Bessler's simple wheel bearings

I think that discussions about the bearings on the forum have become too convoluted. There is nothing complex about them, in my opinion. If you have a load-bearing shaft rotating in a bearing shell, you have two components. The journal which is the end of the shaft, made of steel, iron or brass - and it rests in a bearing shell of a similar metal which, in Bessler's day, was filled with a thick grease, pig or goose fat or even bear grease. It is usually covered by the other half of the shell to protect it from ingress of dirt, which if it wasn't included, might add friction and thus wear to the moving parts. Bessler routinely removed the upper shell so that the spectators could examine and see that there was no possible external connection. The bearings (journals) were slightly tapered to control the axle's lateral movement and keep it centred within the shell.

This, from an account of the history of watermills. "Watermills utilised wooden axles and these generally had metal gudgeons held in place on the ends of the shafts using wedges and steel hoops, which allowed the wood axle to have a small metal tip on the end. These metal tips or 'journals' would then ride on an iron half-shell liberally greased with animal fat."

Finally this from wikipedia, "A plain bearing, or a friction bearing is the simplest type of bearing, comprising just a bearing surface and no rolling elements. Therefore the journal (i.e., the part of the shaft in contact with the bearing) slides over the bearing surface. The simplest example of a plain bearing is a shaft rotating in a hole."

There is only one place where the so-called 'curved' pieces which were said to extend outwards from the bearings on the end of the axle, are reported,and at is in Das Triumphirende - as per Stewart's translation which follows, 'They rest in their motion on two almost 1 inch thick, {am Ort} somewhat tapered steel pivots horizontal in the two sockets or bearings, [the pivots are] equipped with two curves, about which the rotary motion of the whole vertically suspended wheel can be somewhat modified by applying pendula on both sides, as the attached figures at the end of this treatise clearly show'. In other words there are no witness descriptions of these strange curved pieces because they never existed outside Bessler's imagination. He introduced them into Das Triumphirende for good reasons that I shall explain at a later date.

JC

The Orffyreus documentary

I returned from Rome on Thursday night having been invited to take part in an Italian documentary for RAI 2, a part of the government television network. The documentary is about Orffyreus or Bessler as we tend to refer to him. They have already filmed actors in period costume telling the basic story of Bessler and they wish to end it with an interview about him. The director had sent me a series of topics which they would ask me to comment on.

Bear in mind the questions were translated from Italian, so the phrasing is a little awkward.

The topics included:-

What is the perpetual motion?

Can you describe the character traits of Orffyreus?

Can you describe the first Orffyreus’s wheel?

Can you give us an overview of the writings of Bessler? What do they contain? Are they logical and comprehensible to the eyes of whoever? What messages have you succeeded in deciphering? Describe how the name Orffyreus is fruit of a manipulation.

Which rivalries did Orffyreus’s increasing reputation raise up? And Who were the most persistent opponents of Orffyreus and what actions did they put into practice?

Can you tell us what happened in Merseburg?

Which tests were done on the wheel exhibited in Kassel after the 54 days of isolation?

Who was interested in the Orffyreus’s discovery following the exhibition in Kassel?

We would like also for you to comment on the following: many people are wondering how the world would be today, if the professor Gravesande had not yielded to the temptation to spy on the secret mechanism of the wheel of Orffyreus. Already, because this gesture, which proved inadequate to understand the essence of the mechanism of the wheel, determined the end of every possibility that the secret of the invention was finally released. Orffyreus, in fact, cannot tolerate such an insult. Went rapturously, and in a gesture of baleful wrath destroyed violently also his last creation under the bewildered eyes of those present.

The Royal Society dropped each contact believing that they were dealing with a madman and the Landgrave quickly found an excuse to remove that visitor now deemed unpredictable and dangerous.

Not difficult subjects for me to comment on and yet, sat in front of a two cameras, the director, a sound man, two cameramen, an interpreter and the director's assistant plus the two owners of the house where it was filmed.... I froze! I got it together on the third or fourth take for the first question though! They will send me a copy of the finished product when it's ready and it is budgeted to be finished by December 31st!

I added some additional information concerning the coded material but I don't know how much, if any, they will include as it wasn't in the original specification.

I've included some pictures for your amusement!

JC

Why gravity is a source of energy for continuous motion.

Following some comments on my last blog, I thought I'd make my case again here rather than adding to the 60 or so comments already in.

I realise that the vast majority do not accept the possibility that a gravity-wheel can be driven continuously just by the force of gravity alone as, I believe, Bessler's was. But if I state my case often enough, maybe enough people, cleverer than I, will take it on board and devise a better explanation. Until then...

My analogy that the force of gravity was similar in its action to the wind or a current of water, and it was therefore perfectly reasonable to believe one could use it as a source of energy, is routinely scorned by most people. They have taken exception to the above analogy, ignoring the fact that is just an analogy. An analogy is an inference based on the idea that if two different things show a similarity in one sense, it may be possible to draw conclusions about other aspects of the thing. It is a way of looking at something differently to try to understand it. I was not suggesting that gravity was in fact either a 'wind' or a 'stream'.

The argument against, goes something like this. Air is a collection of gases, flowing molecules - and water is similar - and when they impact on certain surfaces we can make use of them to drive machinery - but, on the other hand, because gravity is an attraction between two masses, and there are no physical particles available (such as molecules of gas) to impact on the machinery in a way we can use, it is said that it is not capable of supplying energy in the way that Bessler seems to have done. But Bessler did not know about molecules or the laws affecting gravity; he could only observe and experiment. His empirical evidence gave him the answer, and as he said, "these weights are themselves the PM device, the 'essential constituent parts' which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force derived from the PM principle) indefinitely - so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity."

How anyone can read that sentence and not understand that it means he used gravity, is beyond me.  But of course as some have suggested he might have been lying or incorporating hidden meaning within the text -  or he didn't mean gravity alone.  But for me it is plain and simple and he used gravity alone to drive his machine.

What gravity is, and what air and water are, is not relevant to my argument; the only thing that matters is that wind can move objects of mass, a current of water can move objects of mass and gravity can move objects of mass. It doesn't matter how they do it, just that they do.

One of the arguments used against the possibility of gravity as an energy source is that gravity represents potential energy. It's there if you've already put in the work. There's potential energy in a book on a shelf because you've lifted it and placed it there. Once you use that energy, when the book falls to the floor, it's gone until you lift it back up again. This is true - and it also applies to wind and water currents. Again, the work has to be put in first to gain the energy output. Release a balloon in the wind and watch it get carried along by the wind, and then grab it and take it back to the starting point (upwind) to release it again. Or put a toy boat in a stream and the same thing applies. It will float downstream and you can pick it up and take it back upstream again.  Just because we have found a way of obtaining work from wind and water streams that converts the force of wind and water to rotational energy output, does not necessarily rule out the same potential conversion of the gravitational force.

And that defines a conservative force. Since the work done by wind and water currents can be reversed, i.e. the object moved can be taken back upstream, or upwind, to be released and able to be moved again, they are conservative forces, as is gravity.  Notice the word up in upwind and upstream, its a clue.

I might not be able to add any comments for a day or two next week as I'm off to Rome on Tuesday and I'm busy writing some notes for the interview.  I'll post a blog when I get back and tell you about it.

JC

Bessler's Gravitywheel, the Bessler-Collins Project, an Italian Documentary and the five mechanisms discovery.

Now that I've got the alternative theories about Bessler's wheel out of the way, we can return to my own theory that it was driven solely by gravity and that this does not violate any laws of physics. I know that not all of my readers agree totally with me but I'm certain that I will prove to be correct.

I'm writing a lengthy document, called the 'Bessler-Collins Project' which sets out my case and I will publish it when I'm happy with it. It incorporates all the clues, both graphic and textual, as well as the work I've done so far. I'm doing this just in case I drop off my perch prematurely!

I'm pleased to say that the Italian documentary is still on, and I'm just waiting on a date to travel to Rome.

I am back in the workshop and in the process of building the mechanism again and still making further discoveries in Bessler's papers - I've found further verification that he used five mechanisms and I know in this instance it does not refer to codes.

This implies that there is a sound reason for needing five mechanisms and I think I know why. Many people have suggested that one mechanisms would suffice to prove the wheel and I agree that it should certainly be able to initiate some rotation, but in my opinion it will be shown that it can only rotate the wheel so far and regardless of being in balance elsewhere it will not rotate further. I know why - or at least I think I do, but I prefer to keep quiet about that for now.

JC