Hypothesis .. Raising GPE without using Law of Levers ? ..

[Fletcher]

Sam and those who are wondering what I am talking about, it is Borlach noticed a patch or crack opening up on the pillar/post:

"The great wonder of the perpetual motion machine, so long sought in vain by the curious world, and now invented by Mister Orffyreus, made known through the 'Leipziger Gazetten' in the 4th article of the 36 week of 1715, of which [it was] observed on the 22nd July 1715,

that a spot was patched/marked in the post at A and that same post lifted up in half a turn of the wheel, and with the other half a turn fell down again, which was seen because the post was coated/painted, and at B the uncoated/unpainted place always came out. Borlach."

You can see where "A "is located on Borlach picture that Fletcher posted.

Bottom of the bearing block is where the crack in the paint was opening up

I read Borlach's comments differently dax - he saw a spot/mark at A ( near to the axle ) lift up and down with the post - he saw a crack appear in the paint down at B near the base of the post as the post moved up and down ..

Any other takes on this ? Might need a better quality pic of his engraving to clearly see B down low - I can see it and his words say it is there iinm ..

[Fletcher]

Fletcher: 3) Why doesn’t he just screw the bottom of the legs down if it is vibrating around. Because the post is attached to the ceiling and rests in a bottom sleeve mount ( it forms a post surround ) - that is where Borlach and Gartner saw direct evidence of the post lifting and falling ( at B ) because the paint work there showed the post moving up and down - they also saw a discoloured paint patch near the axle ( spot A ) also move up and down - thus the axle moved up and down with the post imo ..

So what are you suggesting there was no C cut-out (or should look like a G) but the top pillars came off and rebolted after translocation? Nothing as drastic as taking the top half of the support posts down and putting them back up again dax - I think your G notch is the simplest idea, you side load the wheel short iron axle and it sits down in the bottom of the G slot - then maybe you fit in a plug which can be left out ( uncovered ) if just doing a run test etc .. we know from the various writings there as short iron axles in bearings - I would call them bushes ..

His pictures in MT don’t look like that it looks like he backed the cranks out. As Stewart’s picture showed. But why say he lifted them out? Lifted out only is there was a G notch or perhaps a U bearing/bushing attached to the side of the post - but even Borlach's engraving showed the thin axle right thru the post ( but no cranks ) - There were no cranks ever observed or written about AFAIK dax, except by B. His stampers and Archimedean water screw were driven off the axle, as was the rope lift test - and pendulums were never seen also ..

They were all satisfied there was no springs in the posts or that they were not hollow. Agreed ! Just short thin iron axles in bushings in slots I think ..

[Fletcher]

MT 81 is what most people would build.

Yes, just a strong and well braced box frame stand with a U or O journal or pillow block on the horizontal - bolt the box frame to the floor if you are worried about it swaying or tilting, or twisting etc - even put it on lockable castor wheels, or a sled, so you can easily move it about as required - like storing it away when not in use ..

He did NONE OF THAT ! And to me chose one of the most difficult ways to mount his wheels, and he consistently used the same method - plus, he put bolt holes in his Karls roof and floor when that could be avoided, unless there was a very special reason to mount them like this ..

[daxwc]

Fletcher: He did NONE OF THAT ! And to me chose one of the most difficult ways to mount his wheels, and he consistently used the same method - plus, he put bolt holes in his Karls roof and floor when that could be avoided, unless there was a very special reason to mount them like this ..

Agreed. Now maybe he did use the external pendulums a lot? Not sure what for? Counter-balancing or balancing. Notice on the picture you can move the top sliding weights around on the external pendulum... seem made for a purpose.

[daxwc]

dax wrote:

Bottom of the bearing block is where the crack in the paint was opening up

I read Borlach's comments differently dax - he saw a spot/mark at A ( near to the axle ) lift up and down with the post - he saw a crack appear in the paint down at B near the base of the post as the post moved up and down ..

Oh sorry you are right if that is B down there. Is it though?

Any other takes on this ? Might need a better quality pic of his engraving to clearly see B down low - I can see it and his words say it is there iinm ..

Maybe Trev has a high quality drawing. I know I wouldn't have kept anything that wasn't Bessler's.

[Fletcher]

Fletcher: He did NONE OF THAT ! And to me chose one of the most difficult ways to mount his wheels, and he consistently used the same method - plus, he put bolt holes in his Karls roof and floor when that could be avoided, unless there was a very special reason to mount them like this ..

Agreed. Now maybe he did use the external pendulums a lot? Not sure what for? Counter-balancing or balancing. Notice on the picture you can move the top sliding weights around on the external pendulum... seem made for a purpose.

" seem made for a purpose " - I'm going to cover that shortly dax - basically they increase or decrease inertia which either speeds up or slows down something, or in my case allows things to drive thru a sticking point with more umph behind it ..

[daxwc]

Only thing I can come up with is that it is jumping hard into the third plane to open the crack at the floor.

I mean there could still be a large spring in the axle or maybe a MT 34 -36 device.

[Fletcher]

Hello everyone,

If the posts were fixed on a floor resting on a frame, it seems normal that these had an alternating movement from top to bottom.

the design of the posts allows this type of movement, the difference in elasticity between the low and high beams of the building explains this oscillation.

It is possible that inside the wheel there was a misbalance generating this oscillation.

I have a doubt about the design of the bearings presented by Steward, they are functional but the wooden shaft would have cracked under the load.

In my opinion, for Bessler to present his wheel at a fair it would have been necessary to create huge massifs well anchored in the ground if the theory of the unbalance is correct.

Hi Shadow .. he wouldn't have needed huge support posts well buried in the ground to display at an open air fair - fwiw he could have put it on the back of a wagon to take it there and back ( and display it running on the tray ) ..

Posts don't need burying because altho they had a quick acceleration they were not powerful - the Merseburg wheel could be stopped by one man clasping the rim and forceably stopping it ..

Letter from Fischer about the Kassel 26 rpm wheel .. " I then stopped the wheel with much difficulty, holding on to the circumference with both hands. An attempt to stop it suddenly would raise a man from the ground. "

Hardly needs posts well anchored in the ground imo - a wheel in a box frame with plenty of friction to the ground ( pegged if you want ) would hold it steady - it was only 100 Watts .. the earlier Draschwitz wheel was stopped by a friction bolt being wound in ..

[Fletcher]

Here's a summary of where I am at at this point ..

1. a runner needed a replenishing energy source ( I suggest it took and repurposed some of the earths momentum ) ..

2. to accelerate quickly and thereafter continuously rotate, internal "weights" had to be very quickly and easily lifted to renew torque ..

3. to achieve 2. a Prime Mover Structure was employed, which did not use classical leverage ( MA ) to do the required lifting of the weights ..

4. the Prime Mover did not directly interact with the runners internal OOB weights ..

5. The Prime Mover 'pumped and dumped' the entire circulating wheel - both forward and backward, and up and down vertically, to "jolt/jerk" the weights upwards quickly and easily i.e. short sharp impulses over short distances ..

6. the Prime Mover was a part of the wheel OOB system and one helped drive the other in turn - in the case of an external pendulum Prime Mover, via its connection to an external crank - in the case of an internal Prime Mover(s) they went around with the wheel - they were also gravity activated and changed the wheel MOI when able to 'fall' and recover GPE - when triggered they also rapidly lowered weight downwards inside the wheel whose inertia had to be arrested and reversed, temporarily pulling the wheel downwards - the wheel was connected via support posts to the ceiling with some flex in it which then accelerated the whole of wheel upwards in a rebound-like action ..

7. the pulsing of the Prime Mover(s) and the wheel frame connections interplay caused a feedback and oscillation that grew - it also was the reason for the internal OOB weights to rise quickly and easily to then cause the acceleration and continued rotation of the wheel ..

8. the secret to a runner was not in any particular OOB weight system ( tho swingers would be efficient ) - it was in the coordinated Prime Mover and frame to earth connection interacting in sympathy with each other to grow the disturbance/perturbance ..

....................

[Fletcher]

Hi Gregory .. what I think is special behind SB's ..

Here's the animation and sim attached ..

This is bizarro - for 20 years I have built these things and they almost always lock up ( bind ) straight away or after a swing or so - sometimes just all fall off the screen ( pins let go etc ) - I would check the accuracy settings and tweak them around etc - sometimes this worked and sometimes it did not - so I developed workarounds after a while, like replacing one or two rods with very stiff spring elements - gears worked quite good ( see the third one ) - what I really wanted was a geared system with the two gears colocated if doable i.e. one on top of the other - the fourth one was an attempt to use an internal gear hence why there is an extra gear above in my trial sim this morning ..

Anyhoo, I was playing around with them this morning - the usual not behaving, frustration building - playing with the accuracy setting ( number 1 was working ok at 200 fps reasonably well ) then for no apparent reason 1 and 2 bad boys behaved perfectly out of no where across all accuracies - no bad or erratic behaviour, or crashing the sim - I tried it from 50 fps to 2000 fps and it did what it was supposed to do - I'm scratching my head in a good way ..

Maybe you have a better way of making them that is reliable ?

cheers -f

...................



...................

[Fletcher]

Hypothesis .. Raising GPE without using Law of Levers ? ..

* .. A moving feast of artfully crafted structural tension forces and release, hoisting weights into the overbalance position .. *

[Trev]

Any other takes on this ? Might need a better quality pic of his engraving to clearly see B down low - I can see it and his words say it is there iinm ..

Maybe Trev has a high quality drawing. I know I wouldn't have kept anything that wasn't Bessler's.

Definitely A & B dax:



Best version I have: http://vftshop.com/images/others/Bessler/Borlachs.jpg

[Sam Peppiatt]

So. All of this "bull Shit" is because the bottom of the godam post was a little bit lose? I better not say what I'm thinking--Sam

[daxwc]

Thanks for taking the time to find that Trev; appreciated.

[daxwc]

So we have a 300 lb disk on a shaft sitting in open plain bearings. It is doing 26 RPM. Is it likely one end is jumping/moving up once per revolution?

ChatGPT said:
ChatGPT
If one end of the shaft is lifting once per revolution, it's likely due to imbalance, misalignment, or resonance effects. Here are some key factors to consider:
1. Imbalance
• A static imbalance (where the center of mass is not aligned with the rotational axis) could cause a periodic upward force once per rotation.
• A dynamic imbalance (where mass distribution causes tilting forces) could also lead to the shaft moving up at one end.

2. Shaft Flex & Bearing Play
• If the shaft has any flexibility, it could oscillate as the disk rotates.
• If the bearings are loose or worn, the shaft could shift in the bearing housing, leading to vertical movement.
• Open plain bearings can allow some vertical play, especially if lubrication is inconsistent.

3. Support & Mounting Issues
• If the structure holding the bearings is not perfectly rigid, it might flex slightly, amplifying the effect.
• If the bearings are not perfectly level, one side may lift as the heavy disk rotates.

4. Resonance & Whirl Effects
• If the rotation speed (26 RPM ≈ 0.43 Hz) matches a natural frequency of the system (shaft, bearing mount, or frame), resonance could amplify vertical movement.
• Oil whirl or shaft whip (if the lubrication in the plain bearings is uneven) might also contribute.

What to Check?
• Is the disk dynamically balanced? Try stopping the wheel at random positions and see if it favors one side.
• Are the bearings tight enough? Check for excessive clearance.
• Does the movement vary with speed? If so, resonance may be involved.
• Is the lifting motion visible at low speeds? If it only appears at higher speeds, centrifugal effects could be a factor.
Would you say the movement is a sharp jump or a gradual rise-and-fall?

"Borlach Quote: "The great wonder of the perpetual motion machine, so long sought in vain by the curious world, and now invented by Mister Orffyreus, made known through the 'Leipziger Gazetten' in the 4th article of the 36 week of 1715, of which [it was] observed on the 22nd July 1715, that a spot was patched/marked in the post at A and that same post lifted up in half a turn of the wheel, and with the other half a turn fell down again, which was seen because the post was coated/painted, and at B the uncoated/unpainted place always came out. Borlach."" - gradual I would say? What do you think of the quote? A is just bellow the shaft on the bearing block but B is right on the floor. I am unsure why the frame at the floor is rising up? Does this seem natural?

That’s an excellent observation—if point A is just below the shaft on the bearing block, it makes sense that it might move due to forces from the wheel. However, point B is on the floor, and it’s lifting and falling as well, which is unexpected.
Does This Seem Natural?
Not at first glance. The floor should be a rigid, stable reference point. If it’s moving, then either:
1. The entire frame is flexing or rocking, meaning forces from the wheel are transferring down into the structure in an unusual way.

2. There’s uneven ground contact or loose joints in the support structure, allowing vertical play.

3. The wheel is creating a reaction force that oscillates between the bearings and the frame, possibly due to an internal mechanism.


Possible Explanations for the Floor Lifting at B
1. Frame Resonance or Oscillation
o If the bearing mount at A is lifting, it could be pushing against the frame, causing it to flex or vibrate at B.
o Some energy from the rotating mass might be transferring downward through the structure in a periodic manner.

2. Periodic Loading from the Wheel’s Mechanism
o If Bessler’s wheel contained shifting weights, springs, or levers, they might have created periodic forces that propagated through the support structure.
o This could cause a rocking or see-saw effect, with one side lifting slightly as forces redistribute.

3. Imbalance or Precession Effects
o If the wheel had a slight tilt or imbalance, it could introduce forces that act both laterally and vertically.
o This could push down at A in one phase and down at B in another, making the frame appear to shift up and down.

4. Structural Instability
o If the wheel and frame were placed on an uneven floor or soft material (like wood on dirt), small shifts in force could create visible movement.
o If the frame wasn’t perfectly rigid, minor shifting could amplify the motion at B.
Could This Have Been Intentional?


If Bessler’s wheel was designed to produce excess force or reaction torque, this movement might have been a side effect—or even a clue about its operation. The fact that it was noticed and recorded suggests it wasn’t just random shaking but a consistent, predictable effect.
Does this change your thoughts on how the wheel was anchored or what was happening inside?

I don't know. I usually was working with machinery that are not in open bearings and doing faster than that. My suspicion is just resonance or what Fletcher just showed you where the forces of the SB are directed downward. The crack at the floor is just the heavy weight being taken off it isn't actually jumping.

Nobody is saying the shaft is crawling up one side of the bearing sleeve. Seems Fletcher is headed in the right direction.