jim_mich wrote:
...snip... He said (I'm paraphrasing it) that the weights were the "perpetual motion". I'd need to look up Bessler's exact words. Here they are...
Bessler wrote:NO, 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.
This seems to indicate only weights, and no secondary mechanisms.
Well, I've read thru the available material again this evening I mentioned earlier.
First let me state that I agree that Bessler did not call his wheels gravity wheels - that descriptive is never attributed to him - what also seems clear to me is that in the quote above he is clearly describing a simple, dare I say, common place, out-of-balance system - MT is full of them in different guises & it is there that he makes reference to the "Prime Mover" in that nothing can be achieved without it N.B. I am paraphrasing also for expediency as everyone can read full quotes or documents for themselves.
jim_mich wrote:
Note that in the many translation certain phrases get mixed and matched - "preponderance" - "centre of gravity" - "out of balance" - "over balance" - they all convey the thought of more force in one direction than in the reciprocal direction.
I've asked myself, what phrase would Bessler use to describe more forward rotational motive force than rearward rotational motive force? The only logical way to rotate a wheel requires more force in one direction than in the reverse direction. It requires unbalanced force, over balanced force, a preponderance of force. And I keep coming to the conclusion that he would have said over balance or out-of-balance or a preponderance. And thus the same words take a different meaning depending upon whether the weights are moved by gravity of by their own inertial momentum force. In other words the weights gain force from their moving.
Yes, they gain force from their own moving because they cannot find a position of equilibrium
as long as they remain in motion - this sounds just like a typical OOB system if we forgot for a moment about how the weights are lifted or repositioned as Bill has been saying for years.
Bessler also used & described the term "excess impetus" & the eyewitness accounts in particular draw attention to this by the noises heard - I'll come back to that.
jim_mich wrote:
Initially Bessler attempted to say that his wheel was not turned by weights. Wagner called him out on this, saying that obviously his wheel contained weights.
Could you provide a reference for this, where he said his wheels were not turned by weights ? - I know he was clear that they didn't need restorative means such as chains & hanging weights, winding [e.g. torsion] or springs like clock work mechanisms - the motive force was internally derived but wasn't stored energy it seems, which indicates an on demand system from an impressed start up force given to the wheel - his early wheels certainly seem to be OOB systems where a cord was untied to let rotation begin.
jim_mich wrote:
But how could Bessler keep his secret and at the same time explain that it was the motions of the weights that rotated his wheel? Go back and read Bessler's words with a different perspective in mind. Then you will see what I'm saying. Bessler said absolutely as much as he could say concerning the matter, without out-right blabbing the exact details of how his wheel worked.
Unfortunately many think that the 1 lb raising 4 pounds was somehow a hint as to how Bessler's wheel worked. It was not a hint. It was sarcasm and ridicule directed toward Wagner.
You may be right, however I could also interpret it to have a double meaning - the OOB system turned the wheel but it was not responsible for the restoration of PE each cycle - the Prime Mover achieved this & was the real reason behind the wheels success - so if it were a CF force generated by moving weights that then drove an OOB system to sustain rotation then I probably wouldn't call it a gravity wheel either because without the special device to lift & reset weights the wheel could not sustain rotation N.B. there is no doubt in my mind that a gravity only solution can not work - Wagner was an opportune target to be taunted but also to get the message across that OOB systems only can never work.
OK, back to the weights & the eye witness accounts.
I think Christian Wolff's two accounts of the same viewing are interesting - the first in 1715 mentions several weights allowed to be handled covered in a handkerchief - he says they are cylindrical - he talks about weights being heard hitting the rim of the wheel - he says he saw thru a gap short boards at right angles to the rim - he says that when the weights were replaced a spring sound was heard [extending upwards] - this might indicate there was a slip by Bessler as a spring was compressed as a weight was positioned - if so, a weight spring loaded would fire like a jack to lift a weight quickly upwards at or near 6 o'cl [this is one of two possible positions, 6 & 12 o'cl, where OOB designs need weight lifting to reset].
Wolff makes the big deductive leap that the same weight he handled is the same one he heard impacting the rim & short boards at the periphery - this may not be so & be Bessler misdirection.
In Wolff's letter to Schaumaker in 1722 he adds further & different material - he now says a single weight was observed & handled - that it was covered by the handkerchief & that it was cylindrical & not very thick of about 4 lbs [e.g. like a coke can] - he says they were only able to handle the length of the cylinder to judge its weight & not touch its ends - one could speculate that the ends contained some information that Bessler did not want to share - once again he deduces that the single weight that is handled is the same weights heard in impact on the down doing side when the wheel is in motion.
Anyway, clearly this is a multiple weight system located near the rim periphery & impacting compartment boards of some sort - Wolff speculates that there is some internal force that causes the lifting of weights from the bottom &/or causes the ever faster falling/swinging of the rim weights to cause the fast & impressive acceleration he witnessed.
Ockhams Razor, if it looks like a duck & quacks like a duck it probably is a secondary OOB system near the rim.
The best falsehood is one sticking closest to the truth.
I'm not saying your interpretation is wrong, just that IMO there is room for more than the one interpretation - it's a natural step to combine two systems into one if it can be done but perhaps it couldn't be, for good reasons ?
It's getting late for me, yawn.
