Update on the wheel and some corrections to the translations.

I have had to stop working on my Bessler wheel for the last couple of weeks because my workshop has become so cluttered with old wheels and used parts, and pieces of wood and metal and nuts and bolts and washers......etc. I decided to have a clear out of all the bits and pieces I didn't want to keep - other than for nostalgic reasons - because we are having to move some items out of their usual place to leave room for some repairs to other parts of the house. So I had to make room, for a fridge/freezer, tumbledrier and a range of cupboards. This meant taking out one of my two work benches and some serious rearranging of the place. It's almost done and then I can get back to work on the wheel.

The nostalgic items include some apparatus made to demonstrate my ideas in a lecture I gave a few years ago. They included a twelve foot wheel which I had designed to be easily disassembled but with which I hoped to demonstrate just how big Bessler's twelve foot wheel was when you stood next to it. It was just a skeletal assembly which you could rotate with a simple push but it was never intended to be a self-moving one. Another item was a simple vertical windmill shaft on which I had placed two Savonius windmills. A strong fan was placed so that the wind would turn the Savonius windmills. This was to demonstrate the idea that when disconneced from each other they rotated in opposite directions but when linked they did not move unless given a small push. This push allowed them to turn together in the same direction at half the disconnected speed in either direction as required by the pusher. There were also a number of old wheel backs that were so full of holes that they were of no use to me any more.  I held on to these items for too long but anyway they've have gone now so I have plenty of room!

I had decided to begin correcting some of the translation errors in my publications, which had been identified by Stewart on the besslerwheel forum over the last few years. It was suggested that because I had not kept the books updated by correcting the text whenever an improvement in the translation was published on the forum that I was causing a certain amount of confusion, and I have received some criticism for my lack of interest in updating the books. I finally agreed that perhaps I should begin the task of making these corrections. However I realised very quickly that it was not as simple as it sounded and when I learned that Stewart planned to publish his own translations in the future there seemed little point in making alterations that would be superceded later by improved translations and I could see that I might be infringing his own copyright by using his words. I was unsure how much of his corrections I could use - did I use only short one or two word corrections for instance and ignore longer passages? Anyway I have decided not to issue revised books but may include an errata sheet. I published the books as translated by my own translater who I commissioned to do the job and I was more than satisfied with his work at the time.  And how would he feel on seeing my 'corrections' to his work?  In my opinion the differences in translation are minimal to understanding Bessler.

In addition to this I am busy with my revised biography of Bessler. Acknowledging the various works quoted is a time consuming task on its own and I am still awaiting information on some original documents which have been undergoing treatment for mould. It has been a long time in the writing but it is nearing completion and might even be available for the 300th anniversary if I don't get distracted from it too often.

JC

Bessler's Windmill for sale - One Euro!

A correspondent has kindly pointed out that the famous windmill that Bessler was building when he fell to his death is up for sale, for the princely sum of .... one euro!  That's about $1.28!

Of course when you look more closely there are conditions attached to the sale which could cost the buyer hundreds of thousands of pounds.  There's a brokerage fee of 950 euros for start (correction that should read 5,950 Euros!) - not too much considering the investment opportunity, but the building is 'listed' and in England that is like buying a large hole and throwing your money in!  Nevertheless if I had the money I'd buy it just for me! 

Imagine walking around it and seeing Bessler's own work and looking to see if he had scribbled any messages or left documents mouldering away in some hidden cavity .. sorry I'm letting my imagination run away with me again!

Here's a couple of photos from the 'for sale' site.  I visited the windmill myself a few years ago but never went inside to see what it was like, but I hope to do so one day.

Sadly, in my opinion, they fail to mention the guy who built it!  After Bessler's death the building provided somewhere for the start of the porcelaine industry in that part of German, and that is all they say.

Any buyers out there?

Here's the link:-
http://www.immonet.de/niedersachsen/holzminden-fuerstenberg-besondere-immobilie-kaufen-105279c11227-1.html

JC

Update - and five mechanisms required for proof of principle

Because I remain convinced that parametric oscillation (or kiiking) is the key to understanding Bessler's wheel I hope those who read this will understand why I continue to discuss it here.

Following a suggestion by a member of BW forum, I reconstructed my wheel with one (modified) mechanism instead of five, in an attempt to provide proof of the principle. I then realised that I had set it up wrongly as I had included an equal weight on the opposite side of the wheel to counterbalance it. This of course reduced the torque available to a very small amount. A kiiking rider has only himself to rotate about the swing pivot but if he had a non-participating second rider attached on the other end of a pair of extended swing rods he would be counterbalanced either in his outer position or in his inner one, depending on how the counterbalance was arranged. But even if the counterbalancing rider was working at pumping the swing in concert with the main rider, the torque available would be tiny in comparison to that generated by one rider.

I removed the counterbalance, restoring the full torque available and the mechanism, when started at a position close to twelve o'clock, rotated to the eleven o'clock position where it stopped and reversed. Obviously the mechanism was generating too small a pulse. This also highlighted the fact that kiiking swingers have to pump their swing many times to get  up to twelve o'clock, (20 or 30 pumps) and this is clearly the only point from which they can achieve a full rotation.

The sport of "kiiking", or "kiikuda" to use the correct verb, requires the winner to be the one who can achieve a number of consecutive rotations using longer swing rods than anyone else. This implies that the rotation is easier to achieve with shorter rods - or that the distance the rider moves his body in or out is relatively more with shorter rods. Obviously the latter applies as the distance moved inwards or outwards is going to be roughly the same for every contestant (unless he or she has extremely long legs!) but is more effective on shorter rods.

As my mechanism moves the weight inwards a set amount because the weights are the same regardless of how long the rods are, I may shorten the rods a small amount to increase the change in the angle of momentum and generate a stronger pulse, but space is limited. So if I place a second mechanism exactly opposite the first one, I anticipate that with the reduced torque then available from the action of the mechanism, the wheel will still not achieve one rotation - why? Because the difference in length of the pendulum achieved by the falling shifter weight, will only produce a small impulse. I stated many times and on my web site at http://www.besslerswheel.com/ that I believe that the wheel required five mechanisms as I maintain Bessler implied by his ubiquitous use of the number five,and that is still my firm opinion. Because I believe this is true I shall omit further testing with anything less than five. I'll update this information when I have more to say.

I have updated an old web site at http://www.247website.co.uk/ I occasionally post things on which have little to do with Bessler, and have added a potted history of Kiiking and good evidence that it goes back a long time before Ado Kosk publicised it.

JC

Why do we search for Bessler's hidden clues and yet ignore his clear advice?

There is a need among us Bessler-obsessives to find out how he made a successful gravitywheel. We look for the solution by studying what he wrote and what he drew and what others said about him and his wheel; we modify the translations to try to get the last important detail that we believe might have been missed and we look for double-meanings in his words and so on and so forth. I am as bad if not worse than most because I seek to find what I deem to be hidden clues deliberately left by the inventor as a guide to those who followed in his footsteps. "Seek and ye shall find", says the bible and I have certainly found! Misapplying the quote, "beauty is in the eye of the beholder", I am fully aware that my finds, so clear to me, are obscure to others. I understand the reasons for this and am content to offer my suggestions in the hope that it will help and inspire someone else with more expertise than I to substantiate my finds.

This brings me to another curious facet of our obsession. On the one hand there are these clues which, like the smile on the Cheshire cat, seem to fade into invisiblity, upon deeper scrutiny, revealing nothing more than the number five - and then there are the clearly articulated clues written by Bessler in the plainest language which are either ignored or separated into those we individually accept and those we reject. Why is it that when we are searching for clues as to how he succeeded, by sifting everything he wrote or drew, do some of us, sometimes, ignore the plainly written advice he gives us?

Bessler advised against using simple over-balancing designs to make a gravity wheel spin and said he learned the hard way that trying to arrange for more weights to be on one side of the wheel than the other wouldn't work. Yet I see many attempts to solve the problem with simple over-balancing wheels. Why do we ignore the words of the man who solved the problem? Overbalancing does not form the chief principle behind Bessler's wheel, although I believe it still has a role to play, as I showed in my explanation at http://www.gravitywheel.com/

He also said his weights gained force from their own swinging. A weight which swings and as it does so, gains force i.e. strength/speed, can be seen demonstrated by anyone on a swing. That is how the kiiking swinger works his way up to the twelve o'clock position.

He said too, that he only needed gravity and no other energy source to make his wheel go round. I have already explained on my gravitywheel web site why gravity alone, while still being a conservative force, can be successfully used by means of the twin weight system, suggested by Bessler, without conflicting with the laws of physics. Despite his assurances, most people still believe that there must have been some other force available and necessary to allow his wheel to complete continuous rotations and so they seek a different solution.

If we are serious about finding the answer to Bessler's wheel, we should start by taking his clearly written advice to heart. If this is insufficient for finding the solution then we should look for more obscure clues - as I have done.

I know I allowed my enthusiasm to run away with me and claim that I knew how the wheel worked, but at the time I believed that to be true, as we all have from time to time. I was unwilling to share this information without testing it first, but having publicised my personal conviction that I knew how it was done, I left myself with no alternative but to reveal my belief and thus put myself in front of the firing squad. But this does not mean that the basic principle is wrong. No other one provides such a close match to Bessler's description nor provides a potential solution, and I have explained this in detail at http://www.orffyreus.org/ and http://www.gravitywheel.com/

My mechanism may fall short of the required design to fulfill the principle, but in my opinion the principle itself holds up well and will I am sure lead to a working gravitywheel .

JC