A brief story of a hunt for incessant motion.
by Donald E. Simanek
Popular histories too mostly benefaction incessant suit machines
as “freaks and curiosities” of engineering nonetheless revelation us customarily how they
were ostensible during a time. They also destroy to surprise us that even in the
earliest story of scholarship and engineering, many persons were means to see
the futility and unsteadiness of attempts to grasp incessant motion.
Sometimes a sold device comes to us with a label, such as “Bishop Wilkins’
magnetic incessant suit machine.” Popular articles leave a clarity that
the contriver believed it was a incessant suit machine.
In fact, unequivocally mostly a device was presented and described to
illustrate a futility of a query for incessant motion.
GIF by Hans-Peter Gramatke
with circuitous spokes.
Bhaskara’s Wheels. The initial documented incessant suit machines were described by a Indian
author Bhaskara (c. 1159). One was a circle with containers of mercury
around a rim. As a circle turned, a mercury was ostensible to pierce within
the containers in such a approach that a circle would always be heavier on one
side of a axle. Perhaps this was not so many a unsentimental offer as an
illustration of Indian cyclical philosophy. The guess reappears in Arabic
writings, one of that contained 6 incessant suit devices. From the
Islamic universe a guess reached Europe.
Villard de Honnecourt was inherited in a late 12th century and
probably lived and worked in a north of France from 1225 to 1250.
His sketchbook of 33 vellum leaves with 250 drawings
has survived, and now is in a Bibliiothèque Nationale in Paris.
These uncover designs for churches, catapults mechanisms and machines.
Villard is mostly called an architect, nonetheless we know of no structure that
he designed, or that is attributed to him. He trafficked a lot, nonetheless we are
not certain what he did for a living.
The many distinguished of his appurtenance designs was for a
perpetual suit wheel.
It was an overbalanced circle with hinged hammers or mallets
equally spaced around a rim. The pattern displays obscure perspective.
The circle is indeed ostensible to be perpendicular to a support and to the
horizontal axle. It also shows unsymmetrical spacing of a furnish pivots around
the wheel. Perhaps it was dictated as “schematic only”. The tip two
hammers in sold seem inconsistent. Compared to Villard’s other drawings,
this one is singularly “sketchy” and weakly executed.
Villard’s outline (translated) is:
Many a time have crafty workmen attempted to plan a circle that should
spin of itself; here is a approach to make such a one, by means of an disproportionate number
of mallets, or by quicksilver (mercury).
The anxiety to quicksilver (mercury) indicates that Villard was informed with the
Bhaskara device, whose pattern had reached Europe.
Villard claimed his appurtenance would be useful for sawing timber and
Villard’s blueprint shows 7 hammers, and he insisted
on an peculiar (uneven) array of hammers, explaining
…there will always be 4 on a downward side of a circle and customarily 3 on a ceiling side; so a racket or bag will always tumble over to a left
as it reaches a top, ad infinitum.
But, possibly a array of hammers is peculiar or even, such a circle comes to
rest quickly. This pattern was copied many times, mostly with an even array of hammers.
Mariano di Iacopo, called Taccola (Siena, 1382-1458?) was one of a initial artist-engineers who wrote illustrated texts of engineering designs, regulating drawings effectively as a core of communication. Living in a time of visit wars, he was actively intent in a farrago of troops and respectful engineering projects.
Model of Taccola’s wheel.
Taccola’s blueprint of an
On this page of his drawings we see designs for machines to crack fortifications, and superimposed on those is a vast depiction of an overbalanced circle with hinged articulated sections. This was a device substantially apparent to engineers in this generation of history, deriving from Arabian sources.
Leonardo da Vinci
Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519) was a antecedent “Renaissance Man”.
His talents enclosed art, engineering, music, physics, and mathematics. His
famous Notebooks (a collection of drawings and reason on lax manuscript
pages) were mostly confused “notes” to himself that he never put into
a format for scold publication. These embody ideas and designs from
and some strange ones, nonetheless denote of that were which.
Leonardo was never bashful about proclaiming his many talents, nonetheless he mostly started
projects he never finished.
Leonardo’s famous criticism comparing incessant suit seekers to alchemists
is mostly quoted. “Oh, ye seekers after incessant motion, how many vain chimeras
have we pursued? Go and take your place with a alchemists.” The final reference
is to “seekers after gold”, that during smallest one translator has misinterpreted
Leonardo unequivocally delicately analyzed several versions of a overbalanced wheel
with relocating weights, and showed given they would not work.
Moreover, we competence set yourself to infer that by equiping such a circle with
many balances, any part, however small, that incited over as a result
of percussion would unexpected means another change to fall, and by this the
circle would mount in incessant movement. But by this we would be deceiving
yourself… As a tie of a complicated physique is over from a center
of a wheel, a revolving transformation of a circle spin a focus will become
some-more difficult, nonetheless a ground appetite competence not vary. [From Dircks (1861)]
This final criticism is generally perceptive. In complicated denunciation it says that
as a weight moves over from a revolution axis, a gravitational torque
on it is greater, nonetheless a impulse of sluggishness of a circle is simultaneously
increased, creation a gravitational torque reduction effective in augmenting or
sustaining suit of a wheel. The net benefit is zero.
Leonardo’s drawings of incessant suit wheels.
Leonardo’s water-lifting study.
Is it incessant motion?
Was Leonardo’s criticism above meant as a ubiquitous defamation of all forms
of incessant motion? Maybe not, for on cover pages describing methods of
water he includes nonetheless criticism dual drawings of unfit self-acting
pumps. They uncover H2O being carried by Archimedean screws, send onto the
top of a waterwheel, that in spin drives a screws.
These were famous as “recirculation mills” and uncover adult in many
compiled porfolios of mechanisms. If Leonardo didn’t fully
understand a function of water, he was not alone, for many misconceptions
about hydraulics persisted until a 17th century. Even some unsentimental engineers
thought H2O had self-motive power, or a “life of a own”.
The concepts of force, appetite and transformation were not polished until a early
19th century. Leonardo’s meditative about these matters was still largely
Aristotelian, as these examples [translation by Edward MacCurdy] illustrate:
Force is a devout capacity, an invisible appetite that is ingrained by
random assault in all bodies that are witheld from their natural
inclination… [Force] always sets itself conflicting healthy desires.
Weight is element and force is spiritual… They are mostly producers one
The object has substance, shape, movement, radiance, feverishness and generative power;
and these qualities all emanate from itself nonetheless diminution.
Aristotelian scholarship reason that things in a heavens were ideal and
incorruptable. Therefore this final criticism about a object is unchanging with
Aristotelian thinking, and suggests that Leonardo had no source of anything
like a ubiquitous element of charge of energy.
Many of Leonardo’s drawings of machines were unreal or even unworkable
as he depicts them. Most were never built or tested by him. Some were not
his strange ideas, nonetheless were ordinarily famous in his time and progressing times.
We mostly can’t establish possibly a sold device enclosed in his notebooks
was of his possess design, or of someone else, and we can’t always know whether
Leonardo deliberate it applicable or practical.
Drawing by Burton Lee Potterfield.
From The Perpetual Motion Machine
of Mark Antony Zimara
By G. Kasten Tallmadge.
Isis, Vol. 33, No. 1, 8-14. Mar., 1941.
Mark Anthony Zimara (1460?-1523?), was an academic, healthy philosopher, physician, astrologer and alchemist; interests standard of academics of his time. He published a erudite work on production and metaphysics in 1518, in that he describes (without pictures) Directions for Constructing a Perpetual Motion Machine nonetheless a use of Water or a Weight.
Construct a carried circle of 4 or some-more sides, like a circle of a windmill, and conflicting to it dual or some-more absolute bellows, so organised that their breeze will spin a circle swiftly. Connect to a periphery of a wheel, or to a core (whichever a builder competence consider better), an instrument that will work a bellows as a circle itself turns (this will be an respect to a skill of a maker). It will occur that a breeze that comes from a circle to rotate, and that a bellows themselves, operated by a rotating wheel, will blow perpetually. This, perchance, is not absurd, nonetheless is a starting indicate for questioning and finding that high thing, incessant motion, a starting indicate that we have not review of anywhere, conjunction do we know of any one who has worked it out. [Tr. by G. Kasten Tallmadge.]
This is an early instance of a “boostrap” element of incessant motion. [The multiple of Archimedian screw and water-wheel was an progressing example.] Device A drives device B that in spin drives A. But it was not a final focus of a principle, nonetheless it should have been. Note that Zimara claims this to be his strange idea. Zimara leaves to others a wily problem of conceptualizing a involuntary linkage between bellows and windmill, and he admits that he knows no one who has finished such a thing work. Of that we can be certain.
Zimara’s outline contained no drawing. The blueprint here is an artist’s illusory interpretation, with some geometric engineering flaws that, even if corrected, would not concede a device to work.
Agostino Ramelli (1531-ca. 1600) published in 1588 a vast foilo collection Treasury of a resourceful machines of a eminent and famous Captain Agostino Ramelli with content in both Italian and French. It contained 195 minute plates with concomitant commentary. One, pattern 43, attracts a attention. At initial demeanour customarily a floating H2O circle for lifting H2O from a stream (a common device of a time), some-more crafty conference shows that it has within a waterwheel two incessant suit devices, a circle of Honnecort, and a curved-compartment wheel, both being ideas from a Orient around Arabia. Ramelli explains:
You should know that a interior of this circle was finished to greatfully a lady who requested me to do it given he guess that given a stream of a stream was too delayed it should be aided by a wheel. Thus anyone can make use of it if he judges it suitable.
So, if we need some-more power, customarily supplement a perpetual-motion wheel, or improved yet, supplement dual of them! Ramelli’s final judgment contingency be interpreted as tongue-in-check, indicating that he doesn’t consider a additional wheels unequivocally help, nonetheless as he was building this for a client, who was profitable for it, a enthusiast gets what he wants. We know zero about Ramelli’s personality, or possibly he had a clarity of humor, nonetheless we can’t assistance meditative this blueprint was his tiny joke.
Closer conference of a strange cast shows a innermost partial of a circle has curved-wall compartments, with something (water, pebbles, lead shot?) in any compartment. Such wheels were afterwards common (though inefficient) inclination for lifting water, driven by a stream of a river. It was called a Persian Wheel, a horn-drum, or De La Faye’s wheel. The same pattern shows adult in stand-alone self-motive circle designs. But in this picture, a core partial of a circle is clearly not being driven by H2O in a river.
Two versions of a Persian
Bhaskara incessant suit wheel.
Vittorio Zonca’s mill
Vittorio Zonca (1568-1602). In his folio “Novo Teatro di Machine et
Edificii”, (Padua, 1607) Zonca shows a vast copperplate cast of a huge
pipe for lifting water. It had a large, hermetic inverted U-tube with larger
diameter on one side. The figure shows a incomparable tube (A) on a left emptying
water during a aloft spin than a H2O intake on a right. This H2O then
powered a craft turbine during a bottom, that drives a millwheel for
grinding grain. The hermetic pier during a tip was to promote a initial
filling of a tube with water.
For wish of a improved name, we call this a “perverted siphon”, nonetheless it doesn’t
work as a siphon. (It’s so tough to name inclination that don’t work.) Didn’t folks
in a 17th century know that siphons can customarily lift H2O over an elevation
if a outlay tube’s opening is lower than a submit H2O level?
Perhaps not. Roman engineers had successfully used H2O tubes or pipes to
transport H2O over hills, nonetheless a outlay was always reduce than a input
water level. These tubes
were a final review for engineers, for a peak of a tube could not be higher
than 10 meters above a H2O spin during a submit end.
It was formidable to sign a tubes so
that atmosphere would not trickle into a tip of a tube and eventually form an air
pocket that broken a smoothness of a H2O and halted H2O flow.
Perhaps some felt that it was customarily such unsentimental “engineering difficulties”
that prevented a use of siphons to indeed broach H2O to a higher
Remember that a purpose of windy vigour in these inclination wasn’t
understood. So given did a H2O stay in a inverted U-tube? This was explained
by Aristotle’s element that “nature abhors a vacuum”, that is, estuary will
not concede a opening in a tip of a tube and will do whatever necessary
to forestall it. This explained given a suction siphon could lift a mainstay of water
(but didn’t explain given it could customarily lift H2O about 33 feet).
Siphon and perverted siphon.
What, then, was a prevalent bargain of a siphon, that led to the
supposition that it could work “in reverse”, rasing H2O from a reduce to
a aloft level? First, given does a normal siphon assent H2O upsurge from
the aloft finish to a reduce end? In a box of a uniform hole tube
with one finish reduce than a other, a low finish has a longer length, measured
from a top, and therefore contains a incomparable weight of H2O than does
the shorter tube. A lamp balance, moves downoward on a heavier side. By
analogy, one competence assume that H2O moves toward a reduce finish of a siphon
because that side is heavier. This would be unchanging with a prevailing
view that when something is heavier on one side, this causes suit toward
the heavier side. In fact, this is a executive guess behind many incessant motion
So it is customarily a brief judicious step for a crafty operative to suspect that
you could make a shorter side enclose some-more H2O than a prolonged side simply
by creation a shorter side incomparable in diameter. It would enclose incomparable weight
of water, so H2O should upsurge toward that side, even if that side were emptying
at a aloft elevation. The water, however, refuses to oblige.
flawed reason is displayed by a self-flowing flask (later famous as
the hydrostatic paradox). The incomparable weight on a left army H2O down
and around a slight neck where a weight is less, and afterwards it flows out
the entrance during a tip to feed a H2O in a vase. The “paradox”
was, that nonetheless this seemed ideally reasonable to many persons, a darn
thing customarily didn’t work that way. In fact, it worked in suitability with another
Aristotelian element “water seeks a possess level”. The H2O levels were
equal left and right, and stayed that way.
These problems were many discussed in Medieval and Renaissance times,
when Aristotelian production still dominanted thought,
but scholars were commencement to question, and even modify, some Aristotelean
notions. Unfortunately many of this was finished by Aristotelian methods: the
use of pristine analytic explanation nonetheless probability to experimentation. So practical
engineers were left to consternation how things unequivocally worked, and mostly operated
with unsound or improper unpractical tools.
Here’s where engineers ought to have paid some-more courtesy to a ancient sources.
Aristotle settled that “water seeks a possess level” and Heron of Alexandria had
described a scold operation of a siphon with a opening reduce than
the estuary and a hole of a pipes carrying no change on the
operation. Cf. Heron’s “Pneumatica”.
Even Galileo ostensible a “abhorrence of a vacuum” principle. In 1643 Evangelista
Toricelli (1608-1647) showed experimentally that a vigour of a atmosphere
could lift a mainstay of mercury customarily about 30 inches, and if mercury were
used to fill a four-foot prolonged tube, and a tube inverted with a open end
in a mercury reservoir, a mercury mainstay would be customarily about 33 inches
above a fountainhead level, with
a “Toricellian vacuum” above it. A mainstay of H2O could customarily be carried about
33 feet in a same manner.
Only in a late 17th century were these misunderstandings of H2O pressure
resolved. Pascal’s element showed that a vigour during any indicate in a container
of glass depends customarily on tallness from that indicate to a surface, and not
on a hole or figure of a container.
Robert Fludd (1574-1637), a Paracelsian physician, alchemist, astrologer,
hermetic philosopher, mysterious and member of a Brotherhood of a Rosy Cross,
published a folio of his works in 1618 (in Latin). It enclosed many
descriptions of machines, some practical, some fanciful. These included
water pumps of several kinds.
The pattern subsequent left is mostly attributed to Fludd, and many books leave
the clarity that Fludd believed it would work. But a character is not
consistent with other cinema of Fludd’s time.
In “De Simila Naturae”
Fludd does plead a appurtenance shown subsequent right, that he describes:
Of another useful invention for lifting H2O easily, by that a certain
Italian ventured to exaggerate that he had detected a incessant motion.
This due to use
incessant suit to
beget useful work
(driving a millstone).
An Italian’s recirculation mill.
Fludd De Simia Nature 1624.
The mainstay during a right is a siphon with a sequence of leather disks (A).
The H2O carried by a siphon drives a overshot H2O wheel, which,
through several gears, drives a pump. Fludd is blunt in his opinion of
the application of this device.
The italian, cheated by his possess thoughts, recognised that as much
water would be carried by this siphon as would keep a circle perpetually
in motion; given he pronounced that some-more force was compulsory during a extremity
of this appurtenance than during a center; nonetheless given he distributed the
proportions of appetite wrong, he was cheated in practice.
Fludd has no wish that any such appurtenance could achieve
It is unneccessary to indicate out that this appealing element has
been attempted several times, by people who mostly were completely
inexperienced in involuntary principles, and who did not see a critical error
which lies in these devices, and therefore squandered effort, income and time
on aged and meaningless ideas.
The painting during a left, from a 1600s, shows a incessant motion
scheme used for generating useful work nonetheless any submit work. Most progressing inclination before a 16th century did not explain work output. Zonca’s recirculation indent and Ramelli’s H2O circle were also dictated to furnish useful work, or to boost a work finished by healthy sources (like issuing water).
Athanasius Kircher (1601-1680), a German Jesuit who taught
in Rome. His many interests were wide-ranging, and enclosed mathematics,
geography, astronomy, optics, and draw (de Arts Magnet). He designed
and built involuntary automatic song instruments automatic by a pegged rotating
drum, and wrote song for them. He also designed a appurtenance to harmonise music.
He was conjectural to be rather of a showman and a prankster.
Kircher’s folio includes a water
wheel pushing a force siphon to lift H2O to a tip of a wheel, and designs
for captivating spheres and wheels branch ceaselessly in response to fixed
Kircher’s circle and sphere.
One pattern shows a H2O cycle, according to one renouned theory.
Water is sucked down whirlpools in lakes, passes by fissures in
rock and by capillary transformation rises to a topes of plateau where it
gushes onward in springs. These springs are a source of towering streams,
which in spin feed a lakes. At this generation of story many could not
accept that all H2O in streams and rivers could have a start from
rainfall. Also, many still felt that H2O had some inherited capacity
to arise conflicting gravity. Perhaps they should have left behind to Aristotle,
who knew that “Water seeks a possess level.”
Kircher’s H2O cycle.
Somerset, Sixth Earl and Second Marquis of Worcester (1601-1667) published
in 1663 Century of Names and Scantlings of Such Inventions as during Present
I Can Call to Mind Have Tried and Perfected customarily refered to as A
Century of Inventions. Somerset was a distinguished open figure who was
interested in science, mechanics and arithmetic and finished useful suggestions
and improvements for them, generally for a use of steam as a ground power.
He has some explain to being a contriver of a steam engine. The PDF of his book is giveaway online, and positively value no more.
In a 56th essay of his book, he describes an overbalanced
wheel in some detail. The strange book edition
of A Century of Inventions gives no pattern of a described machine.
[The pattern that is frequently published as Somerset’s overbalanced wheel
was published later, by Desaguliers, and dates from 1720]. The blueprint reveals
nothing, for it shows no some-more than a vast enclosed circle with a relatively
small axle, to that a wire is wrapped in sequence to lift weights and perform
other involuntary work. Here’s Somerset’s description, that creates no such claims:
56. To yield and make that all a weights of a forward side of a wheel,
shall be eternally over from a center, than those of a mounting
side, and nonetheless equal in array and heft to one side as a other. A most
implausible thing, if not seen; nonetheless attempted before a late King (of blessed
memory) in a Tower by my directions, dual unusual ambassadors accompanying
his Majesty, and a Duke of Richmond, and Duke of Hamilton, with many of
a Court attending him. The circle was fourteen feet over, and had forty
weights of fifty pounds apiece. Sir William Balfore, afterwards Lieutenant of the
Tower, can transparent it, with several others. They all saw, that no sooner
these good weights upheld a hole line of a reduce side, nonetheless they
hung a feet over from a center; nor no progressing upheld a hole line
of a tip side, nonetheless they hung a feet nearer. Be gratified to decider of the
That’s it. That’s all he said. There’s no explain that a circle incited by itself, customarily that it was always heavier on one side. But many who write about incessant suit assume that it did spin due to a overbalance. Seekers of incessant suit are chasing down a passed finish highway here.
It’s too bad we don’t have an criticism of a King’s greeting to this sore demonstration. The puzzling “An implausible thing, if not seen…” is frequently quoted, as if it were somehow profound.
Ernst Elias Bessler (Councillor) Orffyreus (1680-1745), a German Pole,
had been Councillor to a Prince of Hessen-Kassel (Germany).
He complicated divinity and medicine, nonetheless his interests
focused on mechanics, utterly clockmaking. He claimed to have experimented
with 300 opposite incessant suit machines, finally creation dual working
perpetual suit machines between 1712 and 1719. When a supervision of
Hessen-Kassel imposed a taxation on a income he collected from those who came to
see his circle (which he gave to charity), he broken (dismantled) a circle in a fit of
anger. Bessler had an rambling temperament, swapping between
melancholy and good anger.
Bessler published, in 1717, a poster (in German and Latin) patrician Perpetuum
Mobile Triumphans by Orffyreus. In it he complains about his critics
and opponents: those in a systematic world, persons in high authority,
the open in general, and a press. At this time he enjoyed a preference of the
Prince of Hessen-Kassel, who supposing him camp and other support. Bessler
claimed he had succeeded in creation “a passed element not customarily pierce itself,
but lift weights and perform work”, and he announced that “even a many surpassing mathematicians and a many schooled people have ceaselessly depressed into error” in their appraisals of his invention. There’s some law in that.
Of a 300 machines Bessler pronounced he constructed, 4 were publicly
demonstrated and observers gave minute accounts of them. Some values in
the following list should be treated as approximate,
for opposite accounts give slightly
differing numbers. Some accounts give a magnitude in Flemish ells (27 in),
some in Leipzeg ells (22.3 in), some in Rhenish feet (31.4 cm) and some in
inches and feet, and who knows what some of a translators
did when converting measurements. The wing was a section customarily used for
measuring cloth, and there were also English els and Scottish ells, all
different. We need not bitch about these matters here, for a customarily purpose
of this list is to give a ubiquitous clarity of a stretch of a machines.
In 1717 Bessler built his largest wheel, that a Landgrave of Hessen accessible to be assembled and set using in a hermetic and hermetic room, cumulative with the
Landgrave’s sign on Nov 12, 1717. On Nov 26, a room was non-stop and the
wheel found still running. The room was hermetic again, and not reopened until Jan 4,
1718, when a circle was found to be still running, apparently during a same speed it
had when started in November. Many came to observe this
machine with indebtedness and wonder. Bessler describes this circle as follows:
we put all in uninformed order, and began work in all probable haste, doing everything
in a demeanour of those we had already finished and destroyed, with customarily a few
changes in a magnitude of a so-named turning-wheel. For as a grindstone
competence be called a wheel, so competence a principal partial of my appurtenance be named.
The outmost partial of this circle is drawn over or lonesome with waxed linen
in a form of a drum. This cylindrical basement was 12 Rhenish feet in diameter,
a density from 15 to 18 inches, a core spindle 6 feet prolonged and 8 inches
in thickness. It is upheld in a transformation on dual forked steel balance-pegs,
any 1 in. thick; and a circle is plumb suspended. The transformation is
mutated by dual pendulums, as shown in a cast during a finish of this book.
The central structure of a circle is of a estuary according to a laws of
involuntary incessant motion, so organised that by likely weights once in
revolution they benefit force from their possess swinging, and contingency continue their
transformation as prolonged as their structure does not remove a position and arrangement.
Unlike all other automata, such as clocks or springs or other unresolved weights
that need circuitous adult or whose generation depends on a sequence that attaches
them, on a contrary, these weights are a essential tools and constitute
perpetuum mobile itself; as from them is retreived a concept movement
that they contingency practice so prolonged as they sojourn out of a core of gravity;
and when they come to be placed together, and so organised one conflicting another
that they can never obtain equilibrium, or a punctum quietus which
they perceptibly find in their wonderous rapid flight, one or other of them
contingency request a weight plumb to a axis, that in a spin will also
In this thoroughfare Bessler tells us that:
This circle was not self-starting; it indispensable a pull to get it moving. It could
work branch in possibly direction. His previous
wheels were self-starting, nonetheless customarily incited in one direction.
Bessler claimed it did not get a appetite from wound springs or falling
weights, as was common with automata and clockwork devices.
It had many relocating weights inside, organised with a purpose of gripping the
circle ceaselessly unbalanced.
Bessler had a repute as a unequivocally schooled clockmaker,
and such a vast circle can means flywheel suit for a unequivocally prolonged time.
Clocks could be finished to run a year nonetheless winding. Some speculated that
the circle had many compartments around a perimeter, any with a changeable weight
inside. Some even guess there competence be an animal or tiny chairman inside, but
I consider that conjecture can be dismissed.
Apparently customarily one other chairman had a payoff of observant partial of a interior of a wheel, Bessler’s patron, Karl, a Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel, and he was sworn to secrecy.
But did he see all inside, or customarily what Bessler wanted him to see?
It is not during all transparent possibly Karl saw all compartments open during the
same time. Did he demeanour during what competence be dark behind
the apparent involuntary details, into a behind row of a circle itself, or inside the
six-inch hole axle?
Consider magicians’ theatre illusions in that people and even animals can
be dark by crafty pattern of a cupboard or other theatre apparatus, and by the
simple plan of opening opposite tools of a box during opposite times.
Illustration from Bessler’s poster of 1715, before a Weissenstein wheel
was constructed. Side perspective on left, face perspective on right.
From Rupert Gould, Oddities pattern III.
Click on pattern for larger, clearer version.
Bessler’s wheels were connected to dual pendulums, driven by a wheel’s axle, and we can substantially accept his matter that they regulated a wheel’s speed. Some drawings uncover a wire wrapped around a incomparable axle, flitting to a pulley during a floor, and afterwards adult to a pulley nearby a roof, to that a bucket was attched. One wonders given a additional pulley was necessary, and given this wire passes by a hole in one of a honest circle supports. This hole would certainly break that support, and seems unnecessary. Clearly some sum are not to scale in these drawings, nonetheless a altogether scale is indicated by a order along a bottom corner of a drawing. (The units are Leipzig ells.) This painting above shows a stamping indent being driven on a left by pegs in a axle. It also shows a stop nearby a bottom corner of a wheel. Some illustations uncover a wire belt pushing an archimedean screw for lifting water.
Most accounts contend a bucket was a “70 bruise box of bricks”. This same figure is given for demonstrations of all of a several sized wheels. Yet no criticism casts guess on this, and zero tell of any independent measurements of a tangible weight. (I’ve seen one source that says one of Bessler’s wheels, branch during 50 rev/min carried 16kg (35.274 lb) a stretch of 1.5 m (4.9 feet)—somewhat some-more plausible values.) None discuss anyone indeed examining a bricks in a box to safeguard that they were solid. This is customarily one of many sum that seem a bit “fishy” and lead us to interpretation that a existent accounts of a open demonstrations are sadly deficient in critical information, and not as substantial as they competence seem on initial reading. Some who told this story competence have been duplicating others, and also exaggerating.
Some of a after wheels could spin in possibly direction, and they both carried and lowered this box of bricks while it was connected to a wheel. Whatever a box weighed, a appetite compulsory to lift it was mostly given behind on obscure it, so steady lifting and obscure is not utterly impressive.
The Landgrave hired healthy philosopher and operative Professor ‘s Gravensande of
Leyden (1688-1742) to examine a machine. He celebrated it (without being
allowed to demeanour inside) and described it in a minute to Sir Isaac Newton.
“… vale wheel, a kind of drum, lonesome over with board to forestall a inside from being seen. we have examined a axles and am resolutely swayed that zero from nonetheless a circle in a smallest contributes to a motion”.
We have no record that Newton ever replied. Newton disliked being a partial of
The Professor celebrated (as had others) that when a circle was stopped
and afterwards released, it would gradually resume a suit during a strange speed
within a few revolutions.
His minute seems to support a claims that a appurtenance was self-moving.
On conference that ‘s Gravensande had examined a machine
without his consent, Bessler again broken a machine, leaving
a summary on a wall observant that he had been forced to do this by the
impertinance of ‘s Gravensande. He shouldn’t have been so hasty, for
‘s Gravensande had customarily looked delicately during a wheel’s extraneous and a temperament supports, and
found zero questionable there.
Naturally, Bessler was suspected of rascal in this matter.
Unsubstantiated stories circulated that a
servant had hermetic an promise that in an adjoining room she had incited crank
to keep a circle in motion. This raises a apparent doubt of why
s’ Gravensande had not checked a adjoining room, for it competence have had more
than customarily a palm crankmechanisms that competence not have been noticed
or ostensible by a housemaid nonetheless competence have meant a lot to ‘s Gravensande,
had he seen them. Such allegations caused Bessler to erect his most
impressive appurtenance in a core of a room, good private from walls,
to reduce any suspicions. It’s difficult, if not impossible,
to decider a credit of a sum of such charges this prolonged after a fact.
It is equally unfit to decider a correctness and credit of observers who enthusiastically ostensible a demonstrations as explanation of incessant motion.
There’s no good reason to doubt that dishonesty was concerned in all Bessler’s demonstrations,
but accurately how it was achieved in any box can be no some-more than speculation.
Remember also that these inclination were finished in during smallest 4 opposite sizes and
were demonstrated in opposite places and under
different circumstances. While many outmost construction facilities are comparison in these, we have
no declaration that their interior mechanisms were a same in all cases. Deception competence good have taken opposite forms as resources changed.
It’s not formidable to postulate many ways that a open demonstrations of a wheels
could have been accomplished, for they were of brief generation (typically no some-more than a half hour) and did not need vast appetite output. In these cases a circle was celebrated in motion
throughout a brief demonstration, afterwards it was braked to a stop. It was afterwards restarted for
another demonstration, and infrequently a circle was carried off a supports and replaced,
or placed on another set of supports. Once a cylindrical lead weight was private for conference from within a circle and afterwards transposed by Bessler. Accounts contend it was
estimated to import 4 pounds, nonetheless do not contend possibly anyone nonetheless Bessler rubbed it, nor do they contend that anyone exclusively weighed it.
The many widely documented and discussed explanation was that in which
the using circle was placed in a palace room, a room totally sealed, guarded,
and non-stop after 10 days, to find a circle still running. The room was closed
again, and non-stop after 43 days, when a circle was again found running.
Most people ostensible it had been using ceaselessly for 53 daysnearly dual months.
During this time all doors and windows to a room where hermetic and sealed. The stone
walls were a feet thick. No one had any approach to determine that a circle was indeed branch during a whole time. The circle competence simply have been caused to stop after
the room was sealed, and started again customarily before a room was opened.
Also, there’s no declaration that this circle was of a same inner construction as
the wheels that had been used in other, some-more public, demonstrations.
Rather than being a convincing experiment, this raises guess that Bessler was
engaging in dishonesty of a kind used by theatre magicians. The sorcery occurs
out of sight, to censor a secret. And there’s no receptive reason for anything
to occur out of steer in this case.
- The sealing of a room contingency have been complete, so that no one could see
inside to determine that a circle was running. Otherwise there’d be no need
to open a room after 10 days to endorse that it was still running.
Why wasn’t a tiny window left open to acknowledge light, so that anyone
at any time could demeanour inside and endorse that it was running? After all, guards were
posted during a door, so this would not have compromised security. We have unequivocally good
reasons to be questionable that during a hermetic intervals, a circle was not turning.
- There’s no discuss that this circle achieved any work before, during or after this demonstration. The apparatus in a circle competence have been unequivocally opposite from that of a wheels used in a operative demonstrations. we find it extraordinary that many writers on this theme simply assume that this circle was accurately like a others, when that has no support in a chronological records.
- During demonstrations of all of Bessler’s prior wheels
observers remarked that a wheels were noisy.
The clatter of a weights inside a circle was clearly heard, and some reported hearing
“scratching noises” (like those of a firmly coiled spring?).
Could these noises not be listened even outward a hermetic room?
If these sounds were listened during a whole 53
days certainly someone would have cited this as crafty justification in preference of Bessler.
If a sounds stopped after a room was sealed, certainly someone would have
cited this as justification of fraud. But no one even mentions any sound.
Why was a room hermetic so firmly that no sound during all could be listened by one of a hermetic doors? Allowing some sound to be listened a whole 53 days would have been a elementary approach for Bessler to make a explanation more convincing.
Clearly Bessler constructed a conditions of this explanation to
hide his methods of deception. Had he been totally honest, he’d have provided
a continual routine for people to watch a circle in suit and hear a sound at
all times, still nonetheless permitting any outward influences on a wheel.
The fact that he did not yield for these elementary tests speaks eloquently to a suspicion
that he was intent in fraud.
What is unequivocally extraordinary is how many people currently still consider Bessler’s
machines competence indeed have been honest and that they were genuine perpetual
motion. Many difference have been clinging to Bessler apologetics, often
exhibiting skill during rationalisation any bit as resourceful as
While Bessler’s open activities get a many attention, and a justification of rascal is compelling, he competence during a same time have been intent in a frank query for incessant motion. He was operative on a book with 140 illustrations, an strange collection of incessant suit designs of his day and progressing times. There we find a overbalanced wheels of a orient, and even some elementary folk toys. He called it his “great dissertation on mechanics”. Bill McMurtry has these designs on his website
Maschinen Tractate, and he skeleton to redraw all of them (the originals are mostly in unequivocally bad condition), with translations of a concomitant text, to be finished accessible as a book. So extensive is this collection that we frequently get drawings from people who suspect they have invented a new incessant suit machine, that spin out to be teenager variations of one Bessler enclosed in this collection.
Jacob Leupold (1674 1727)
Jacob Leupold’s interests and talents focused on “mechanical things”. He was a builder of instruments for initial physics, a scientist, mathematician, teacher and economist. His unequivocally renouned and successful book, Theatrum Machinarum Generale (Leipsic, 1724) was a collection of mechanisms and machines of many kinds, and has been called a initial systematic research of involuntary engineering. It enclosed a pattern for a high vigour noncondensing steam engine, many like those built scarcely a century later. As with many book collections of mechanisms, he analyzed a common incessant suit wheel, unfortunately famous currently as “Leupold’s wheel” nonetheless Leupold didn’t invent it, and he unequivocally clearly announced that it couldn’t work, formed on his crafty analysis.
Excerpt from: Theatrum Machinarum Generale, Leipsic, 1724. p. 31-33.
The Perpetuum Mobile, or a appurtenance that runs nonetheless outmost appetite nonetheless stopping, as prolonged as element lasts and zero breaks, relocating itself, is so good famous by name currently that even a teenager craftsmen, even bootmakers and tailors, not customarily speak about it, nonetheless imagination they could make such a thing if they customarily had income and time. As this is something that many have searched for with good desire, time bid and cost, afterwards certainly it is perpetuum mobile.
And this enterprise is, even today, so deeply anchored in so many that they would rather let themselves be beaten to genocide than confess that they failed.
The reason is that these people have no substructure in mechanics. Many do not know how to calculate motions, and therefore, given of that, start construction formed on imagination and rambling experimentation. And so, to all who steadfastly hunt for incessant motion, we should tell them:
1. They should pattern it with a simplest components, as a some-more pinions, cogs and materials it contains, a reduction probability of success. And if success is not achieved with simplicity, it will not be achieved with combination machines.
Additionally, 2. No one shall start a work unless he has analyzed a appurtenance on paper: friction, rest, centrifugal effects of a tools relocating in circles toward a periphery, a distances; all being good totalled and calculated.
And, 3. Those who can't do these calculations and do not know a beliefs should refrain and leave a charge to others. They will not customarily remove time and money, nonetheless what is worse, will never find satisfaction. we could bring many examples.
Although, among many hundreds or even thousands of seekers, not one has ever found perpetuum mobile, not all of that bid was in vain, given many of them found their approach to mechanics who differently didn’t have that in mind. All they have schooled is that male can't grasp some-more in mechanics than God allows, and that with one bruise zero some-more than one bruise can be moved, nonetheless customarily kept in equilibrium. But if there should be more, afterwards some-more space and time contingency be available, and given of that, all those who wish to grasp more, as being probable with machines according to a beliefs of mechanics, should be characterized as examples of Dr. Becher’s “wise fools”.
The final divide suggests that Leupold satisfied that “you can’t get some-more work out than we put in”. Though he uses “pound” as a magnitude of work, we do not doubt that he was good wakeful of Archimedes’ law of a lever, in that dual opposite weights with opposite push arms can be in equilibrium.
Leupold’s criticism about a prerequisite of “more space and time” for achieving some-more than a laws of mechanics allow, suggests that he realizes that machines are singular by geometry, and that customarily by presumption a opposite geometry can one suppose circumventing those laws. But maybe we review too many into a mysterious comment.
Leupold was not claiming to have disproven a probability of incessant motion. Indeed, he had listened second palm accounts of Bessler’s demonstrations, and seemed to accept them.
Notwithstanding we reason that incessant suit is not an impossibility, as been shown to all a universe by Councillor Orffyreus, and attested by a elegant word of a Landgrave of Hesse Cassel, a king himself good grounded in a scholarship of mechanics, and who so minutely scrutinised and celebrated this smashing motion, that was with him on conference during dual months; all of that time he kept a appurtenance in a hermetic chamber.” [Dircks, vol 1, p. 22]
Dr. William Kenrick (1725?-1779), a author and satirist, published in 1770
“A Lecture on a Perpetual Motion,”
in that he describes a inventions of a Marquis of Worcester and Councillor
Oryffyreus, and other incessant suit ideas. Kenrick had been posterior this
chimera for utterly a while.
One class of a predecessor’s merit, however, we assume myself during least
entitled to, that of perserverance; it being now fifteen years given we first
intent in this underatking, that we have given followed with roughly unremitted
assiduity, and that not customarily during substantial rubbish of time and expense, but
underneath a consistent penance of conference it equally ridiculed by those
who do know, and by those who do not know, anything of a matter.
Kenrick is angry with mathematicians who claim to have proven the
impossibility of incessant motion, nonetheless Kenrick asserts that “No such
demonstration was ever published by any.” He describes a demonstrations
of a Marquis of Worcester, noting:
…though a circle was respectful adequate to spin about while his Majesty was
present, it could not be prevailed on to be so compliant in his absence.
The mathematicians avenged themselves of a brief delight of a mistaken
Marquis, nonetheless were equally mistaken themselves in meditative they had routed
a problem or that in sport down a jackal they had broken a lion.
The incessant suit survived; it has still a advocates; Professor
‘s Gravensande and John Bernoulli confirmed a practicability, a former
giving his testimony in preference of Orffyreus’ machine, after a prolonged and scrutinous
Bishop John Wilkins (1614-72) is substantially best famous as a owner and initial secretary to a British Royal Society (founded in 1660 and perceived a Royal Charter in 1662).
He gathered a book Mathematical Magick
during a generation in story when a “magical arts” were being overtaken by
“scientific and involuntary arts”, and people began to comprehend that
many things once guess enchanting could be ostensible by science.
Wilkins’ Magnetic Perpetual Motion.
Bishop John Wilkins.
Earlier, in a year 1600, William Gilbert’s book de Magnete appeared.
Readers were preoccupied with Gilbert’s accounts of his experiments with
magnetic lodestones, and these revelations of a new scholarship of magnetisim
fueled their imaginations. Some misunderstood and misapplied this new science. Johannes Kepler attempted (and discarded) many ideas to explain a suit of planets.
One of these was a supposition that a object was a outrageous magnet whose field
somehow kept a planets in motion. Anton Mesmer guess that magnets could
influence a tellurian body, and that they could send their “magnetic influence”
to a person, who could in spin broadcast it to others. Thus was inherited a notion
of “animal magnetism” and “mesmerism”.
Wilkins discusses a ‘difficulty’ of achieving incessant motion, and considers
in fact a device attributed by Schott (in his 1659 Thaumaturgus Physicus,
sive Magiae Universalis Naturae et Artis) to Johannes Taisnierus [Dircks, 1870,
p. 93]. It consists of dual slanted ramps, an iron ball, and a captivating lodestone
fastened during a top. [This was a “clad” lodestone, a healthy cube of magnetic
ore encased in an iron ball, such as were used in Gilbert’s experiments.] The
lodestone during a tip (A) pulled a round (F) adult a true ramp, where
it fell by a hole (B) to a reduce ramp, rolled down, and through
another hole (F) to a true ramp where it was pulled adult again. Clearly
this guess needs a lot some-more guess and work. Why doesn’t a round simply
remain during a top, reason strongly conflicting a bound magnet? And if it did
fall by a tip hole it would still be underneath a appealing influence
of a magnet during a top. It’s tough to suppose anyone who ever worked with
magnets holding this seriously, nonetheless many after inventors did, perplexing futile
variations. Even today, incessant suit enthusiasts hearing with fantastic
variations of “magnet motors” anticipating that new magnet record and stronger
magnets will make them “go”.
After a minute contention of unsentimental difficulties, Wilkins finally gets
to a bottom line, observant that “the bullet would not tumble down by the
hole, nonetheless rise to a stone.” But he still has some wish that such a device
might be finished to work:
So that zero of all these magnetical experiments that have been as yet
discovered, are sufficient for a fulfilment of a incessant motion, though
these kind of qualities seem many conducible unto it; and perhaps, hereafter,
it competence be constructed from them.
Sir William Congreve (1772-1829)
was a politician and inventor. His inventions enclosed a widely used troops rocket, a tone copy routine and a new steam engine design. In 1827, while convalescing from an illness, he devised a various of a classical prone craft and sequence incessant suit idea, that Simon Stevin had shown to be useless. Congreve used an prone plane, 3 beam rollers and a sequence of sponges!
The sponges at a left palm side were complicated given they were soaked
with H2O by capillary effects so causing an lunatic force
downwards. They were pulled by a fountainhead and afterwards adult a incline.
As they were pulled adult a incline, weights
moving along above them squeezed out a water, creation a sponges lighter.
A outline of this seemed in a Atlas (London) and this account
was reprinted in The Mechanic’s Magazine (London), both in 1827.
We can customarily assume possibly some attempted to build this, and were disappointed,
or possibly no one able of building it had a smallest certainty it could
work, so didn’t try. Later Sir William published, during his possess expense, a poster explaining and fortifying his possess certainty in this idea. Yet there’s no evidence
he ever built one to test. One wonders why, for he certainly could have
afforded materials and could have hired gifted mechanics to build
such a comparatively elementary machine.
References and additional reading:
When we initial became meddlesome in this subject, many of these references were rare, tough to find books. we was advantageous to have copies of them. Now  many of them are accessible as giveaway ebooks. Others competence be had in unequivocally inexpensive reprint editions. There’s now no forgive for any carefree incessant suit appurtenance contriver to be ignorant of a prolonged story of this subject.
Angrist, Stanley W. “Perpetual Motion Machines” in Scientific American,
Jan 1968. This essay is also in a Sci. Amer. reprint book.
Angrist, Stanley W. and Loren G. Hepler. Order and Chaos. Basic Books,
Collins, John. Perpetual Motion: An Ancient Mystery Solved?
Permo Publications, 1997-2005.
A story of Johann Bessler, gathered from strange sources.
Dircks, Henry. (1806-1873) Perpetuum Mobile, or a hunt for self-motive
appetite during a 17th 18th and 19th centuries. London, E. F. Spon,
16 Bucklersbury, 1861. Rogers and Hall Co., 1916.
Dircks, Henry. (1806-1873) Perpetuum Mobile, or a story of a search
for self-motive appetite from a 13th to a 19th century. London, E.
F. Spon, 48 Charing Cross, 1870.
Dircks, Henry. (1806-1873) Scientific Studies or Practical, in Contrast
With Chimerical Pursuits, Exemplified in Two Popular Lectures. I. The Life
of Edward Somerset, Second Marquis of Worcester, Inventor of a Steam Engine.
II. Chimeras of Science: Astrology, Alchemy, Squaring a Circle, Perpetuum
Mobile, Etc. London, E. F. N. Spon, 48 Charing Cross, S. W. 1869.
- Gardner, Martin Fads and Fallacies in a Name of Science. Dover, 1952, 1957. This is a classic. This book has no section on incessant motion, nonetheless Gardner’s comments on a psychology of pseudoscientists and cranks request equally good to many incessant motionists. See a subsequent anxiety for his comments on incessant motion.
Gardner, Martin. Perpetual Motion: Illusion and Reality, Foote Prints,
(house repository of Foote Mineral Co., Exton, Pennsylvania.) Vol. 47, No. 2, 1984, p. 21-35.
- Herring, Daniel Webster (1850- ) Foibles and Fallacies of Science. Van Nostrand, 1924.
Hiscox, Gardner D., M.E.
Mechanical Appliances and Novelties of Construction.
Normal W. Henley Publ. Co., 1927.
Chapter 23, accessible online, is a miraculous apparatus of about 60 unsuccessful involuntary devices, with pictures. Inventors’ names, dates, and apparent numbers are customarily not given, nor does this source give reasons given a inclination don’t work. Hiscox’s preliminary suggests that systematic opinion is divided on a probability of incessant motion. But his outline of many of these inclination reveals that he has no doubt about their impossibility, and he seems to be observant “Of march we can see given these apparently won’t work, so we don’t need to spell it out.” Alas, that
is not during all apparent to many inventors, even today, who peddle teenager variations of these aged and discredited ideas, entirely assured that they must work. If we have customarily invented a clearly miraculous incessant suit machine, you’d improved demeanour here to see possibly it has been finished before. If it has, we can be certain it doesn’t work.
Jastrow, Joseph. The Story of Human Error. D. Appleton-Century Company,
1936. Chapter on “Error in Physics,” by W. F. G. Swann. Books for Libraries.
Moore, Clara Bloomfield. Keely and His Discoveries. (Reprint ed with foreword by Leslie Shepard, University Books, 1972?. Original edition, 1893(?).)
Mrs. Moore was one of Keely’s many true supporters. Keely’s explanations of his theories were unintelligible even to those sensitive to his work, and this book provides many examples of this.
- Ord-Hume, Arthur W. J. G. Perpetual Motion. St Martins, 1978. Ord-Hume was an operative who wrote extensively on antique clocks and other mechanisms. But his arrogant “refutations” of many of a incessant suit machines are pardonable and misleading. Some parts, utterly section 6, are formidable to follow. But, a book has a trait of still being in print, in paperback, and as a chronological consult of a theme it is good value owning. However, a drawings in a Barnes and Noble reprint book are feeble reproduced.
- Phin, John. The Seven Follies of Science. D. Van Nostrand, 1906. The line drawings are unequivocally clearly reproduced, apparently redrawn from strange sources. The explanations mostly skip a mark.
- Scientific American, 1884, has references to J. W. Keely, generally derogative and even sarcastic. Mar 19, p. 196. Apr 5, p. 213. Oct 11, p. 230.
Verance, Percy (Pseudonym!). Perpetual Motion. 20th Century Enlightenment
Specialty Co., 1916. This is a compliance and precipitation of element from Dircks’
books, “for a ubiquitous reader”, and has many of a strange illustrations. It is apparently a Rosicrucian publication, partial of a array called: History, Explanation and Prophecy Illustrated. Warning: The crafty pseudonym has been appropriated by several people recently, who have no tie with a unknown author of this book.
A entertaining criticism of a Bessler story is found in:
Gould, Rupert. Oddities, A Book of Unexplained Facts.
1928, 1944, 1964, University Books 1965. Chapter V, Orffyreus’ Wheel.
Text © 2007, 2012 by Donald E. Simanek.
Return to a categorical gallery of The Museum of Unworkable Devices.
Return to Donald Simanek’s front page.
Article source: https://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/museum/people/people.htm