Sir Isaac Newton's Perpetual Motion machine.

This is in the interests of trying to correct misleading information relating to Bessler/Orffyreus

Since posting information about Floriano's website at www.orffyreus.it, I've received a number of emails questioning the sketch which, according to him, was done by professor Willem 's Gravesande, and sent to Sir Isaac Newton.  This sketch was actually drawn by Sir Isaac himself. about 24 years before Gravesande was born!  In my first book about Bessler (Perpetual Motion, An Ancient Mystery Solved?) I included the drawing, shown below, because it indicated that Newton considered that a perpetual motion machine could be possible when interacting with gravity.

I wrote that, 'It is a little known fact that in his early notebooks under the heading "Quaestiones"[sic] Newton speculates that gravity (heaviness) is caused by the descent of a subtle matter which strikes all bodies and carries them down. "Whither ye rays of gravity may bee stopped by reflecting or refracting ye, if so a perpetual motion may bee made one of these two ways." Adjacent to these words, Newton added two sketches of perpetual motion powered by the "flux of the gravitational stream".

In full he wrote,

"Try whither the weight of a body may be altered by heate or cold, by dilatation or condensition, beating , poudering, transfering to severall places or severall heights or placing a hot or heavy body over it or under it or by magnetisme whither leade or its dust spread abroade, whither a plate flat ways or edg ways in heaviest, whither the rays of gravity may bee stopped by refecting or refracting them, if so a perpetuall motion may bee made one of these two ways.

The gravity of bodys is as their solidity, because all body{s} descend equall spaces in equal {times} consideration being had to the Resistance of the aire &c"

Now people may well have come to the conclusion that such machines are impossible but it seemed to me then and I remain convinced of it,  that if Newton himself considered it possible and actually drew his  ideas on paper why should subsequent thinkers dismiss it?

In the lower half of the above drawing, Newton also shows his thoughts on using magnets too.

 "Atraction Magneticall

1 The motion of any magneticall ray may bee knowne by attracting a needle in a corke on water.

2 Whither a magneticall pendulum is perpendicular to the Horizon or not, & whither iron is heaviest when impregnated, or when the north pole or southpole is upmost. Coroll. A perpetuall motion .

3 Whither magneticall rays will blow a candle move a red hot copper or iron needle, or passe through a red hot plate of copper or iron

4 A perpetuall motion .

5 Whither a loadestone will not turne around a red hot iron fashioned like wind mill sailes as the wind doth them. Perhaps cold iron may reflect the magn: rays with that pole which shuns the lodestone."

He never published an opinion later on whether he believed such devices were possible or not.

For the modern rendering of Newton's Quaestions" notebook see  http://www.newtonproject.sussex.ac.uk/view/texts/normalized/THEM00092

JC

More Orffyrean related websites

I often get sent ideas and details of other websites which might be of interest to me and recently I received two more.

This email came from a long time correspondent in Italy, who incidentally gave my name to the Italian documentary makers, so thanks for that Floriano, and he has just published a website with his own take on Bessler's wheel.  In it he says that he has decided not to go for a long explanation but preferred to keep it simple to gain and keep people's attention.  This seems to me to a good idea, as I am currently writing an explanation of how I believe Bessler's wheel worked and had intended to publish it either on the occasion of the 300th year since Bessler's first exhibition, or when and if someone else published definitive proof that their wheel works.

I now think I might publish a shorter version at the same time.

Floriano has a web site at www.orffyreus.it and it has some interesting ideas, none of which I must hastily admit, bear any resemblance to mine.  Take a look and see what you think.

On the subject of other websites with an Orffyrean connection, there is also one at www.oldrichnos.com which contains some of the most beautiful drawings on it, other than yours John Worton!  The website has been around a while but is till worth a look and is often added to.

JC

If not gravity-driven then what else drove Bessler's wheel?

I'm continually surprised that Bessler's wheel is still regarded as a fraud.  52 years ago (approximately) I read the maid's account of how she supposedly turned the wheel and I immediately knew it was wrong.  How could a piece of mechanism turn the twelve foot wheel through the bearings?  How could it reach a top speed 26 RPM in just three turns?  How was such a mechanisms hidden in open bearings? How was it hidden during the change over from one set of bearings to another? If it was a fraud and the maid was simply mistaken or fooled into thinking that was how it was done , how else could it have been done?

Which leads us to pondering what force was accessable internally which could be used to turn the wheel?  I have seen the suggestions of ambient temperature changes and I dismiss it with the same gut feeling I originally had when reading about the maid's version of events. Later consideration only added weight to my original conviction that it would not do. I am convinced, satisfied and know that it could only have been gravity supplying the weights with the necessary force and therefore energy.

Instead of shooting us gravity-driven wheel proponents down, I wish the shooters would offer alternative theories which were at leastt as acceptable as the gravity-only ones.  We need theories which offer the same quick response, allowing speedy acceleration of the wheel.  My personal belief is that there isn't one, but if people wish to dismiss gravity-driven wheels and yet find no fault in my argument that the wheel was not fraudulent, then they must offer some kind of suggestion of what force would suffice.  It's no good saying that the wheel was genuine but gravity cannot be used in this way but they can't think of anything else.

It's as clear as daylight to me that gravity provided the energy source, Bessler said so too, and there is no alternative anyway.

JC

Don't assume everything on the internet is correct - it ain't!

The internet is a wonderful source of information but the problem with it is that incorrect information can be spread as easily as the correct stuff.  My work on writing the new book on Bessler is proceeding well and I have tried to ensure that all the information in it is correct, however in the course of double-checking everything some inaccuracies are inevitably found.

In my first version of Bessler's biography I wrote during my research, I had come across no less than three accounts written over a period of some fifty years or more, which all use the same argument in support of their author's contention that Orffyreus was a fraud. They explain away Professor 'sGravesande's belief in the wheel in the following manner. I will quote from the latest account which uses very similar words to the two previous ones. Arthur W.J.G. Ord-Hume's book is called "Perpetual Motion - The History of an Obsession". After describing the examination of the wheel at Kassel by 'sGravesande, the author remarks;

'The Professor certainly seems to have had some measure of faith in the wheel and the demonstration of its ability to turn without apparent external force. We ought not to forget, though, that it may have proved easy to dupe an honest old man whose confidence in humanity was probably unbounded . . . .It is not recorded whether the aging academician ever received a reply to his letter to Sir Isaac Newton.'

As this argument attempted to cast doubt on the professor's competence to decide whether the machine was valid or not, it was important to check his age. If he was elderly, then his capacity as a valuable witness was potentially impaired. In fact, this 'honest old man', this 'aging academician' was born on the 26th September 1688, which means that at the time of the Kassel examination he had reached the grand old age of thirty-three! He lived for over another twenty years, dying in 1742. In 1730 he was described as one of the great luminaries of scientific experimentation at Leiden University, possibly the foremost University of the age. His lectures drew the biggest crowds of students. This does not sound like a man of failing intellectual powers, and he was certainly one who could form an opinion based on the evidence in front of him, which others could rely on as accurate. He would not have upset Orffyreus so much if he had not had the courage to ask the most searching questions concerning the Kassel wheel. The argument that he was old and gullible is invalidated.

It has also been pointed out that I did not include anything about Frank Edwards, "Bessler's Wonderful Wheel", 1956, in which he gives an account of Bessler's wheel.  I omitted it because it contains information which is just plain wrong.  One could kindly call it Poetic Licence, but it is misleading.  According to Edwards,  "When the oiled cloth was stripped away, said Count Karl, he found himself gazing upon a very simple arrangement of weights and levers. Orffyreus explained that he had conceived a system whereby the weights one side of the wheel were farther from the axle than the weights on the other side of the wheel, creating an imbalance which caused the wheel to move. The secret, if there was a secret, lay in the ingenious manner in which the weights on the ascending side of the wheel were prevented from following their normal path next to the rim. Count Karl said that these weights were blocked by small pegs which swung back out of the way as the weight passed the zenith."  There is no documentary evidence to support this account and anyway it does not fit with Karl's recorded actions - it is wrong and that is why I originally left it out, however  have included it in the new book if only to correct the information being published.  Edwards includes a numerous other mistakes such as Christian Wagner being called Claus Wagner for example

But there are still factual errors being posted on the interner and copied and pasted on other websites.  For example in the Gera certificate one of the signees is called Christian Lange and on one website it states that he was Bessler's cousin.  This is not true, Bessler's cousin was Detter Langer, but obviously this was due to a simple misreading of the text, but it has been copied to two other web sites to my certain knowledge. In addition this same website has stated that another signee, Johann Georg Pertsch is described as a professor at University of Helmstedt, however he didn't graduate until 1716 and was only 18 in 1712.  The correct man was his father of the same name and was never a professor and he did not attend University of Helmstedt.  An easy mistake to make but it could lead to confusion.

There are numerous errors on the internet and I have tried to right those relating to Bessler and I hope that when my new book does finally appear it will be error free.  But these little mischiefs do creep in and along with typos and spelling mistakes, are the author's bête noire.

My granddaughter wants me to include this clever little trinket, 

"Don't let 'assume' make an 'ass' out of 'u' and 'me'".

JC