Peter Lindemann, The Mechanical Engine: A Re-Evolution of Bessler's Wheel

[rlortie]

Gentleman,

Peter Lindemann has responded with a reply regarding my release of our confidential agreement.

Below is a copy of his letter which I shall break down and respond to, paragraph by paragraph.

The article was written before you ran your tests, which is why "your efforts" are not mentioned.  As far as I am concerned, your preliminary tests did not constitute a "fair trial" of the ideas, since you were unwilling to meet with me or give me any input into the tests you ran.  This is why I believe the statement in the article is still correct.  The design is "unproven" either way.  Also, you made NO contribution to the ideas as they are represented in the article.

As to why my efforts are not mentioned is not a problem. As to my efforts I feel I did give it a fair trial and responded accordingly. The fact that I did not meet with you is twofold. First I wish to keep any personal bias from influencing an analytical research procedure. Second: IMO by the time a meet could have been scheduled I had ascertained that it was not cost effective to discuss a dead horse.

True I made no contribution or claim to the idea. I only stated that my findings were of negative results. The primary problem as reported to you was that the pendulums must have a force exceeding the ratchet levers weight to engage, thus the ratchet lever mus be able to retain the pendulum. Centrifugal force on the roller cam of said lever will overcome this delicate balance releasing the pendulum prematurely. That is providing it ever obtains a point of latch which as Hans describes it will not achieve. 

The article, in its final form, is dated January 29, 2007.  This is the exact text of the article I have released.  I first contacted you on February 5, 2007 and sent you a copy of this exact article on the following day.  I have all of the emails of our correspondence in my files.  We also spoke on the phone and I specifically stated I wished to come to visit you so we could work out the fine details of the design.

Thanks for the occurred time reference. I can not verify as all records were destroyed as  per your wish. Peter you can come visit me anytime you wish, As for working out the final design, I felt would be a waste of time and expense. I did not and do not see any fine details to work out. It is your design,  I am not sold on it, I ran conclusive tests on the idea that convinced me is would not work.  I am not saying it will not work in general, it would not work for me!

Now that you have "Free sourced" the design, I can leave it up to those of interest to confirm or repute my findings. I have no 'think-tank' to offer on this design. 

Against my wishes, you ran some quick tests and told me that it didn't work, and that it was of no use for me to come visit

.

You may refer to my tests as 'quick' by your time. I gave it a fair and unbiased  analytical objective test using empirical experience of past education. My reputation for doing so is why I assumed you accepted the referral you received  bringing me to your attention. An experienced  hands on approach does not require a hypothesis, or pages of math,  Your design was sufficient and left no questions about its build or method of operation.  

If this is what you mean by "your efforts" than you are, of course, free to speak your truth.  But quite honestly, I can't imagine what you believe you are due to "receive recognition" for, other than running a few failed tests that I never saw and have no idea if they were related to my designs at all.

Thank you! and as you say I do not deserve or want recognition for your design, I only questioned the statement;

As of this writing, the Mechanical Engine has not been built and tested. The purpose of publishing the design “unproven” is to encourage its broad circulation among researchers, worldwide, without the burden of making claims and presenting proofs.

You have now explained this, by stating it was written one month before you contacted me. I wish now to claim that that the design has been researched to a point that  IMO of not being viable for farther analysis.  Once again I am not stating that the machine is a non-runner, this is my opinion and should not dampen the spirits of any enthusiast wishing to find out for themselves.
 

You told me that your simple, preliminary tests suggested to you that the design "didn't work" because the weights would just fly all the way out and stay on the perimeter.  But, to my knowledge, you never built the whole machine, or attempted to run it slow enough so that this phenomena did NOT occur.  Since proper function of the machine depends on the weights being able to spring back toward the center, your report that they "don't" simply indicated to me that you did not take the time to either understand the machine or attempt to test it in its "operating window".

I believe I carried the test far enough to observe that between the pendulums verses the ratchet roller arms there enough contention between Centrifugal force and Centripetal to negate functional operation.  Providing the  pendulum swing gained the required azimuth to lock into the ratchet, the roller cams effected by CF would allow it to unlock prematurely. A lower rpm of the embodiment and you lose the pendulum reciprocating cycle.

In our last phone call, we decided to end our efforts on the project.  I asked you to destroy your files and you agreed to.  I also wish to acknowledge that you have honored your commitment to keep the design confidential up until now.  Thank you.

In all fairness, Ralph, you are welcome to tell people that I contacted you with the design (as published) in February of 2007, and that you ran some preliminary tests which lead you to believe "whatever you believe".  If, however, you wish to tell people that "it doesn't work", I believe you are being unfair.  On the other hand, if you tell people about the tests you ran and your results, I have no problem with that.  You see, I believe your tests indicate that it will work IF the speed is restrained, so we have a difference of interpretation on your test results.  Also, if you have worked with the ideas since then, and you have made your own designs based on mine as a starting place, then simple state these facts and publish whatever you have done that is genuinely YOURS.

With due respect I thank you. I am not saying it does not work, only that my opinion differs, I have not worked with the idea nor have I made any designs based on your concept. I have nothing to report either as a follow-up or augmentation of your design. My own work is discussed by telephone, and private mail. I/we will publish when the time is right!  Remember, most of my work is based on confidential submitters which you have complimented me on for living up to my oath and integrity.

Just don't forget, both Veljko Milkovic, John Collins and others received copies of this article BEFORE I sent it to you, so you would be unwise to try to claim any credit for what is published in my article titled The Mechanical Engine.As long as you report honestly what happened, I have no problem with it.

In that respect you need not worry or give caution, having made an opinionated denouncement of the machine, why would I wish to claim any part of it? My only point is to clarify that the machine has been tested since your letter was written.

I will continue to advise and assist anyone wishing to pursue this concept in any  way that I can assist. A  pessimist and and optimist make for innovative debate.

Regards, and hopefully closing on a mutual understanding.

Ralph

[spinner]

G'day all,

Will NOT work. The position of the pendulum in segment 3 is not achievable with the device as drawn. The energy imparted to the spring is insufficient.

Hans von Lieven

Yes. Hans is  TOTALLY wright.... And Wattsup was the first to point out the " 3rd section problem"....
No further comment needed....


Mr. Lindemann,
Your document  is a good read (for the Bessler enthusiasts like me..., however, it doesn't "hold water"...
As simply as that. OK???

Cheers!

[mondrasek]

I took the 3rd section drawing to only be representative of what happened before.  NOT what will happen in that exact point in the rotation.  Lindemann states that he thinks the release, swing, return bounce, and catch on the ratchet must all occur within a 45 degree span of the wheel's rotation.  I would think it would/should/must occur in an even much smaller span of rotation.  The entire swing motion of the weights, from release to latch, would actually occur at the point of rotation shown approximately at the 2nd section and a few degrees after.  Of course the cam would have to be modified to allow for this to happen.

I believe this idea would benefit highly from a 2D simulation.  Is anyone working on one?

Thanks,

M.

[hansvonlieven]

I realise this Mondrasek, It does not matter though, my comments still stand.

Hans von Lieven

[mondrasek]

The position of the pendulum in segment 3 is not achievable with the device as drawn. The energy imparted to the spring is insufficient.

Hans,

I agree that the position of the weight shown in segment 3 appears to be a bit out of reach per the provided diagrams of the design.  But if you assume the wheel to be moving very slowly, and the release of the weighted pendulum is timed such that the weight is at 9 o'clock with respect to it's pivot point, would it not come back and catch somewhere on the ratchet, if not as far as drawn?  Again, assuming the cam was such that the ratchet lever also reset almost immediately after the pendulum released?

Thanks,

M.