Great comments guys, on the clues and which are the best and which aren't really clues and the various interpretations of each. I may not comment much myself, but I love reading them, so thanks and keep it up!
Ever since I became acquainted with the legend of Bessler's wheel, I have been aware that opinion is divided into those who believe Bessler's claims that he had invented a perpetual motion machine, and those who reject them utterly. The latter group is vastly larger than the former.
As time has passed I have become increasingly surprised that there aren't more people, other than we few, who have looked at the evidence and concluded that there must be something in his claims. But of course the reason is clear, science states that such machine are impossible, and so well-entrenched in our minds is this view that nothing but the clearest evidence of their own eyes would convince those sceptics that such a machine is possible.
I know that on our side of the chasm there is a subdivision; those who believe Bessler's claims but still reject the gravity-only thesis. This is actually an encouraging fact. I say this because obviously the evidence which most of the world ignores has convinced some people, despite the apparent impossibility of the claims, that Bessler did not lie. Those people seek an alternative hypothesis and some suggest the presence of an additional force which assists gravity to complete the closed circle.
It seems to me that if the evidence that Bessler' wheel really worked is strong enough to convince such people, then it should be strong enough to convince more people and maybe some within the scientific community. Part of the problem may be that there has been no theory published which might plausibly explain how such a device could overturn the entrenched view. I have a theory in mind and it is instantly understandable once it is described and it requires no working model to prove it. But it is one thing to know why it is possible but another to construct something which uses that information effectively. I'm confident that I'm right but of course only a working model will prove it.
My own construction is mostly complete, although I'm only working with one mechanism at the moment. This is because I have to get this one right before I adjust the others. The action is almost there but I'm not happy with its range and I shall continue to adjust it until it performs as expected.
JC
10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.
Great Blog John,..Concerning why there has been no theory is because it involves more than an observation of passive weights.
ReplyDeleteIts secret is obscured in that it involves a highly active movement between weights and pendulums.
The theory requires that one visualises it wholistically.
To cut through all of the theory and scientific opposition and narrow things down to a mechanical only solution , our task , as defined by our esteemed " one to aspire to " is to find a way to CONTINUALLY cause the raising of a more than a pound with a mere pound . There is virtually no one who would argue against the possibility if in fact this type of mechanism was introduced . Let us not forget that Bessler's area of expertise was in fact mechanics and that he admitted that if he chose to do so he could " teach the proper method of mechanical application " . So it only stands to reason that Bessler's device was in fact an embodiment of this principle and " whoever does not know this , all of his hard work shall be in vain " or simply a waste .
DeleteYep. We need an "amplifier", in order to create a constant asymmetry.
DeleteI see the solution as interaction between Newtonian and Ersatz gravity (centripetal force).
ReplyDeleteThe scientific orthodoxy tends to immediately dismiss the possibility of ANY type of PM wheel existing because they can not see how it could continously output energy / mass. They will simply state that, because gravity exerts a "conservative" force on objects, that means that any massive object, such as a weight, moving completely around a "closed path" will experience no net change in its gravitational potential energy / mass. Since this is the case, they will drone on, that means that ANY wheel that carries any number of weights in ANY configuration can not make a complete rotation and thereby output any energy / mass in the process since that wheel is only a collection of individual weights each of which is completing a separate closed path of its own around the wheel's axle that can not result a net change in its gravitational potential energy / mass.
ReplyDeleteOn the surface this arguement SEEMS irrefutable at first glance, especially since it is being delivered to us by SCIENTISTS! After all, THEY should certainly KNOW what they are talking about and if they say it's impossible, then that settles the matter once and for all. Case CLOSED!
The one thing these "scientists" forget when announcing the impossibility of a PM wheel existing is that, in a TRUE OB PM gravity wheel, the CoM of the weights ALWAYS remains FIXED on the wheel's descending side DURING the wheel's rotation. Because of this innate asymmetry, the weights that drop vertically on the wheel's descending side will do so at a GREATER rate than the weights on its ascending side rise vertically. It is quite true that EACH weight, after a complete wheel rotation, will have completed a "closed path" around the wheel's axle, but at ANY INSTANT of wheel rotation, the descending side weights will be transfering energy / mass to the entire structure of the wheel at a GREATER rate than it is extracted from the entire structure of the wheel by the ascending side weights. What happens to that portion of the energy / mass outputted during any short time interval that is not taken up by the wheel's ascending side weights? Simple. It becomes "free" or better yet "FREED" energy / mass that can be used to accelerate ALL of the structures of the wheel (including all of its weights) or perform "useful" external work. Does this sound familiar to anyone? If you are familiar with the Bessler story, then it should!
When challenged with the above counter argument that allows for the possibility of a PM wheel existing, the "scientists" will become VERY confused. That possibility was not part of the "education" they received! At that point they may simply say that it is not possible to construct a wheel that continuously keeps is CoM on the wheel's descending side. What they should say is that it is not possible for THEM to construct one! It was certainly possible for Bessler and that is EXACTLY what he did!
Case CLOSED!!!
Reality check ! Run this test....... take your wheel, or model make sure it is perfectly balanced and will stop in whatever position that you stop it at then spin it How many revolutions do you get? count them 200 150 100 stop your wheel, place one washer in some tape and stick it to the wheel at the 1:00 o'clock position does it move? yes it does slowly, but it does move. We only need to have the weight of a washer weight change to move the wheel.
ReplyDeleteThink about that for a while, and it will change your entire perspective of the required activity of your mechanism
The weight of a single washer
Yes! The counter torque of a wheel's bearings and its components' air drag when rotating is really not that much. It only takes a small NET amount of driving torque to get rotation going.
DeleteIn the Merseburg wheel, I estimate that the starting torque (which drops off with increasing drum rotation rate) was around 2 lb-ft which means that a rope attached to its 2 inch radius axle would have just barely been able to CONTINUOUSLY hoist a weight with a mass of about 12 lbs. The wheel, when starting up, would also have been able to overcome a maximum counter torque of about -2 lb-ft, but the actual counter torque due to its components' bearing drag and their aerodynamic drag at low rotation rate was probably only a small fraction of this...maybe only -0.1 lb-ft or so.
Bessler, of course, made sure that the sources of counter torque in this wheels was minimized. That meant plenty of low viscosity lubrication on metal to metal contact points and, I believe, the use of covering on the SIDES of an otherwise open drum. He actually discovered this aerodynamic principle CENTURIES ahead of its time because, only relatively recently, I've seen various "high tech" bicycles in which they place plastic covers over the wheel spokes to prevent them from interacting with the oncoming air as the bicycle moves along. Bessler's side covering on his wheels did the SAME thing by preventing the spokes of their drums from interacting with the surrounding air as the drums rotated!
Well explained, TG. Also, in rotational systems, the Noether theorem states that conservation laws apply to angular momentum. In other words: a rotational system does not by default conserve energy, only angular momentum. The net torque which we started off with may very well be conserved. In pseudo-rigid bodies the rule of Simo says: the total sum of energies and torques stays the same.
ReplyDeleteMimi, interesting observations. Completely O/T but what do you hold of the observations of certain astronomers (i.e. Van Flandern, et al) that the influence of gravity seems to be (much) faster than c - actually, instantaneous?
DeleteIt's actually a bit impolite of me to not comment a bit more your observations about rotational systems, and to "answer" with a O/T question. I'm certainly not an expert on Noether's theorem and/or vector quantities, but it's very interesting indeed.
DeleteAs far as I understand it one can, as conservation of angular momentum goes, increase (accelerate) rotational speed by reducing the current moment of inertia. In other words, "kiiking", in the case of a swing, or retracting ones arms in the case of a skater for example. Or retracting arm(atures) in a OB wheel. Now the interesting anomaly, as I see it: increased rotational speed basically increases (the potential for) output power. Turbines at low speeds have very little to no power (I should say: torque), but a turbine a high RPM has tremendous torque.
So what if we keep "pumping the swing" i.e. parametric oscillation - varying (reducing) the moment of inertia constantly.
Thanks, Mimi. I'm glad you liked my comment with its "in your face" response to the "no track" skeptics out there.
DeleteI have, on occasion, been told by such skeptics that Bessler's wheels CLEARLY could NOT exist because, if they did, they would be violating Newton's 3rd Law of Motion as they accelerated. In other words, such wheels would, as they accelerated, be constantly increasing their angular momentum and almost acting like the rotational analog of an obviously impossible inertialess drive system and that there certainly would be NO "conservation" of angular momentum by such a wheel.
This "psuedo" argument against the possible existence of an OB PM wheel is quickly demolished.
I once went to the trouble of making an interesting simulation. I made a large massive circle that represented the Earth's cross section and placed it in the middle of my sim program's workspace to simulate the Earth floating in space. It did not rotate. Next, I made a smaller radius, much less massive circle that represented one of Bessler's one-directional wheels and attached it to the rim of the larger more massive "Earth" circle. I then used a small motor to spin the little Bessler wheel circle at a high rotation rate.
Incredibly, as the tiny Bessler wheel circle rotated, the larger Earth circle would COUNTER rotate, but at a much lower rate due to its much higher mass. If I reversed the direction of rotation of the Bessler wheel circle, the direction of rotation of my Earth circle also reversed. I discovered that the angular momentum of the Bessler wheel circle and the Earth circle were ALWAYS EQUAL in magnitude, but OPPOSITE in sign. In other words, the SUM of their angular momenta, regardless of their individual rotation rates, was ALWAYS equal to ZERO!
We see from this that, if one considers one of Bessler's wheels AND the Earth to form a SINGLE system, then, indeed, angular momentum IS conserved and Newton's 3rd Law of Motion is NOT violated.
Those poor "no track" skeptics. Hopefully, in the future, AFTER we have produced the first duplicates of Bessler's wheels, they will be receiving more THOROUGH educations!
I agree with technoguy's sentiments though I would express it in a different way.
ReplyDeleteThe conventional view does not take into account changes in acceleration, jerk, or the third derivative of position with respect to time to be precise. It doesn't take into account the Force x time energy contribution but only look at the second derivative and thinks that's all there is.
The ironic thing is that they accept that the m->n derivatives, heat, has a mechanical equivalent.
Perhaps they can't see jerk has because its right under their nose.
Amongst the many nuggets of gold I have retrieved from That Treasure Trove of Clues: MT9-140 is The Pointed Ellipse Clue.
ReplyDeleteSince Bessler proves himself capable of carving convincing circles and ellipses dozens of times throughout his MT images, why does he deliberately make some of his ellipses come to a point? I’ll tell you why, because it’s a Visual Clue, that’s why!
Take MT62 as an example. In this image Bessler demonstrates that he is capable of carving a perfect (small) ellipse at the end of the axle B, but has apparently lost that ability when he comes to render the (large) wheel A. In this image at D, he has suddenly recovered the ability, but then, Oh dear! lost it again at F.
If any of you are actually interested in learning The Visual Clue Language that Bessler employed in his MT woodcut images, then start here with this observation: One of his core ideas; one of the fundamental structures supporting His Visual Language is this ‘Now I can do it; now I can’t ‘ notion.
Whether it’s his ‘two types of letter A’, or his ‘two types of letter C’ (you have noticed how he has ‘rotated’ many of them a little clockwise, haven’t you?) or whether it’s this ‘I can do a normal ellipse, Oh dear! I forgot how to do it, I’m doing a pointy one now’ thing; he keeps playing the same trick.
Think on.
Lesson One over.
JW
P.S. @ JC, regarding your current ‘wheel’ construction; you might consider this ‘pointed ellipse’ element, if you are having A problem.
This sounds like yet another PSEUDO clue from your "Treasure Trove" of MT "Clues"!
DeleteYes, some of Bessler circles, seen obliquely, appear more elliptical than others. There is, however, no "deep" meaning to this and I certainly would not consider it to be a clue of any sort. Apparently, when CARVING a woodcut, it is much easier to make obliquely seen SMALL circles more elliptical in appearance than it is to make LARGER ones look that way. This has something to do with the greater ability to control the motion of the cutting tool with the hand while making the smaller ellipse than exists when making a larger ellipse.
If anybody doubts this, then simply obtain a piece of wood and a suitable engraving stylus and see what happens when you try to engrave a large versus a small ellipse onto the wood's surface. I think you will quickly find that making the larger ellipses "pointy" is MUCH easier to do.
Thanks JW. I shall bear it in mind.
DeleteJC
Bessler was a very, very clever fox. I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss such details TG. To be honest I am very impressed with the work and conclusions of mr. Worton on his website. The quality of workmanship on display there is also superb.
Delete@ Andre
DeleteI'm not questioning the "quality of workmanship" of JW or anyone else here. But, even the most precisely crafted mechanism will NOT work if it is based on ERRONEOUS "clues" which, unfortunately, is all that I have seen from JW so far. It's obvious that he is "in love" with the subject of Bessler and his inventions as are we all. But, sometimes love can "blind" one to reality.
Everyone seems to be convinced that practically every sentence Bessler wrote, every sketch he made, and every "code" that can be found in his writings MUST have relevance to the PM design he found and used. I think this belief is a very DANGEROUS one to embrace and can result in one experiencing a LOT of frustration not to mention a wasting of precious, LIMITED research time.
Rather than believing there are RELEVANT clues in every page of the Bessler literature, I choose to believe that he DID leave a LOT of relevant clues, but PURPOSELY placed them ALL into only TWO images: the two DT portraits. I can HONESTLY say that I have found MORE relevant clues in those two items than in all of the rest of the Bessler literature COMBINED!
The thing about going on and on with a line a B.S. a million miles long is this : If nobody ever proves you wrong ( which many of you I know are betting on ) you can continue with it unrestricted indefinitely . I think everyone should be more like me (and just keep their theories to themselves because after all if it's not valuable to you who will value it ) . All you are really saying with all of these theories is that you can't make heads or tails out of what you've already been given , so you have abandoned it ( the given clues and suggestion ) and have moved on to something even more desperate .
ReplyDeleteChris, if everyone kept their theories to themselves, then we would have little to discuss and there would be no real need for this blog or its comments section (except maybe to serve as an ongoing advertisement for JC's books about Bessler!).
DeleteI WANT to know what conclusions OTHERS are coming to with regards to HOW Bessler's wheels worked and, most importantly, WHY they believe those. IF I read something that catches my attention, then it might help ME make more progress along my own "right track" path to finally rediscovering the WORKING OB PM gravity wheel that Bessler found and used. And I, of course, hope that my comments will do the same for others and prompt them to reconsider their conclusions and their own "right track" approaches to solving the Bessler wheel mystery.
Everyone doesn't keep their opinions to themselves AND THERE IS STILL little discussed . When you begin sentences as if you are stating incontestable fact
Deletewhat is the reason ? We know it's not fact . I was just pointing out that without any device that works 100% there is no reason to believe that any given theory or clue ( whether it actually exists or not ) is valid , and no opinion is to be preferred above another . Folks do not carry on in this way in the face of NO RESULTS . This is a circus .
I hardly see it as a circus, Chris. Of course many have their own interpretations. Nothing wrong with that. What is fact to one person isn't fact to another. It's just human nature. What is great about this blog is that people are to some extent sharing ideas and interpretations. It would be a circus if people were ignoring established (truly irrefutable) scientific facts.
DeleteAs far as I am aware, none here are mocking The Holy Laws of Thermodynamics, and many are quite capable - but we all have our own approaches to find loopholes based on inconclusive data. And let's not forget that even Holy Laws turn out to be not so holy and all-encompassing after all. I've seen too many examples of that - even recently.
Of course such circumstances yield all kinds of ideas and concepts. As far as PM goes, no doubt there's more than one approach/design that might work. So I can see much good come from all this "circus".
To the casual observer , believe me ... it is a circus . Bessler himself had to be very scientific but not a scientist per se . He had to be very imaginative , but not delusional . But I'd bet my life that before he discovered and proved his principle he did not elaborate about P.M. facts at length ... not actually possessing anything valid but urging everyone to think about it " his way " as so many do . You see I , actually having grasped something of value from all of this am truly astounded by the ramblings on and on of certain people who's mouth hastily precedes their ass and who , based on their own lengthy expulsion of air/type , issues forth what amounts to be a lack of skillful navigation and overwhelming evidence of desperation and the need for a map .
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteThere is a guy with a working gravity wheel teaching theory here : www.notinamillionyearsare yougoingtoshutup.com
ReplyDeleteHere is a Chinese site about P.M. here : www.hewho knowssecretsaysnotmuchbuthewhoknownothingtalkalldayandnight.com
ReplyDeleteSorry for being a bit O/T, just giving you some nuts to google. Yes, power output is torque multiplied by angular velocity. In other words, you could increase torque (heavier weights, larger wheels) and/or angular velocity. I think angular velocity is not an independent factor here, but depends on wheel size and wheel weight. The larger and/or heavier the wheel is, the slower it turns. The nice thing is that we have the eye-witness reports, telling us what the angular velocity was and giving us a hint at the power (=lifting a basket of bricks). The power output has been estimated at 55 Watts by Keller (www.besslerrad.de/html/bekannte_details.html, scroll down to the bottom), I think technoguy has a lower estimate of 20-30 Watts. The maximum torque available is at 3 o'clock, where the moveable weight (2kgs) would be located at the outer rim (1.5m). Multiply this by g (10m/sec2) to get a torque of 30 Nm. Now multiply by angular velocity 20 rpm = 2m/sec (angular velocity=2Pi*rpm/60). This also gives you 60 Watt, if the max torque were conserved over a full turn of the wheel. That would seem to be unlikely, or at least difficult to achieve. This is why I find the rule of Simo interesting: it says that under certain circumstances this is possible.
ReplyDeleteIn Bessler's wheels, the maximum constant driving torque and power output actually occurred at start up when the angular velocity was the lowest and their drums would have had their greatest rates of acceleration at that time!
DeleteHowever, as a drum's angular velocity continued to increase toward its maximum terminal rate when running freely, the constant driving torque and power output would continually DECREASE. I've previously calculated that the Weissenstien wheel was outputting about 25 watts when it was operating the Archimedean screw for lifting water that could be attached to it. If the height that the water was lifted to was increased (by increasing the slant angle of the screw), then the Weissenstein wheel would have continued to operate the screw, but it would have had to have lowered its drum's angular velocity to do so. However, if the height that the water was raised to was made too great, then the wheel's rotation rate would eventually drop to zero and everything would stop. At that point the power required to lift the water would have exceeded the maximum power output of the wheel when its drum was just barely turning. I'm not sure of the maximum power output that this wheel could develop when running at its lowest speeds, but it could have been double 25 watts.
What's happening is that, as a CW turning drum increases toward its maximum terminal rotation rate, the increasing CF working on the weights moving between 6:00 and 9:00 begins to prevent these weights and their levers from swinging CCW toward the axle as easily as they would if the CF was not present. As I've found from my own models, the location of the CoM of the 8 weights within a one-directional wheel or two-directional wheel's one-directional "sub wheel" is VERY sensitive to the interference that CF causes on the CCW swing of the weighted levers as their pivots draw nearer to the 9:00 position.
There was no way to eliminate the effect of CF in Bessler's wheels, but it actually DID serve a useful purpose. It prevented a wheel from accelerating to such a high rate of rotation that there would be the danger of the drum being torn apart by CF or of some sort of unexpected resonant vibration in the axle being amplified to the point where an axle pivot might actually "jump" right off of its brass bearing plate. Of course, if any of these had ever been permitted to happen, it would probably have destroyed the drum and, possibly, injured any personnel in the area.
I disagree TG...There is no CF in Bessler's wheel because the movement of the weights is in pairs.
DeleteThe CF of the weight displacement to the perimeter is effectively cancelled out by the weight displacement to the hub.
This solves the problem of CF in the wheel.
Trevor,
Deleteif the 2 paired weights do not have equal distances from the axle, then they have different CF, and then they would not cancel out each other...
Trevor wrote: "There is no CF in Bessler's wheel because the movement of the weights is in pairs."
DeleteIn my "right track" models, the weights in the "pairs" are diametrically opposed to each other with the axle between them and are not directly interconnected with cords. Each lever's weight IS subject to uncancelled CF and this force causes the most problems for the weighted levers whose pivots are traveling from the 6:00 to 7:30 position of a CW rotating drum. One of the reasons is because it is during this 45 degrees of pivot travel that a lever begins rotating CCW while ALSO trying to stretch a return spring attached to it while simultaneously fighting the effect of the CF that is trying to keep its weight in contact with its rim stop. I have found ways to minimize the effect though, but they just involve lowering the tension in the return springs as much as possible without compromising the shift assisting effect of the springs on the weighted levers moving between the drum's 10:30 and 3:00 positions.
I continue to struggle with finding all of the details of the "Secret Principle" and I'm even now starting to wonder if my belief that TWO springs were used on EACH lever might be incorrect due to my being led astray (yet again) by one of Bessler's "decoy" clues! The number of these increases sharply as one approaches finding the complete details of the Secret Principle because Bessler did not want to make them easy to find. I shall continue to apply myself to the problem while scanning the DT portraits for guidance.
I'm sorry Mimi,...By CF I take it you mean centrifugal force,then I am correct.I am considering weights that are diametrically opposed that are rigidly connected to each other.
ReplyDeleteIn a turning wheel,as the weights make a transition from a small circumference to to a greater and vica-versa for the other weight,the increase in CF on the the first weigtht is cancelled out by the decrease in CF on the second weight.
Maybe I should have made myself clearer first time round.
CF = r x w^2 | r is the radius and w is the angular velocity
DeleteAssuming both weights move along the same radial line, they both have the same angular velocity (w). The CF for each weight (in the weight pair) is proportional to its radius (r) from the axis of rotation.
Also assuming both weights are rigidly connected, as the outer weight moves in a certain distance, the inner weight must move out by the same distance. This means the decrease (change) in CF of the outer weight as it moves inward will equal the increase (change) in CF of the inner weight as it moves outward. However, the CF of the outer weight will still be greater than the CF of the inner weight and thus the net CF of the weight pair will be positive.
This net positive CF will tend to push the outer weight further out and pull the inner weight further in.
You have omitted mass in your equation. It should be:
DeleteCF = m x r x w^2 or, (using character map etc)
CF = mrω²
You are quite right that the net positive CF will tend to push the outer weight further out and pull the inner weight further in, but only of course if the design permits this.
The design could prevent any net increase in radius over multiple revolutions, i.e. the weights could just keep "swapping places."
Trevor wrote: "I am considering weights that are diametrically opposed that are rigidly connected to each other."
DeleteIn THIS case you are right as long as the weights have the same distance from the axle, but in my "right track" design the weighted levers are NOT rigidly connected to each other across a diameter of the drum. There is only a sort of rigidity between certain ADJACENT pairs of weighted levers when the cords that interconnect them become taut for a while. Most of the time, however, these cords are slack.
Oops, you are right. r x w^2 is the centripetal acceleration.
DeleteTrevor, thanks for clarifying. Yes, I guess they would cancel out under those circumstances.
ReplyDeleteNo, see above.
DeleteThanks,..I believe this is the only way Bessler could do it in order to avoid any deccelerating or accelerting affect on the wheel.
ReplyDeleteNow the problem is only to work out how the weights are primed.
At the risk of sounding presumptious I do believe I already know.
Trevor, at least your design seems to conform fully with the clue Bessler gives in AP, that the weights "come in pairs, such that, as one of them takes up an outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axle. Later, they swap places, and so they go on and on changing places all the time."
DeleteIn a design like this, if springs are added between the weights and the central axle, it is easy to get a rapid increase in the amplitude of mass-spring resonant oscillation, if it is tuned correctly to a constant wheel rotational speed. Gravity forces this, at double the oscillation frequency (which is a key feature of parametric oscillation).
Unfortunately, so far I can't see how to get any net energy out of this. But maybe you can?
We seem to be on the same plane logically even with regard to resonance because that is why the bessler wheel had a constant speed.
DeleteThe only force that can be turned into energy is gravity itself lets face it but it will require a special mechanism.
@TG
ReplyDeleteYour contention that Bessler has carved some of his ellipses in his MT images ‘pointy’ because on some occasions (but not all?) it was “easier” for him is one you might want to reconsider. Especially in view of the fact that you are using the exact opposite argument in support of your Fitzsch-Wig Portrait Theory, namely that Bessler produced a highly complex and accurate “essential mathematical” lines and significant angles drawing behind his ‘assisted self-portraits’. So, he didn’t cut any corners; go for the easy option when he was making these other images then?
Thanks for your ‘top tip’ about woodcarving implements and their limitations. In all my many years of carving woodcuts, it’s not one I had come across before. I don’t think I have ever completed a work with just one implement, but have always employed a range of implements; different tools to do different jobs. Perhaps this has always insured me against the kind of problems that you suggest could occur if one were to attempt carving an image with just one ‘stylus’? Commonly I and many other carvers make templates, clamp them to the job and use them to guide the cutting tools. These are especially useful for sharp straight lines, difficult curves, and the repeating of shapes, to name just a few uses. We make sure our templates are right before cutting into the job. You seem to assume that carving is always ‘free-hand nibbling’ when that is not always the case.
You have not addressed my central point: Why Bessler could be bothered to get the curves of his ellipses right in some images, but apparently couldn’t be bothered in others and then carved them ‘lazily easy pointy’ instead (as you define it).
I have named and given you (and everyone else) one of Bessler’s Visual Clues; The Pointed Ellipse Clue, straight from The Treasure Trove MT9-140. Is there any better place to highlight and promote a Bessler Clue than here on JC’s Blogg; in ‘the chat room’ of the guy who wrote The Book (and published some others) that got most of us into this thing?
JW
JW, you should refer to this approach as the "Visual Track", and repeat if over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and ... well you get the point.
DeleteLOL!, Yes I do get the point!
DeleteThank you for your positive input.
'The Visual Track' is duly named.
JW
JW wrote: "So, he didn’t cut any corners; go for the easy option when he was making these other images then?"
DeleteNo, he did not "cut any corners" with the DT portraits because THEY were the ones that established his priority to the working design that he found for an OB PM gravity wheel!
He also wrote: "You have not addressed my central point: Why Bessler could be bothered to get the curves of his ellipses right in some images, but apparently couldn’t be bothered in others and then carved them ‘lazily easy pointy’ instead (as you define it)."
As was previously noted, he seems to do well on the smaller ellipses, but has problems with the larger ones. I believe this might have had to do with his hands which, in the DT portraits, seem to be a bit gnarled. Who knows? Maybe he had severe arthritis or some nutritional deficiency which affected the bones in his fingers and made it difficult for him to make accurate looking larger ellipses. Thus, trying to do so would have forced his hands out of the particular biomechanical "groove" they were only capable of operating in. Then again, maybe, despite being an artist, he had perceptual problems that made it difficult for him to "see" how to correctly engrave the ends of a larger ellipse. We may never know for sure.
This is just as good a time and place for this as any other but to whom it may concern ,
ReplyDeleteI know it's hard for you guys to take anyone totally seriously ... especially me since I have had so many inspired moments at which I exclaimed that I had solved the problem (and had not ). With that out there I'd like to say a bit about my life as it stands at the moment . In the next few days I am going to move from Fl to Cali to take a job in which I am highly qualified . I have not been able to find work here in Fl . This is a good opportunity for me to make money and I also will be building what I consider to be the " end all " solution to the question of P.M. in the mean time . It's time for me to put my money where my mouth is so to speak and show all of you ( and anyone else interested ) what I'm made of . I promise you that no one will be disappointed . Please wish me well . I have multiple reasons for the move but the main reason is to raise funds to realize this device .
Sincerely,
Chris Wilson
Good luck with your move, Chris, and I hope the new job works out for you.
DeleteI tell many of my unemployed / subemployed friends not to be too hard on themselves. The US is currently experiencing the worst economy since the Great Depression of the '30's and it seems like all of the various "tools" (more like accounting "tricks") being used by our central bank and treasury are, at best, only keeping things from sinking any farther down the drain. A lot of what will be happening over here is dependent upon the economies of the European Union member nations and, unfortunately, those are looking shakier than ever!
I used to be a fanatical builder until I finally got it through my thick skull that while such a trait is nice, it is, unfortunately, VERY inefficient unless one has a PROVEN design from which to work. Simulations can allow one to find such a proven design and to do so at "warp speed".
That's what I believe I have already done . Thx .
DeleteWish you and your family all the best Chris.
DeleteGood luck Chris. Anyone like you, who can work well with Blender, deserves credit for that at least!
DeleteGood luck Chris! And don't be a stranger - we'd love to hear from you.
DeleteChris, I wish you good luck, too. And hope to hear from you again, once you are settled in.
ReplyDeleteGood luck Chris and don't give up...ever!
ReplyDeleteJC
Thanks everyone . As for giving up I find it necessary to either realize the device with this particular design or indeed throw in the towel . I can imagine no design ( at first glance ) that makes less sense than this one and at the same time upon careful consideration and critical discernment makes perfect sense , thanks to Bessler and his subtleties . I have read him very carefully in as many ways as are convenient to me without prejudice to any given interpretation . I have envisioned a design which I consider my own and possibly akin to Bessler's . I do not wish to criticize anyone else's ideas but at the same time am weary of theories and technical/structural details which I see as assumptions and expressions of over-tried concepts of overbalance because to me " the true device " which Bessler described must have been something quite different than that . I apologize for my indifference but also find that it is incidentally unavoidable . The only other choice I have here is to say nothing at all ... and that , as many of you know is difficult if not impossible .
ReplyDeleteHey Chris! Good luck with the relocation and the new job. I hope things work out real well for you.
DeleteGood luck too with your next build, I certainly know what’s involved in that undertaking!
I am not being sarcastic, funny or clever when I say (and I say this to TG too) I genuinely look forward to seeing what it is you have conceived, by whatever clues or methods you have determined.
What a nice response you have had to your announcement!
Remember you are amongst friends here, fellow believers are few and far between, and we are all officially Mad!
JW
Take care Chris, hope to see your posts soon.
ReplyDeleteRick
The clues in MT can be grouped into the following types: 1, the elements in his pictures and 2, the unusual numbers and letters incorporated into these images.
ReplyDeleteThese two taken together constitute Bessler’s Visual Language.
These visual clues are supported by 3; his handwritten notes; his cover note, the notes accompanying MT’s 9-54 and the note on MT138.
We also have 4; the NB’s X’s and other marks Bessler has hand-drawn onto his woodcut printed pages. He has also written the word ‘Bellows’ on MT56.
I also recognise 5; the probable existence of some clues in the numbering and renumbering of the pages. I believe JC has already pointed this out and done some work on it. I have not done any work on it and so will not be commenting on it. I am acknowledging that JC pointed this out first and saying that I think he is probably right.
Therefore, there are 5 types of clue in Maschinen Tractate.
Andre, you are correct again, Bessler was a clever fox, his clues multi-layered.
JW
I missed one clue type out in what I wrote above. So I need to add;
Delete6. The faint drawings; 'the faint information clues' in MT139 and MT140. (These are pen/pencil drawings and not woodcuts) I believe I am the first person to bring these clues to everyone's attention.
There are 6 clue types in MT
JW
I find that the number of RELEVANT clues in MT can be counted on ONE hand!
ReplyDeleteThey are found in certain of the notations and their illustrations and, even so, are a bit vague in nature. NONE of the components used in MT looks exactly like what Bessler did use with the sole exceptions of the cords and springs. Indeed, I've only found TWO examples of springs used in MT and the DT portraits tell us that each two-directional wheel actually incorporated 32 springs!
Speaking (actually writing!) of springs, as I continue to explore the full details of Bessler's "Secret Principle", it is becoming quite obvious to me that he was a expert in applying spring tension to weighted levers and his use of springs is FAR more involved than even I first imagined. Yes, the final design he found that used them would certainly seem "simple" upon a routine examination (as by Karl), but that simplicity belied some VERY "tricky" use of spring tension. Mainly, if a wheel's springs are not attached to certain SPECIFIC points within a drum and are not tensioned just right, then the OB of a one-directional wheel or two-directional wheel's "sub wheel" can NOT be maintained upon drum rotation.
I, of course, thought the final 1% of my journey to the end of the "right track" would be difficult, but now I'm starting to see it as being EXPONENTIALLY more difficult than I imagined! But, I fear not because I KNOW the PROPER interpretation of the DT portrait clues will guide me to success!
TO Technoguy
DeleteI find that the number of RELEVANT clues in MT can be counted on ONE hand.
Me thinks you have a long long way to go.
BIBLEAL
@ BIBLEAL1
DeleteDon't tell me that you are ALSO suffering from what I call "Clueitis" which is the tendency to see clues nearly everywhere one looks in the Bessler literature. Yes, there ARE SOME important clues in MT, but they are few and far between. OTOH, there is a RICH abundance of PRECISE clues in the DT portraits, but they are NOT simple visual ones, but, rather, mathematical ones that will mean NOTHING to anyone who is not SERIOUSLY building / modeling with the hope of replicating Bessler's OB PM gravity wheel design. I only learned about this TRUE "Treasure Trove" of clues in the portraits by sheer luck! My research began to experience REAL progress from that moment on.
Okay TG...I realise that there will be unequal centrifugal force on the opposing weights if they are not equi-distant from the hub but this is of little consequence because if the weights swap places there will be no torque or anti-torque on the wheel.
ReplyDeleteThe only torque will be the over balancing effect due to gravity.
Over the years I have seen MANY attempts to use simple two diametrically opposed weights to somehow shift their CoM from below the axle to above it as the pair achieves a vertical orientation within a wheel. The hope was that the driving torque of the OB of a wheel's other opposed pairs of weights would not only be large to overcome the counter torque caused by hoisting the CoM of the two weights at the 6:00 and 12:00 positions through the axle to the top half of the wheel, but also be large enough to produce some excess torque to accelerate the wheel and perform outside "useful" work.
DeleteYes, it seems so easy to do. Of course, IF it really was easy, it would have been done CENTURIES ago by the thousands of mobilists who previously tried such an approach with EVERY conceivable variation imaginable. To put it bluntly, this approach is UNworkable!
The problem that dooms these designs to failure is that at the end of an increment of wheel rotation, they require the wheel to SUDDENLY deliver enough energy / mass to jack up the CoM of the 6:00 and 12:00 pair of weights and this amount ALWAYS exceeds what the wheel's OTHER OB weight pairs can deliver. In Bessler's wheels, the CoM of the weights is lifted far more gradually and is spread out over the ENTIRE duration of an increment of drum rotation. This is the key to success: move the CoM continuously and with as little vertical motion as possible. The CoM of one of Bessler's wheels mostly continously SLID away from its starting location as the drum began to rotate and the CoM underwent minimal vertical motion relative to the Earth's gravity field. This approach only uses a small FRACTION of the outputted energy / mass of the wheel and leaves plenty over to do other nice things like accelerate all of the structures of the wheel or operate "outside" machinery.
"... this is of little consequence ..."
ReplyDelete(CF) X (DISTANCE OF SHIFT) is the energy required to shift the weights. This may not be of little consequence unless the wheels turns very slowly.
PART I:
ReplyDeleteFor those who may be wondering which of the MT illustrations / notes I personally consider to contain "relevant" clues to THE "right track" design that Bessler found and used, here is a list along with my reasons for considering them valuable:
MT 9 - Bessler dismisses "sphere wheels" as unworkable and informs us that Leupold's wheel, with uses weighted levers, could be made to work by the application of Bessler's "Connectedness Principle". The text suggests that this principle involves interconnecting weighted levers with belts or chains. In his wheels he would be using cords to minimize belt stretching and chain noise.
MT 10 - Bessler considers this wheel's principle to be "good". Note that the weighted lever whose pivot is located at about 10:30 is being SIMULTANEOUSLY pulled up by its interconnections to the descending side weighted levers AND also lifted up by its physical contact with the weighted lever below it. In Bessler's wheels the weighted levers approaching the 9:00 position of a CW turning drum would lift the weighted lever approaching the 10:30 position which was simultaneously, via cord interconnections, being lifted by the weighted levers approaching the 1:30 and 3:00 positions of the drum.
MT 11 - We see Bessler considers it possible to place TWO independent one-directional wheels withn a single drum. He will use this principle with his two-directional wheels, but its two one-directional "sub wheels" will not be coplanar as shown in MT 11, but rather their planes will be parallel and they will be coaxial.
MT 13 - Although this wheel is UNworkable, it shows the goal of every OB mobilist which is to keep the wheel's ascending side weights as close to the axle as possible and the descending side weights as far from the axle as possible. Note the use of an extended arm to apply torque to the weighted levers as they approach the 12:00 position.
MT 17 - We learn that Bessler's wheels would not be using springs that interconnect adjacent weighted levers together.
MT 18 - Illustrates a VERY important principle used in Bessler's wheels. Note that the long strip type springs are tensioned by their end weights on the ascending side and that this tension is LATER used to move the weights closer to their rim stops as they pass the 12:00 position. In Bessler's wheels, however, helical coil springs were used and there was more than one spring assigned to each weighted lever.
MT 20 - We see one method of using a dropping weight to raise another weight as happens to the pairs of cord interconnected weights moving between 12:00 and 3:00. Many following illustrations also show this basic principle, but I exclude them because they all show cords passing through or near the axle which was NOT the case in Bessler's wheels.
Some of us have been looking at simulations way too much.
ReplyDeleteJohn, have you run out of clues to write about?
The obvious ones were okay.
And the VAST majority of you have not been looking at the two DT portraits enough!
DeletePART II:
ReplyDeleteMT 138 - The "toys page" is important for several reasons.
a.) The scissor mechanism on the left side shows us that in Bessler's wheels interconnected levers work TOGETHER to maintain the OB of the CoM of their attached weights. Also, the active weighted levers within one of his wheels move together as a unit when shifting occurs.
b.) The two sets of hammering figures show that as a weight on one side of the axle moves closer to the axle (represented by the anvils in the toys), its diametically opposed weight moves farther from the axle. This process is REVERSIBLE as indicated by the lower toy which, although requiring a separate sub wheel, is how his wheels could operate bi-directionally.
c.) The Jacob's Ladder on the right side shows that some process occurs SEQUENTIALLY inside of Bessler's wheels which was the continuous inward CCW swinging of the weighted levers approaching a CW rotating drum's 9:00 position as the weighted levers LEADING it (i.e., those approaching 10:30, 12:00, 1:30, and 3:00) were simultaneously ALL raised a bit closer to their rim stops (final contact only being made by the weighted lever approaching the 3:00 position).
d.) The spinning top is Bessler's way of telling us that the above principles can be used to maintain the CoM of a collection of weights at a location that, ordinarily, would make it fall; that is, the above principles allowed the CoM's of his wheels' drums to remain offset onto their descending sides despite their rotation.
Well, there we have it. That is all one really needs to know about the RELEVANT portions of MT. IMO, anybody who thinks there is more there than this is wasting time that could be better spent BUILDING / MODELING and, MOST importantly, studying the MANY and far more PRECISE clues that can be found in the two DT portraits.
Hmmm...I just noticed that I have identified 8 MT illustrations containing relevant clues and I previously said that they could be counted on ONE hand. Make that TWO hands now!
TG...Don't dismiss the CF effect so easily.It provides a useful switching effect,much likes a flipflop in electronics.
ReplyDeleteYou are looking at only half the mechanism, a mechanism that compliments this action.
Sorry, Trevor, but I still see CF as only a force that limits the maximum terminal rotation rate of one of Bessler's wheels which is not necessarily a "bad" thing. Quite fortunately, CF does NOT limit a wheel's maximum start up power output or they would have been even weaker than they were!
DeleteIf, however, you can make CF shift weights about so as to MAINTAIN the OB of a wheel's weights in YOUR "right track" design, then I would be VERY interested in seeing just how you managed to accomplish that considering all of the many failed attempts to do so in the past.
This is stunning I had no clue about all this until the moment I stumbled upon this blog article of yours here. Also I would like to know one thing. Do you happen to know how to defend your reflections from being stolen without notifying you about it?
ReplyDelete