, and they clearly don't work. And then we have rumors of wheels that work, except the information on them is kept secret. Secret diagrams, unfortunately, cannot be proven to work since nobody can see them. If you want it proven, then you will have to make it public so people can see it, sim it, and build it.
I think if you took the time to actually read the Ken B book on Bessler and his wheels you'd realize his design is no joke. He spent like fifty years searching for the design and only found it after starting to use computer simulations. Even so, he had to make about two thousand sims to get that final runner he shows in that yt video he made. I'm a believer in his design because it explains all the questions I've had about Bessler's wheels for years. However, no one has yet used his design to make a physical wheel. That does not surprise me because rarely are any new designs ever built by anyone other than the original inventor and Ken does not seem too interested in building the design into a wheel himself because he does not think he has the equipment/skill to do so. Also, he seems content to just know that Bessler's original design has finally been found and he has "moved on" to other subjects. Everyone involved in pm research is "doing their own thing" convinced they will be the one to finally find "the" solution. I consider Bessler's original design to already have been found so I'm not looking for another solution. I think anyone who is looking for another design will just be wasting their time. Even if they do manage to find a runner, it won't be the one Bessler had because, imo, Ken B has already found it!
DeleteThank you Ken for reminding us all to sit and watch your painfully slow wheel as it struggles to barely move in your sim.
Delete"Painfully slow"? He mentions in his description that the wheel's speed could reach over 60 rpm's and that he greatly reduced the speed in his sim so the motions of its levers could be better observed. Did you bother to read the description for his video?
DeleteDescriptions mean nothing without proof. What I do see in the video is a COG that couldn't lift a feather let alone a 100 pound weight.
DeleteWhat you saw in the KB video was a sim of B's 36 inch Gera prototype wheel which was never displayed publicly. It had barely enough torque to keep itself in motion and slowly accelerate because of its small size. It was basically a "proof of principle" model that B made and the pattern for all of his later and far more powerful wheels. The wheel he publicly displayed in Gera on June 6, 1712 was actually the second working wheel he made and in a braking test could only lift a few pounds using a rope attached to its axle. To hoist hundred pound weights with ease one needed the Merseburg or Kassal wheels that would come years later. All of these lifts were basically braking tests and, as the weight rose, the wheel would gradually slow to a stop.
Delete