Johann Bessler information

[fletcher]

Hi Hans .. an excellent idea you have there - the contemporary tilting bird toy with partial linear pendulum action does indeed act in a similar fashion to C & D [the hammermen] of the toy page - I too wondered how you made the association with the hand drawn figure at the bottom of the toy page - I assume you think it looks somewhat like a pendulum bob of sorts - John has speculated before that it possibly was an after thought in an attempt to further strengthen his claim of priority should his secret be discovered prematurely, so it was obviously an important addition with a clear purpose in mind.

I have a copy of John Collins MT which faithfully reproduces Bessler's woodcuts [used for printing purposes] - I can tell you that it is virtually indistinguishable from Bill McMurtry's [ovyyus, on BW.com, or at www.orffyre.com] coral draw rendition - to all intensive purposes it very much resembles a child spinning top [string wound], IMO.

N.B. it appears it could be a whistling variety, though some say that the exterior markings resemble an eye, though for what purpose he would mark it like that I have no idea, other than to pointedly say "information for those with eyes able to see" - "for your eyes only", in contemporary terms, aka, a discerning mind - JMO's.

The rather more obvious conclusion to draw is that it represents a component of Cp forces & inertia as necessary for the functioning of his wheels - many feel that this is the correct interpretation, assuming that the figure is indeed a spinning top - so I would also be interested in your thoughts after having studied the woodcut reproduction - if you don't want to lay out a few dollars for John's book then perhaps the Kassel library can oblige ?

[Dgraphic911]

Members only section of BW, which most of you now are

Al & Hans, bills scan of mt 138, at bottom of this page.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=17250#17250.


@hans, i'd be very interested in  your translation of the inscription and the resemblance to writing style of bessler. Is it even him?

Or was this just a test board that was carved on to test skill/practice. And now its the holy grail of bessler clues.

[utilitarian]

Surprisingly I was aware of all that and you are not the first to argue the point.  Oddly, you acknowledge that Bessler may have had a working wheel, so how do you explain it - or can't you even be bothered to try?

John

I can neither prove nor disprove that Bessler had a working wheel, since I was not there and did not have a chance to examine it.  If he had one that works, it was not based on gravity, but something else.  A gravity wheel alone can never work.

Furthermore, have you even considered what water and wind are?  Water power is directly derived from gravity, as it is merely falling water.  So to compare water and gravity makes no sense.   And to call falling water a conservative force is ridiculous.  You have waves of molecules transferring their kinetic energy to the wheel, that is all.

Wind is not much different.  It is affected not only by gravity but atmospheric pressure and other factors, but the end result is the same - series of molecules transferring their kinetic energy. You cannot compare it to a force like magnetism or gravity.

If you are aware of all these arguments, I am surprised you do not have a better answer for them.

[Alexioco]

I can neither prove nor disprove that Bessler had a working wheel, since I was not there and did not have a chance to examine it.  If he had one that works, it was not based on gravity, but something else.  A gravity wheel alone can never work.

Furthermore, have you even considered what water and wind are?  Water power is directly derived from gravity, as it is merely falling water.  So to compare water and gravity makes no sense.   And to call falling water a conservative force is ridiculous.  You have waves of molecules transferring their kinetic energy to the wheel, that is all.

Wind is not much different.  It is affected not only by gravity but atmospheric pressure and other factors, but the end result is the same - series of molecules transferring their kinetic energy. You cannot compare it to a force like magnetism or gravity.

If you are aware of all these arguments, I am surprised you do not have a better answer for them.

A gravity wheel alone can work, through the use of movable weights, and there are endless ways to make them move, so how can you possibly assume that its impossible for a pure gravity wheel? Have you tried every combination?

If weights in a wheel are positioned like so



Then the wheel has to move, now if those weights are kept like that as the wheel turns, the wheel will perpetuate, now get a second lot of weights to keep those weights up, the weights that keep those weights up can also move in way to keep the wheel over balanced...
There must be thousands of ways to do this and the answer will be very simple once known...

I mean, if you study it, the weights only have to move from the shaft to the rim and we have perpetual motion...

Maths and science are good, but they wont prove anything, but a creative mind will, then the maths can be looked at...

Alex

[utilitarian]

A gravity wheel alone can work, through the use of movable weights, and there are endless ways to make them move, so how can you possibly assume that its impossible for a pure gravity wheel? Have you tried every combination?

I do not have to try every combination.  Sadly, to make a gravity wheel spin, what comes down, must go up.  You can never get more energy from a falling object than what is required to lift it to the place where it started from, so after frictional losses, you will always come out in the red, no matter what combination you try.