This isn't really a clue, it's just common sense.
If you are one of those who, like myself, believe that Bessler told the truth then you will know that what follows is demonstrably true. Whether you include two, three, four or five weights or more, on your overbalancing wheel you will have discovered that it still ends up with the wheel in perfect balance, stationary. When the wheel comes to rest it will have either a single weight at six o’clock, or a pair of weights on either side of six o’clock. That is a fact.
The problem lies in the design. If it requires that gravity makes the weight move from the inner orbit to the outer orbit, thus inducing overbalancing and limited rotation, the wheel will come to a stop after a brief rotation. If you want to make an overbalancing wheel spin continuously, then yes, you must arrange for the weight to fall into an outer orbit on one side of the wheel... then you have to find a way to lift each weight back up to its original position at least once during each rotation so that it can fall again. You don't have a choice. It simply won’t work if you design it so that the weights only move outwards, under the influence of gravity, as the wheel turns. It is not enough to think that the fallen weight will be raised as the wheel turns and somehow fall inwards again at some point. You need an additional force to lift the weight, or move it back inwards again - Bessler didn't exactly say so, but he implied that that additional force was also gravity too - but a separate packet of it.
JC
Does a mechanism use newtonian gravity to pull the weight in ?
ReplyDelete- Ealadha
Many "wrong track" mobilists think they HAVE to move the weights arriving at the 6:00 position of a CW turning wheel away from the rim and closer to the axle there and then, 180 degrees of wheel rotation later, just as the weights pass the 12:00 position of the wheel, immediately move the them right back to the rim again. Yes, that would certainly be nice and would displace the CoM of the weights directly horizontally away from the axle and onto the wheel's descending side for maximum driving torque!
ReplyDeleteTrust me, my fellow squirrels, when I tell you that it can NOT be done that quickly.
Bessler, however, used a far more "gentle" approach that does work IF it is coupled with spring tension. He allowed a CW turning wheel's ascending side weights to swing CCW around their lever pivots and inward toward the axle between 6:00 and 9:00 and then concentrated on moving the weights back toward their rim stops again by having their weighted levers swing CW about their pivots between 9:00 and 3:00. Between 3:00 and 6:00 the weights would just remain on their rim stops and there was no rotation of the weighted levers about their pivots.
This "right track" approach only produces a CCW rotation of the CoM of a wheel's 8 weights by about 15 to 20 degrees onto the wheel's descending side from the "punctus quietus" below the axle rather than the "gross" 90 degree CCW rotation of the CoM that the "wrong track" mobilists aim for.
No, this type of approach will not produce as much driving torque as the various "wrong track" designs out there. BUT, it's FAR better to have a wheel with LOW torque that actually RUNS than one with MAXIMUM torque that will NEVER run! LOL!
However, the "price" one must pay for this success can, at first, seem daunting. One's 8 weighted lever wheel must contain a total of 48 cords to provide the critical lever coordination required by the "Connectedness Principle" and EACH lever must be under fairly precise spring tension which I have dubbed Bessler's "Secret Principle". If EITHER of these two principles is NOT incorporated into the design, then it will NOT run and it is NOT the one that Bessler used!
Great engineering ALWAYS involves ALOT of compromises. Bessler found that particular set of compromises that allowed him to do what no other person previously or since has done (with the exception of Asa Jackson, of course!): bring a WORKING OB PM gravity wheel to "glorious completion"!
Who is you callin a 'wrong track' mobilist .
ReplyDeleteJohn wrote:
ReplyDelete"You need an additional force to lift the weight, or move it back inwards again - Bessler didn't exactly say so, but he implied that that additional force was also gravity too - but a separate packet of it."
Common sense also tells us that gravity never lifts things.
Even a separate packet of it.
All of his implications were meant to mislead.
In your opinion, Doug. Being a sceptic as you are, I would expect you to take that view. I'm making a video of gravity lifting a weight, just for you.
ReplyDeleteJC
Actually before I do, Doug, perhaps you'd better clarify what you mean by "gravity never lifts things".
ReplyDeleteJC
Actually from where I stand Bessler gave a very accurate description of his invention . " disposed weights arranged according to the laws of perpetual motion , whereby weights gain force from their own movement and convey this force toward the rotation " . So it stands to reason that Bessler found an arrangement of weights which continued to move in addition to causing the rotation . Also the excess that he spoke of was explained thusly " a pound lifting more than a pound ."
ReplyDeleteMathematically if you have five pounds and you use one of them to lift four pounds then one out of those four pounds must return the favor if the motion is to continue .
There's no need for a video actually. Consider a counterweight trebuchet. It's powered by a very heavy counterweight, acting on a lever arm.
ReplyDeleteWhen the counterweight is released, the weighted short arm is driven by gravity into an accelerating pendulum motion, causing the lighter, long arm of the lever to revolve around the fulcrum at the opposite arc, which in turn, pulls the sling and its contents into a whipping motion at the end of the long arm.
As the arm continues to swing past the vertical position, the counterweight rises causing the lever motion to begin to slow down, while the sling continues to whip forward around the end of the long arm.
When the sling reaches its launch angle, one end slips from its hook, releasing the projectile toward the target.
That is gravity raising a weight
JC
Did gravity lift the counterweight first?
DeleteOf course not. It took a couple of guys turning the thingamajig to wind up the counterweight. That is not gravity lifting a weight. The counterweight was given the guys' PE. The trebouchet is designed to take mechanical advantage of levers, but it doesn't work unless it's given energy. And it doesn't get it from gravity.
That's what I mean by gravity doesn't lift things. Things have to be lifted first, then we can get a one-shot return, from gravity, for our work.
Rising a weight by another falling one is the approach which I can't see in success for a gravity wheel. Every falling weight will inevitably create counter torque that is - you can expect - the same as the torque created by the rised weight. All you finally got is zero torque.
ReplyDeleteMy approach of rising weights is completely another. I want do this with a single rod installed and used in a way I want to describe here. Imagine the following mechanism:
You have an empty wheel drum with a splitted central axle. Two weights are installed on the periphery, one at 12 o'clock, the other one at 6 o'clock, interconnected through the center. This pair of weights has to be rised every 180 degrees to support continuos motion. And that's done by a rod, attached half the diameter of the periphery. It's lengh is that the other end almost touches the outer rim. The rod is arranged in a way that, while in CW rotation the rod rises on the left half while its suspension falls through the center from the upper half to the lower half of the wheel, then rises again. So every 180 degrees the rod rises on the left half. Now here comes the tricky part - the weights have to be lift by the rod and that's possible without creating counter torque I claim. What is to achieve is to keep the outer end of the rod at 6 o'clock while lifting the weights and I believe to know how this can be done.
Do you get it? Sorry if this was not a good read, I'm still from saxony ;)
Gravity can be married to impetus since all things on earth are to be considered part of the earth and since the earth is moving in a specific direction all of the things on it are also moving in a specific direction . When you jump you are resisting your given trajectory and at the apex or height of your jump it is restored thereby you become oh so briefly weightless (relative). So gravity , although considered a separate force cannot be separated from impetus . To me the true gravity is the very weak force which causes objects to gather together . What we experience when we jump is a combination of the stronger "impetus" and the weaker gravity .
ReplyDeleteJohn,
ReplyDeleteIt was revealed that the wheel had "many small compartments around the perimeter." So how do you think that kikking meshes with that?
The Collins/Optimus Prime Gravitywheel...
ReplyDeleteJustsomeone says:
ReplyDeleteThe " many small compartments " were in the wooden axle.
"...many small compartments around the perimeter" refers the APPEARANCE of drum that held the weighted levers.
ReplyDeleteThe drum's perimeter was attached to 16 radial support members whose other ends were attached to the axle. From a distance, the drum would look like it was divided into 8 wedge-shaped volumes of space or "compartments" by its radial supports.
No, the axle was SOLID wood and members of the public could reach in through a hole in the sides of the drum covering material to grasp the solid axle and confirm to others that there were no ropes wrapped around the axle with weights attached to them. I'm sure some of Bessler's detractors thought that there was a giant concealed spring in a hollow axle that somehow made the wheels spin. But, that is HIGHLY improbable.
Which wheel was divided into 8 wedge shaped volumes of space .
Delete- Ealadha
I would say that any wheel which contained 8 weighted levers in its sub wheel and that would, of course, mean Bessler's Merseburg and Weissenstein wheels.
DeleteAs for his earlier one-directional Gera and Draschwitz wheels, if they only contained 6 weighted levers, then they most likely would only contain 6 wedge shaped volumes of space. However, their drums, too, may have contained 8 weighted levers and been divided into 8 wedge shaped sections by 16 radial support members.
However, I don't believe that a wheel's various weighted levers were "inside" of each wedge shaped "compartment". The best place to put the pivots for the levers would have been IN the radial support members themselves. Thus, each weighted lever was actually part of two "compartments".
Thanks for that . I have not studied the bessler wheels much myself .
DeleteYou know more than me .
- Ealadha
I did not say i know nothing at all , i know there was a merry go round , and when he grew up he got it going perpetually .
Delete- Ealadha
OK, I get it Doug. But as you know I believe I have a solution.
ReplyDeleteJC
Your "solution" will, ultimately, really depend upon how ACCURATELY you have interpreted the various clues Bessler left behind. IF your interpretations are 100% accurate, then you WILL have the design he found and, IF you are NOT 100% accurate, then you will NOT have it.
DeleteTime will tell.
Talking about interpretations TG.I feel he connectivity he meant was by the hammers connecting with the anvils.
ReplyDeleteI'm not convinced that "connectivity" was Bessler's word for the weights making contact with their rim stops at a CW rotating drum's 3:00 position. Those weights "gently" make contact with their rim stops there and there were no jarring impacts taking place inside of Bessler's wheels. They were NOT driven by impacts and I think he even says so.
DeleteSomewhere in AP he mentions that some of the cords within the wheel would become "tight" while others became "loose". This makes sense because when one weighted lever is transferring energy / mass to another, the cord interconnecting them will be tight and when no transfer is taking place, the cord will be slack. Very slack, in fact.
Maybe there are two different principles of operation .
ReplyDelete- Ealadha
On one weights were always falling , on another a weight is lifted , implying two different principles !
ReplyDelete- Ealadha
And also Bessler said it was a different principle on the bi-directional wheel . People tend to under-estimate Bessler by saying there is only one principle .
ReplyDelete- Ealadha
Over the last few weeks it occurred to me that too many "wrong track" mobilists have difficulty accepting that the weights that ride around closer to the rim on the DESCENDING side of a WORKING OB PM gravity wheel will, indeed, release MORE energy / mass than is regained by the opposed, closer to the axle weights on the wheel's ascending side. Yet, OTOH, they have no problem acknowledging that this is EXACTLY what happens when one places two identical masses at the ends of a beam balanced on a fulcrum and then slides the fulcrum toward one of the weights!!!
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that they have been subtly brainwashed by the "no tracker" mantra about there being no change in the energy / mass content of a weight moving about a "closed path" in a "conservative" gravity field which is often used to "prove" that an OB PM gravity wheel can not work. What they don't consider is that this "proof" is ONLY valid for a SINGLE weight moving around the complete path or for a COLLECTION of weights moving around the path whose VERTICAL velocity components at any instant always sum to zero.
When, however, the motions of the weights around the path ARE carefully coordinated, as they were in Bessler's wheels, it actually becomes possible, at any instant, for SOME of the weights to be LOSING energy / mass at a GREATER rate than is REGAINED by other weights. This happens because the sum of the vertical velocity components of all of the weights, at any instant, NEVER equals zero! The sum will always be negative in sign because the vertical dropping velocities of some of the weights are a bit greater in magnitude than the vertical rising velocities of the other weights which is equivalent to saying that the collection of weights effectively acts as though it was constantly falling and losing energy / mass to its environment (which would consist of the structure containing the weights, the surrounding atmosphere, and machinery attached to the weight containing structure). Miraculously, this constant effective falling of the weights inside of a WORKING OB PM gravity wheel takes place DESPITE the fact that they can only move around a wheel's axle in a closed path!
@technoguy valiantly informs us that
ReplyDelete"However, the "price" one must pay for this success can, at first, seem daunting."
Obviously, as is determinable by his very, very many words, mostly to the same drone-like effect, he has an operating wheel already, but will not admit same!
'Why not?', I ask the aether non-rhetorically.
(If not impertinent a good question deserves a good answer. Perhaps it is that he awaits the great June date to mercifully inform us - the "squirrels" and "wrong track" types?)
Equally obvious (but more telling by same, i.e. all the tedious blather) is that 'humility' is not any part of any price possibly familiar to him and his ways, that might be "daunting" actually.
Or, am I missing some key understanding here or (additionally) WHEN is a boor not REALLY a boor?
(Ah yes I can SHOUT too, but don't LIKE to as it is RUDE!)
James
PS Come on Ken. Admit it. It's YOU!
"Obviously,...he [technoguy] has an operating wheel already, but will not admit same!"
ReplyDeleteI REALLY wish that I did, but such is not the case...YET! I have the full details of the "Connectedness Principle" and most of the "magic" lever design, but I still lack all of the details of the "Secret Principle" that governs the use of spring tension within one of Bessler's wheels. That principle is the most closely guarded secret he had and the clues about it are hidden in a literal tangle of false clues. I must painstakingly try one modification of my model wheel after another using what I think at the moment is the correct interpretation of the clue and then motor assist the model through 45 degree increments of rotation to see if it is keeping the CoM of its 8 weights on the descending side of the wheel. I'm close...VERY close...but, alas, still not 100% to the end of the "right track". I'd say I'm about 98% of the way there.
"Come on Ken. Admit it. It's YOU!"
I'm truly flattered that you see some similarity between my ideas and those of the legendary Ken B. I am, of course, familiar with everything he's ever written concerning Bessler's wheels and that is probably why I appear to be him.