Third clue.
Bessler said in Apologia Poetica, "These foolish ravings of my enemies will be held up to total ridicule by all intelligent people, who, with true understanding, have sought the Mobile in a place no different from that in which I eventually found it."
To paraphrase the above, Bessler said intelligent people had already looked for the solution where he found it.
In hindsight this clue reveals something so astoundingly obvious that I find it hard to believe that no one has independently thought of it - I certainly didn't. The history of overbalancing wheels shows that the same designs are repeatedly 'discovered' by each person who comes fresh to this subject.
JC
John I think he was really just saying , before the English translation , that his enemy would deny the very existence of the mobile " by definition " or an agreed upon definition .
ReplyDelete" listen to the enemy mouth , it wants to make smart people fools ...etc ...
I have often wondered if someone has tried a concept based on his " correction " of MT1 ...
"Bessler found the answer where every was looking"
ReplyDeleteEvery WHAT?
Where everyone had looked already ....
ReplyDelete"...by all intelligent people, who, with true understanding, have sought the Mobile in a place no different from that in which I eventually found it."
ReplyDeleteA VERY, VERY important quote and one that assures me that I am finally on the "right track" with my analysis of Bessler's internal wheel mechanics.
Basically, there are only three variations of an OB PM gravity wheel. They are the "Mercury Vial Type" developed in ancient times when the alchemists figured out how to extract that toxic liquid metal from its ore, the "Rolling Ball Weight Type" that came along in the Middle Ages when lead spheres for use in cannons were being produced, and, finally, the "Swinging Weighted Lever Type" that appeared in the Renaissance along with the pendulum clock and which is still popular today.
Unfortunately, ALL of these types of wheels are UNworkable for the simple reason that the weights being lifted on their ascending sides require MORE energy / mass to rise than can be supplied by the weights that are falling on their descending sides. Because of this they quickly stall out as the CoM of their weights settles to a position directly below their axles.
Bessler's wheels were of the "Swinging Weighted Lever Type", but with several MAJOR differences. During any increment of their rotation, only HALF of the weights on a wheel's ascending side were being lifted back toward the rim. All of the other weights, with the exception of those diametrically opposite weights resting on their rim stops, were falling and able through a network of interconnecting cords to supply most of their energy / mass directly to those weights on the ascending side which are being lifted back toward their rim stops. Each weighted lever also has a spring attached to it and these springs would supply PREVIOUSLY stored energy / mass to those ascending side weights at just the right time to assist them with their rising back toward their rim stops.
So, we see that Bessler achieved success because his Swinging Weighted Lever Type wheels had important differences from those being produced by his rival mobilists. Bessler's wheels made use of his revolutionary "Connectedness Principle" along with his "Secret Principle" which governs the use of spring tension within the wheel. His rivals had no knowledge of these principles and, sadly, about 99.99999+% of the mobilists today don't either! Hopefully, this lamentable state of affairs will change in the NEAR future.
It sounds astoundingly obvious, doesn't it?
ReplyDeleteHe must have meant OB wheels, what other PM is there in the shape of a wheel on an axle?
So only half of the weights on the ascending side were being lifted back toward the rim?
And all of the other weights were falling, with the exception of the weights on their rim stops?
Hmm.
So if only two of the ascending side weights were being lifted, then two of the ascending side weights were falling.
Two ascending weights - were falling.
With respect to their rim stops?
But with respect to the wheel, they would produce counter torque against the wheel's motion.
And they wouldn't fall. They would require a force to change their direction of motion, which is circular, i.e., not towards the axle.
What would provide that force?
It would either have to come from a weight in motion also counter to the wheel's direction, or from a spring.
Could a spring provide this force?
Yes, but springs require catches and releases.
And something to physically open and close the catches and releases.
At just the right time.
In both directions, or the spring would oscillate.
All aboard the crazy train!
Toot, toot!
I also think he meant OB wheels in general.
DeleteDoug wrote:
ReplyDelete"So if only two of the ascending side weights were being lifted, then two of the ascending side weights were falling. Two ascending weights - were falling."
Actually, it is the PIVOTS of the weighted levers moving between the 6:00 and 9:00 positions of a CW rotating drum that are rising. The weighted levers attached to those pivots are rotating CCW around the pivots and their weights ARE, indeed, falling relative to their locations when against their rim stops. As this happens, the weights get closer to the axle. The pivots of the weighted levers moving between the 9:00 and 12:00 positions of the CW rotating drum are also rising, BUT their weighted levers are rotating CW around their pivots as their weights move closer to their locations when against their rim stops. These weights, as well as those moving between 12:00 and 3:00, move FARTHER away from the drum's axle.
The only "crazy trains" in PMland are found on the "no and wrong tracks". The train on the "right track" WILL carry one to the desired destination: a WORKING OB PM gravity wheel!
Tg, maybe you should use a different word. Nothing in a crazy train would "fall", if anyone ever actually built one. The weights (or the pivots, whatever) can't "fall" because they are tied to five other weights, controlling each other's movement, supposedly to a specific shape - roughly the shape of a "D" - through each cycle. The weights between 6 and 9 would be described as being forced to move toward the axle, not falling towards it
ReplyDeleteWhen your crazy train version reaches the point where one of the weights is just beginning to touch 3, the next weight (clockwise)at 4:30 is also touching a rim stop. and so would the next weight at 6. At that moment those 3 weights have no influence on the other 5, or on their springs. This is the latency problem I mentioned that is guaranteed to stall an engine.
To compare to a real engine, the moving piston crank only experiences latency at top and bottom dead centre, when the force is straight along its axis. If the engine only has one piston, it relies on a flywheel to overcome the dead centres. If it has multiple pistons, the design ensures that the pistons are never in dead centre positions all at the same time. All engines that convert linear motion into rotary motion have this problem to deal with.
Your design has three "pistons" at dead centre together.
Your weight at 1:30 would be the only weight in a state of "falling" (the quotations are necessary here; the weight is not in freefall because of the 12 cords attached to its lever), with respect to the velocity of the wheel, and the position it has in the field of potential energy, at this critical moment of latency.
So this one weight's "falling" motion is enough to force the 4 weights on the ascending side into their positions, overcoming a stall. At that moment, 4 pounds is leveraging 16 pounds with a 1st class lever. The magic part of this must be that as the 1:30 weight begins to lever the other 4, its lever somehow expands by a proportional amount, and then shrinks at the right moment so the next lever can grow, etc.
The train is stuck in the station! I'll wait for the next one.
Book a ticket on my train if you like?!
ReplyDeleteI don't have a train , but I have a concept that is becoming so strong in my mind it could move mountains . If I become confident enough I have means to build it and will . Good luck to everyone .
ReplyDeleteI am beginning to feel like a mad scientist ........ muuuuuuuuhhaaaaahaaaaaaaaa ... ;)
ReplyDeleteTrevor
ReplyDeleteWell, I don't know whether or not your train is stuck in the station, too!
Does your "train" have a supplement to gravity, which can only get things started, to get your "pistons" over dead centre?
@ Doug
ReplyDeleteWhen I use the words "fall" and "rise" to describe the actions of the weights in Bessler's wheels, I am AlWAYS refering to the motion of the weights RELATIVE to their rim stops.
ALL of the weighted lever pivots on a drum's descending side are falling relative to, say, the floor below the drum. And, ALL of their attached weights are also falling relative to the floor beneath the drum. But, ONLY the weights whose lever pivots move between 12:00 and 3:00 are "falling" with respect to their rim stops. The weights whose lever pivots move between 3:00 and 6:00 are NOT "falling" with respect to their rims stops because they are in contact with those rim stops during that interval of drum rotation.
On the drum's ascending side ALL of the lever pivots are rising with respect to the floor below the drum and so are their attached weights. However, ONLY the weights whose lever pivots move between 9:00 and 12:00 are actually "rising" relative to their rims stops. The weights whose lever pivots move between 6:00 and 9:00 are moving AWAY from their rims stops (and thereby closer to the axle) and, thus, are "falling" relative to those rim stops even though, relative to the floor beneath the drum, they are rising!
Any confusion you or others may have apparently stems from my use of the words "rising" and "falling" when discussing the motions of these weights without my emphasizing that I am ALWAYS using these words in a RELATIVE sense to describe motion of a weight with respect to its rim stop. These relative motions of the weights play a VERY important role in the operation of Bessler's wheels.
There is no problem with the weights "falling" whose lever pivots move from 6:00 to 9:00 in a CW rotating drum. These weights can "fall" because their SHARES of energy / mass that they are required to transfer to the "rising" weights does not exceed what they can supply. In fact, they even have enough energy / mass left over to store as spring tension! Once again, I must point out that, during any 45 degree increment of drum rotation, 6 of the 8 weights are, because of the interconnecting cord system between their levers, undergoing relative motions with respect to their rim stops.
So, the "right track" train is still continuing to build up a full head of steam and the dining car is now accepting passengers for dinner. Welcome aboard, everyone! Toot! Toot! LOL!
Wow, you completely misconstrued one point I made, and ignored the most damning.
ReplyDeleteThe menu for the crazy train is crow.
Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
@ Doug
ReplyDeleteI had ALOT of trouble reading your comment because it was obvious to me that you and I were NOT really discussing the SAME wheel design! PLEASE enlighten me as to EXACTLY what the "one point" I "misconstrued" was and the "most damning" one that I "ignored" was if you will be so kind. Keep it short and I will then try my best to clarify matters.
Maybe they are serving crow on the crazy trains in PMland, but on the "right track" train I'm on, they're serving sirloin steak smoothered in fried onions and brown gravy with side orders of turnips and potatoes dripping with fresh butter, and broccoli drowning in hollandaise sauce. And, for dessert, vanilla ice cream topped with an mountain of whipped cream and chocholate sprinkles...oh, there's also a juicy cherry on top, too! Of course, if someone prefers to dine on crow, then that is their choice and they should remain on whatever crazy train they are on. LOL!
The point is nothing in your wheel is falling, with respect to anything. The floor, the rim stop, whatever. It might be in MOtion for a second (and only a second), but it's not falling.
ReplyDeleteYou say at any point in 45 degrees of rotation 6 of 8 weights are in motion.
You ignored the fact that at an instant of every 45 degrees of rotation only 5 of 8 weights would be moving independently of the wheel's motion.
It doesn't matter, you can tweak this train forever in your sim. One day if you think you've found the answer, and build a prototype, I guarantee it won't work. The sim will only have made it look like the answer, because you gave it the information that made it possible in the sim.
To clarify, see my original post. (4/27 at 7:23).
ReplyDelete@ Doug
ReplyDeleteOkay, you wrote: "The point is nothing in your wheel is falling, with respect to anything. The floor, the rim stop, whatever.
This might be where you are having problems visualizing the "right track" design that Bessler found.
During any 45 degree increment of CW drum rotation, ALL of the 8 weights are in motion with respect to the floor beneath the drum. The 4 weights moving from 6:00 to 12:00 are rising with respect to the floor as are their lever's pivots. The 4 weights moving from 12:00 to 6:00 are falling with respect to the floor as are their lever's pivots.
When, however, one considers the motions of the various weights with respect to their RIM STOPS during any 45 degree increment of CW drum rotation the situation changes.
As weights move from the 6:00 to 9:00 positions of the drum, they are rising with respect to the floor, BUT FALLING with respect to their rim stops and getting FARTHER from them. As weights move from 9:00 to 12:00, they are rising with respect to the floor AND ALSO rising with respect to their rims stops and getting CLOSER to them. As weights move from 12:00 to 3:00, they are falling with respect to the floor AND ALSO with respect to their rim stops so that they get CLOSER to those rim stops. Finally, as weights move from 3:00 to 6:00 they are falling with respect to the floor, BUT are STATIONARY with respect to their rim stops since they are ALREADY in contact with those rim stops.
And, yes, during any 45 degree increment of drum rotation only 6 of the 8 weights are in motion RELATIVE to their rims stops (either drawing away or closer to them) because 2 of the weights (the ones moving between 3:00 and 6:00) are in contact with their rim stops.
This is the best that I can do with a word description of the various RELATIVE motions of the weights in an 8 weighted lever wheel with respect to their rim stops. If I get to the point where I finally have a working sim of Bessler's wheels, this action I've described will become quite obvious.
On that GLORIOUS day when I finally have a undeniably glitch free working simulation of Bessler's wheel, then I will be 100% confident that it WILL work when the design is released and others begin to try to build it. I will not release ANY designs unless I am confident that this will happen.
You're still misconceiving the motion of the weights between 6 and 9.
ReplyDeleteI tried to get this across to you several blog entries back.
The weights' inertia between 6 and 9 forces their path AWAY from the axle. Their connection to the wheel support keeps them going in a circular path. The NET FORCE is tangential to the radii.
It takes FORCE to move the weights from the rim stops between 6 and 9; They can NOT "fall away" from the rim stops towards the axle. That is pure delusion.
We presume this force you need is coming from the other weights' connection via the cords, and maybe the springs. The only way to force those weights between 6 and 9 towards the axle would be the weights immediately behind them (4:30 and 6) to PULL them BACK. Anyone can visualize that this is NOT what would happen. The other 4 weights are DEFINITELY not in position to apply this force back.
Even IF it was desirable, and POSSIBLE, by the 4:30 - 6 weights, it would have a counter-torque effect on the motion of the wheel, slowing it down, and not moving the center of mass higher.
And, you are still stuck on the notion that any weight descending relative to the floor, or the rim stop, in such a design would be in a state of FULL acceleration from gravity, i.e., "falling". The cords, and springs, rule that state OUT.
And, you have still not acknowledged that at every 45 degrees of rotation, there is an instant of time when only 5 weights would be in independent motion from the wheel's motion. Just as the weight at 3 touches its rim stop, the weight at 6 would be touching its rim stop, because of its inertia holding it tight there. Latency - it's the mostly overlooked issue in the argument for PM.
Springs are thought to overcome latency, like in your wheel, but catching and releasing their force is also a conservative, losing battle in a cyclic path.
And as I said before, if your sim ever works, it will be because you gave it faulty input.
@ Doug
ReplyDelete"It takes FORCE to move the weights from the rim stops between 6 and 9; They can NOT "fall away" from the rim stops towards the axle. That is pure delusion."
NOT TRUE. Look what happens to the ascending side weighted levers between 6:00 and 9:00 in the MT 13 wheel. They smoothly draw away from the outer rim (which contains no stops) until they are tangent to the inner rim. NO FORCE other than gravity is at work.
"...it would have a counter-torque effect on the motion of the wheel, slowing it down, and not moving the center of mass higher.
No, the CCW swinging of the weighted levers around their lever's pivots between 6:00 and 9:00 tends to produce an increase in drum velocity because it lowers the drum's moment of inertia by moving the weights closer to the axle. This effect, however, is COMPLETELY cancelled out by the CW swinging of the weighted levers around their lever's pivots which are moving between 9:00 and 3:00 which increase the drum's moment of inertia and tends to slow the drum down because it moves the weights farther from the axle and closer to the outer rim. The motions of the active moving weights within Bessler's wheels did NOT violate the Conservation of Angular Momentum requirement which is a variation of Newton's Third Law of Motion.
"Just as the weight at 3 touches its rim stop, the weight at 6 would be touching its rim stop, because of its inertia holding it tight there."
Wrong! As a weight touches its rim stop at 3:00 in a CW rotating drum, the weight at 6:00 is SEPARATING from its rim stop.
"Springs are thought to overcome latency, like in your wheel, but catching and releasing their force is also a conservative, losing battle in a cyclic path.
Once again, the springs in Bessler's wheels did NOT require any mechanisms such as catches and releases in order to operate. Their action was smooth and automatic.
"And as I said before, if your sim ever works, it will be because you gave it faulty input."
WHEN I finally get my working sim, you can rest assured that I will make certain that there are no "faulty inputs" and that what the sim shows corresponds 100% to what the reality would be if a physical model is made of the design.
"NOT TRUE. Look what happens to the ascending side weighted levers between 6:00 and 9:00 in the MT 13 wheel. They smoothly draw away from the outer rim (which contains no stops) until they are tangent to the inner rim. NO FORCE other than gravity is at work."
ReplyDeleteMT 13 doesn't accurately depict the behavior of the weighted levers between 6 and 9, if they were in MOTION. It's a static drawing; nothing is moving. Naturally the weights will be hanging straight down.
"Bessler's wheels did NOT violate the Conservation of Angular Momentum requirement."
Well, that means they were fraudulent.
"Wrong! As a weight touches its rim stop at 3:00 in a CW rotating drum, the weight at 6:00 is SEPARATING from its rim stop."
Wrong. Gravity can't provide this force that will jerk the 6:00 weight to a stop, and reverse its inertia. It's much too weak. Physics 101.
"Once again, the springs in Bessler's wheels did NOT require any mechanisms such as catches and releases in order to operate. Their action was smooth and automatic."
Then the only method to extend or compress them is the weight themselves. It's still a conservative, losing battle in a cyclic path. Any mechanical energy they give is exactly equal to the energy they store in one revolution. Minus Mr. Friction.
"WHEN I finally get my working sim,you can rest assured that I will make certain that there are no "faulty inputs" "
Then you'll never get a working one.
Doug wrote:
ReplyDelete"MT 13 doesn't accurately depict the behavior of the weighted levers between 6 and 9, if they were in MOTION. It's a static drawing; nothing is moving. Naturally the weights will be hanging straight down."
ALL of the MT illustrations are static drawings, but they DO accurately indicate the positions of the weighted levers inside of a moving wheel PROVIDED that the wheel's rotation rate is low enough. I DO agree that CF is a problem and, in fact, it is the MOST significant factor in limiting the highest rotation rate that an "unloaded" wheel will reach. Fortunately, it only becomes a serious hinderance at drum rotation rates of tens of rotations per minute.
"Gravity can't provide this force that will jerk the 6:00 weight to a stop, and reverse its inertia. It's much too weak.
As weights pass the 6:00 position of a CW turning drum, they do NOT abruptly stop. Their momentum tangent to that position tends to make them try to continue moving in a straight line to the left of axle. As this happens, they then swing CCW and down and away from their rim stops as a result of the gravitational force acting on them. In the process, they help to lift the weights above them and past the 9:00 position back toward their rim stops.
"Then the only method to extend or compress them [the springs] is the weight themselves. It's still a conservative, losing battle in a cyclic path. Any mechanical energy they give is exactly equal to the energy they store in one revolution. Minus Mr. Friction."
Yes, the stretching and unstretching of the springs is a conservative process and this action is solely provided by the swinging weighted levers. These springs can only give back the energy / mass originally put into them when they were first stretched minus an insignificant amount that is lost along the way as heat. The springs are VERY important to the functioning of Bessler's wheels because they literally SHIFT energy / mass from an interval of drum rotation where it is being excessively released by a lever dropping relative to its rim stop to an interval where it is CRITICALLY needed by a shifting lever that is rising relative to its rim stop. Without the springs, one only has a "wrong track" design that can never work. When one is on the "right track" all of the designs he works with will incorporate springs.
My designs ALL use springs.
"ALL of the MT illustrations are static drawings, but they DO accurately indicate the positions of the weighted levers inside of a moving wheel PROVIDED that the wheel's rotation rate is low enough."
ReplyDeleteIf Mt 13 was accurate, the rotation rate of such a wheel would be zero. Ergo, it's not an accurate illustration of motion. The two weights in 6 to 9 would be in different positions if the drawing showed the motion. If you built mt 13 and gave it a twirl, it would not look like the drawing.
" Their momentum tangent to that position tends to make them try to continue moving in a straight line to the left of axle. As this happens, they then swing CCW and down and away from their rim stops as a result of the gravitational force acting on them. In the process, they help to lift the weight above them "
In the Meresburg wheel, the 4 lb. weights were traveling roughly 23 feet per second at 6:00. Measure 23 feet in your room. Imagine a 4 lb. weight traveling that distance in one second.
It takes more than 4 lbs. of force to change their straight line momentum. They remain stuck to their rimstops. No lifting of weight above them would occur, except in a sim with GIGO.
" Yes, the stretching and unstretching of the springs is a conservative process "
In one revolution. So after one revolution, they haven't shifted any mass from where it was originally. The weights return to the positions they were in originally, and so do the springs, and so do the cords. Since the wheel began with zero momentum, it ends with zero momentum, absent an external force.
Doug wrote:
ReplyDelete"If Mt 13 was accurate, the rotation rate of such a wheel would be zero. Ergo, it's not an accurate illustration of motion. The two weights in 6 to 9 would be in different positions if the drawing showed the motion. If you built mt 13 and gave it a twirl, it would not look like the drawing."
MT 13 does not work and only VERY remotely resembles the design Bessler had which DID work! However, I have made models of MT 13 and when they are motor driven at LOW rotation rates on the order of tens of rpm, they look almost exactly like what is shown in the illustration.
"In the Meresburg wheel, the 4 lb. weights were traveling roughly 23 feet per second at 6:00. Measure 23 feet in your room. Imagine a 4 lb. weight traveling that distance in one second.
It takes more than 4 lbs. of force to change their straight line momentum. They remain stuck to their rimstops. No lifting of weight above them would occur, except in a sim with GIGO."
It is the LINEAR momentum of these weights (as long as it does not get too high in value!) which ASSURES that they will part company with their rim stops as they pass the 6:00 position. The weights tend to move in a straight line tangent to the 6:00 drum position while their rim stops which are attached to the drum continue rising toward the 9:00 position. Again, the "falling" motion of the weights I am talking about is RELATIVE to their rim stops NOT to the floor beneath the drum.
"In one revolution. So after one revolution, they [the springs] haven't shifted any mass from where it was originally. The weights return to the positions they were in originally, and so do the springs, and so do the cords. Since the wheel began with zero momentum, it ends with zero momentum, absent an external force."
The springs are only used during a PORTION of the drum rotation for each of the weighted levers. They initially store energy / mass. Then this energy / mass is released to assist with the rapid rising of the ascending side weights so that the displacement of the CoM of all of the weights onto the drum's descending side can be maintained. They essentially prevent released energy / mass from being wasted in the production of heat and sound and allow it to be channeled directly to where it is needed the most. A WORKING OB PM gravity wheel can NOT be made without the use of springs.
GIGO??? Hmmm...that also means "lambchop" in French, IIRC. Now you're making this squirrel hungry again and not for "tasty nuts" this time! LOL!
"However, I have made models of MT 13 and when they are motor driven"
ReplyDeleteMotor driven, yes. How much power did it take to get it to turn at any rate? Or did you not make a note of that?
"It is the LINEAR momentum of these weights (as long as it does not get too high in value!) which ASSURES that they will part company with their rim stops as they pass the 6:00 position"
Linear? That's the same as the angular momentum for this situation.
The moment of inertia is the measure of an object's resistance to changes in rotational direction.
The math is I = m * r^2
Inertia = mass (lbs.) x radius (feet) squared
For a 4 lb. weight in the Meresburg wheel:
I = 4 * 5.5^2 = 4 * 30.25 = 121(lb-ft)
Gravity can only provide 4 lbs. of force on that weight at 6:00. Where are you going to get the other lbs. of force to change its rotational direction?
"Then this energy / mass (spring-force)is released to assist with the rapid rising of the ascending side weights so that the displacement of the CoM of all of the weights onto the drum's descending side can be maintained."
Since the springs are being extended by one weight, then they can only give back that much spring-force to the weight that extended it. It can't be "spread around the wheel"; there isn't anything left over. LOL!
Enjoy your lamb, squirrel! GIGO is an acronym early programmers used - Garbage in, garbage out.
Doug wrote:
ReplyDelete"Motor driven, yes. How much power did it take to get it [MT 13] to turn at any rate? Or did you not make a note of that?"
It depends upon the mass of the weights, the vertical distance through which a weighted lever approaching 12:00 must rise, and, of course, the rotation rate of the wheel. For wheels 12 ft in diameter and with weights of 4 lbs, the power consumption to raise the weights approaching 12:00 is in the tens of watts for wheel speeds in the tens of rpms. But, unfortunately, the net power outputted by the motions of the other weights is not sufficient to supply what a weight approaching 12:00 needs in order to rise and so the design can not work. This holds true REGARDLESS of the size of the wheel or the masses of its weights.
"Gravity can only provide 4 lbs. of force on that weight at 6:00. Where are you going to get the other lbs. of force to change its rotational direction?"
4 lbs of gravitational force is enough to cause the weighted levers passing the 6:00 position to begin swinging down and CCW around their pivots. Of course, if wheel rotation is too high, this action will be delayed and the dropping of the CoM this causes will only allow a wheel or drum to achieve a maximum terminal rate of rotation. And, at a very high rate of wheel rotation, CF will keep ALL of the weighted levers pointing straight out away from the axle. This last effect NEVER occurred in Bessler's wheels.
"Since the springs are being extended by one weight, then they can only give back that much spring-force to the weight that extended it. It can't be "spread around the wheel"; there isn't anything left over. LOL!"
Since each lever that is rising with respect to its rim stop on a drum's ascending side is attached via cords to FOUR other weights which are dropping with respect to their rim stops, the action of ONE spring on that rising weight actually significantly LOWERS the TOTAL amount of energy / mass that need be supplied by the other four dropping weights. That portion of their energy / mass not needed is then available to accelerate the drum or operate outside machinery. In fact, without the assistance of the spring, the other dropping weights would not be able to lift the rising ascending side weight back toward its rim stop since, together, they can not supply all of the energy / mass that weight needs.
Damn those lamb chops tasted good! I feel sorry for the animal that supplied it, though. That's one of the nice things about real squirrels. They are not carnivorous and prefer a diet rich in nuts and seeds. As a Bessler mobilist, I am always searching for the "tasty nuts" of wheel internal mechanics clues. Sadly, aside from the many I've already provided on this blog, I have seen next to zero from anyone else!
Well, your tasty nut clues are neck and neck with everyone else - zero to zero.
ReplyDeleteYou fail to see that spring force doesn't change the initial state of the wheel, or the final state. 2 conservative forces together don't make energy. Analyze this with ONE weight/spring in one cycle, tensioned from gravity, and you'll see it. The spring would be slowly extended or compressed and would release the tension at the same rate, along the same mechanical connection. Its force is not available for transfer through the weight that extended it in the first place, unless your cords and your weights are magic too.
4 lbs of force is enough to overcome over 100 lb.-ft. of force? Not in the real world, only in animations.
Doug wrote:
ReplyDelete"4 lbs of force is enough to overcome over 100 lb.-ft. of force? Not in the real world, only in animations."
My models are NOT animations, they are SIMULATIONS which follow the accepted laws of physics. My simulations ALL indicate that there is no problem with the weights, as they pass the 6:00 position of a CW turning drum, beginning to rotate CCW around their pivots so that they can use their resulting loss of energy / mass to both stretch springs AND lift the weights ahead of them back toward their rim stops.
However, this is only true as long as the drum rotation rate does not become too great. As drum rotation increases, so does the CF acting on the ascending side weigths and their pivots must then travel farther up along the ascending side before their attached weights will be able to begin to transfer energy / mass to the springs and other weighted levers. This delay causes the CoM of all of the weights to rotate CW around the drum's axle and move closer to a position under the axle which, of course, decreases the torque being applied to the axle.
The "tasty nuts" I'm supplying are more nutritious and tastier than any of the others you will ever find on the internet! The clever squirrels out there in PM land will be carefully gathering them up and storing them away for future use. LOL!
If your sims indicate that, then they aren't modeling accepted laws of physics! LOL!
ReplyDeleteRead what you're saying:
"so they can use their resulting loss of energy to both stretch springs and lift the weights ahead of them"
So not only does your sim violate newton's first law, it also has the weight with enough kinetic energy left over, after said violation, to not ONLY stretch a spring, but also lift weight ABOVE it! (with the magic 1st class levers.)
All aboooaard the crazy train!
@ Doug
ReplyDeleteThe program I use to make my simulations took a team of engineers and computer programmers about ten years to develop and it DOES use the accepted laws of physics and its predictions for the motion of models are highly accurate. Even so, it does have a few occasioanl glitches that can arise under special conditions, but I am aware when these happen and can compensate for them. They are NOT present in the results for the wheels I'm testing which I describe in this blog.
"So not only does your sim violate newton's first law, it also has the weight with enough kinetic energy left over, after said violation, to not ONLY stretch a spring, but also lift weight ABOVE it! (with the magic 1st class levers.)"
There is no violation of Newton's three laws of motion by either my sim program or Bessler's wheels. You seem to forget that the weighted levers whose weights are rising back toward their rim stops on the ascending side of the wheel are made to do so via their interconnecting cords to FOUR other weighted levers whose weights are falling with respect to their particular rim stops at the time. No ONE ascending side weight is raised back toward its rim stop by a SINGLE falling weight. That is what the "Connectedness Principle" is all about and without the application of this principle AND the use of springs, ROTATORY, gravity activated PM is not achievable (I emphasize the word "rotatory" here because, if Asa Jackson had a genuine working wheel, then it would have worked by sustained oscillation or rocking of the wheel's internal central structure. Such a design CAN be made to run with only TWO opposed weights which require no more than a single interconnection, but the price that must be paid for that simplicity is that the wheel will experience pulses of torque which will only rotate it in a start and stop manner with the stops lasting as long as it takes for the central structure to "reset" itself to its starting position so it can begin to deliver the next pulse of torque to the wheel's outer rim.)
Glad I'm not on that "crazy train" you refer to. I find the "right track" train I'm currently on to be extremely comfortable and taking me EXACTLY where I want to go!
I don't care if your sim program was developed by Stephen Hawking himself, if your weights are falling down and back after 6:00, they're violating Newton's First Law of Motion. Don't waste your time on a physical model.
ReplyDeleteI haven't forgotten the weights from 9-12 are connected to four other weights, blah, blah.
The fulcrum(s) is/are too close to the effort. It's as simple as that. If you try to make the lever longer to get
the fulcrum closer to the load, then the distance the effort has to move becomes too great.
Good luck, anyway.
30 days. Or 395?
FYI Doug:
ReplyDeleteI am currently testing model wheels where my weighted levers DO begin to rotate CCW after their lever pivots pass the 6:00 position of a CW rotating drum and then pause a bit as their pivots pass the 9:00 position before they begin rotating CW about their pivots and climbing back toward their rim stops again.
The problem is that their pause is too long. I need them to nearly immediately reverse their direction of rotation about their lever's pivots as their pivots pass the 9:00 position IF the design is to keep the CoM of all 8 weights on the descending side of the drum. Bessler solved this "minor" problem with his "Secret Principle" which governs the use of spring tension to counter balance the ascending side weights within a drum.
The sudden reversal of rotational direction by an ascending side weight might seem like an impossibility, but that situation changes dramatically once the weight has been carefully counter balanced by spring tension. Currently, I estimate that I am 98% of the way to THE solution that Bessler found, but obtaining that last 2% will require a lot more work. But, for the serious mobilist it is only another challenge that helps energize him and keep him moving along while most others would simply give up.
Anyway, thanks for the well wishes...I can use all of the luck I can get!
TG, don't you see springs don't work that way in a circle? That's not how bessler could have done it.
ReplyDeleteIf a spring is stretched or compressed by gravity, then as the spring travels around, gravity simply reverses the spring's force along the same physical connection. No spring force is transferred to any other connection. You'd have to connect all the springs together to get them to 'communicate' with each other, or transfer their force to the next weight. But that won't work either, I should add. It's still a leverage problem that can't be solved, because of the rules, it's a catch-22.
One question, how fast is your sim rotating?
In order to minimize CF and mainly be able to observe the various swingings of my weights about their lever pivots during a real time loop of drum rotation, I use a motor to slowly rotate the model wheels CW at the rate of 1 rpm. At this point my goal is simply to have the weighted levers in the same orientations at the end of a 45 degree increment of rotation that they had at the beginning (this coordination is EASILY achieved AFTER one has the correct Connectedness Principle and I DO!) AND for the reversal of the swing direction of the weighted levers approaching 9:00 to be as rapid as possible (again, EASILY achieved AFTER one has Bessler's Secret Principle which, unfortunately, I only currently know part of). Unless that rapid change in direction takes place, the CoM of the wheel's 8 weights will not stay on the descending side throughout the 45 degree interval of drum rotation. There is no doubt about this detail. This effect MUST be achieved or one will not be able to replicate Bessler's wheels.
ReplyDeleteIn the designs I am experimenting with, the levers are under constant spring tension whenever they leave their rim stops.
1 rpm? Yes, that would minimize inertia, wouldn't it?
ReplyDeleteYou may need more than good luck. Is there a patron saint for working pm ob wheels?
Of course...ST. Johann Bessler! LOL!
ReplyDeleteI know EXACTLY what I have to SEE happening in my model wheels when I finally make it to the end of the "right track". If I can get a wheel to keep the CoM of its 8 weights at nearly the same spot on the descending side while also having all of its weighted levers resume their starting orientations after 45 degrees of CW wheel rotation, then there is no reason why this condition will not persist one increment of rotation after another. Yes, CF IS a problem and one that Bessler never seemed to worry about. There may be ways to compensate for it AFTER we find the design Bessler used. I'll leave that to some future mobilist to figure out.
One more post and this entry will be off the main page!
ReplyDeleteThe mobilist's lament:
"If I can get a wheel to keep the CoM of its 8 weights at nearly the same spot on the descending side while also having all of its weighted levers resume their starting orientations after 45 degrees of CW wheel rotation, then there is no reason why this condition will not persist one increment of rotation after another."
Would you like that on your tombstone? LOL!
Maybe St. Bessler will intervene!
http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/ideas/articles/2009/07/12/modern_miracle_when_saints_intervene_nowdays_it_tends_to_be_in_healthcare/
"Would you like that on your tombstone? LOL!
ReplyDeleteMaybe St. Bessler will intervene!"
I've opted for "dry" burial in an above ground vault instead of "wet" burial in a coffin flooded out by ground water. IF I am lucky enough to find THE solution to Bessler's wheels, I will certainly consider having a diagram of it engraved onto the bronze plaque that will be covering my niche. That way, should the human race nearly completely perish, perhaps some future archaeologists will find the plaque and realize that it's the design for Bessler's wheels.
Hmmm...somehow I suspect that if we ever find Bessler's grave, we are going to find some VERY interesting clues buried with or near him.