Time to turn my thoughts to gravity again. Today's blog is a two parter but each is connected with the other.
Firstly, some say that Bessler never used the word 'gravity' in his writings, therefore he did not ascribe his energy source to gravity. But the reason for its non-appearance is because he used such words as 'preponderance' and 'weight' instead. Preponderance simply means 'a superiority in weight', in other words, heavier than something else.
The apparently missing word, 'gravity', comes from the Latin word, 'gravitas'. In Newton's time, Latin was the language used by the learned, and books on academic and scientific subjects were written in Latin so that they could be read by people in all the European countries regardless of the reader's native language. Newton's use of the word, 'Gravitas', meant 'heaviness' or 'weight'. But he suggested that 'weight' should no longer be regarded as simply a property possessed by a 'heavy body', but that a body that seems to be heavy is being attracted by another body with mass, in this case, the earth. Thus the force of gravity was born.
The word for gravity in German today is 'Schwerkraft' but that did not come into common use for many years after Bessler's death. So just because the particular word 'gravity' isn't there doesn't mean that Bessler wasn't referring to it in his writings and the circumstantial evidence is clear enough that that is what he meant. If he could do it, then it can be done
Secondly, we've been taught that gravity is a conservative force and therefore it cannot be used as a source of energy. I have repeatedly pointed out that the forces of wind and water are also conservative forces and they provide excellent sources of energy. You can't have it both ways; either a conservative force cannot be used as an energy source.... or it can!
In relation to our research, the law of conservation of energy only defines what happens for a single weight mounted on a wheel and driving a gravity-enabled wheel. Picture Bessler's horizontal windmill, the one he was building at the time of his death; the wind acted on both sides of the vertical axle and with a number of sails or scoops, it was designed to rotate in the wind. if there had been just one sail or vane or scoop, it would have made half a turn and stopped - it needed several of them to work with each side on either scooping up the wind or deflecting it, to make a full rotation.
The same goes for an overshot water wheel for example. If it had just one bucket it would stop after half a turn. It needs a succession of buckets to make a full and continuous rotation.
A Savonius windmill still requires a miniumum of two blades or scoops to allow it to rotate and there are designs using three or more blades. My point is that even though gravity is a conservative force that does not rule it out as an energy source - as long as there are sufficient weights in complementary action.
None of the above wind or water driven designs will work with just one blade, unless of course, as in the case of the former one, it is designed to operate face-on to the wind. The different designs mean that the wind and water wheels use surface-changes to their vanes, scoops or sails to interact with their relevant forces to gain mechanical advantage, whereas gravity-enabled wheels use position-changes of their weights to interact with gravity for a mechanical advantage.
Horizontal windmills, or Savonius windmills present a larger surface area on one side of their axles than the other, which gives one side more leverage and makes them turn. It's just the same with gravitywheels, they present the weight on one side further from the axle which gives one side more leverage and makes them turn
The whole argument against gravitywheels is based on the calculation of one weight operating the wheel and not several.
I've said all this before, on my other web sites and on the forum but I will repeat it and repeat it until someone listens and makes the required paradigm shift.
JC
Paradigm , shmaradigm , Bessler had the right to a lot of rage against popular opinion . If we consider that he was being truthful and consider him genuine then we must also give him credit for being clever , more so that anyone else in his chosen field and apparently anyone since . One does not ask permission for changing the status quot . You are preaching to the choir . Yes , a minimum of two weights ... agreed .
ReplyDelete"more so THAT"...
DeleteHuh?
Are you American, by any chance?
Please use your great mental prowess to fend through any errors in text .
DeleteJohn I agree,..Of course only one weight will not work because in the first place any engine no matter how it's powered,needs to be balanced.
ReplyDeleteThis one thing I know,you do only need one crossbar to get a movement.In fact I should have a wheel movement today,..or tomorrow.
I will let you know one way or the other.
It appears that the principle of GRAVITY was not even a word when Bessler was alive and we should look at it as the secret force that was talked about in some of the letters that were written after viewing the wheel in motion. His clues will become obvious after we have the device working, as an Ah Ha moment....... OH, thats what he meant when he said that. The clues lead us to the principles of 2 areas, one accelerated mass and then leverage of that accelerated mass. This is the only way that a 1 lb weight can life more that 1 lb. He was clever and an extremely skilled and talented craftsman. If you are a skilled craftsman you have a distinct advantage in the discovery of the working wheel, but if you are not then you must learn to think like a skilled craftsman. no secrets just basic mechanical application of leverage
ReplyDeleteI disagree w/Grvta in the sense that the secret force was not gravity ... it was the " special toil " that Bessler spoke of . Gravity is simply heaviness , a way to say that the Earth has a mutual attraction to all things . The secret was a specific mechanical application of his principle ... and not knowing what his principle was ( I have not heard it uttered anywhere including here ); I would not expect anyone to be able to describe it .
DeleteAhhh... respite. :-)
ReplyDeleteMaybe it is better to say that these sources, gravity excluded, enable us to create a differential. It is the (pressure) differential that makes the windmill, the waterwheel, et cetera move. With gravity it is somewhat different since we have no interface, we cannot shield it - and therefore the only way to create a differential is what we call overbalancing.
ReplyDeleteThe argument of the mainstream is, of course, that the energy or effort (work) required to maintain the "overbalancing differential" is equal or greater (friction losses et al) than the energy (torque) liberated than that used to create the differential.
That is, of course, assuming that the entire (internal) mechanism has to rotate. I beg to differ right there. I don't see a need (or even desire) to rotate the entire thing.
Considering that it is indeed possible to have a large, heavy mass -after overcoming initial inertia- continue moving with only little energy input (several orders of magnitude less than what is produced) while "harvesting" considerable forces at the opposite end of a beam - such as in the case of a parametric oscillator - I dare to say that the "mechanical amplifier" does exist. Little mechanical input, large output. The rest is engineering.
Nice, in this context, is the recent acknowledgment by the Serbian Academy of Science that parametric oscillators of specific construction are more efficient than the wheel. In fact up to 80% of energy (torque) available is due to gravity input.
So there we have our gravity "interface". There is a clear differential. In my view, it must be a matter of engineering to use part of that 80% to close-loop it. The problem, therefore, is still the same: how to apply it.
To me, Andre, the gravity interface is the weights. As I said in my blog, the interface in the windmill is the curved and changing surface and in the gravity wheel it is the moving weights.
ReplyDeleteJC
Do any design plans exist for the windmill Bessler was building when he died?
ReplyDeleteI am sure that if that was the case, John knows about it. Personally I have never seen such documents.
DeleteI agree John - the weights are the "heart of the matter"; they are what causes the movement (they *are* in fact the prime mover). But the argument of the mainstream (as I rather clumsily worded in my post, I see, after re-reading it) is that maintaining the overbalanced state -shifting weights- will expend more energy than what it produces. In other words: it is impossible to maintain without an additional energy source (input). We've heard it a thousand times.
ReplyDeleteI argue that it has already been demonstrated that weights/masses *under the influence of gravity* can indeed produce considerably more mechanical advantage (torque) than is required to keep it going, as long as the whole contraption is not rotating.
Since that is the case logic dictates that it must be possible to maintain that movement.
In my view, the beauty of parametric oscillation is the fact that even 100% load on the output *does not influence* the movement of the prime mover; the weight/mass. Absence, therefore, of a equal and opposite reaction. Hence it is very easy to keep it going.
I find that very significant. Not only easy to maintain continuous movement, but also clear and present "amplification" - more out than in. It must be possible to use that to our advantage somehow.
I'm however not saying that is what Bessler did, but I am fascinated by it. Somehow its part of it, I feel.
I have run a few more cases on my parametric-oscillation model of a pair of masses, one at each end of a rod, able to move radially, with springs between each mass and the central axle. The two main conclusions are:—
ReplyDelete- The amplitude of mass-spring oscillations, and hence the energy contained in them, builds up very quickly.
- So far, the energy gained by these oscillations is balanced out by an equal amount taken from the wheel.
Actually two quantities are being varied twice per cycle to get these oscillations, i.e. the resolved component of gravity on the masses, and also the rotational inertia of the mass-pair. I'll see if I can separate these out in further experiments.
@Chris Wilson
ReplyDeleteChris, can we assume that the secret principle (prime mover I suppose) is what allows for the shifting of weights on the descending side to an outer position, and the weights on the ascending side to an inner position? Or is the wheel completely balanced at all times such that there is no overbalance at any time and the wheel is driven by some other principle (the secret principle you are referring too)?
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteBessler : " The ability to move itself and other things makes up the form of the device ."
DeleteIn a wheel that is revolving 360 degrees why is it necessary that nearly everyone defines " descent and ascent " ? Is the axle descending or ascending ? Get around the " overbalanced " concepts already . Bessler's invention was not " overbalanced " . He did not discover the magic lever which allows the weights at the bottom of the wheel to be drawn up toward the center at some point past the 6 o'clock position to be lifted yet again only to fall from 12 to 6 o'clock once more .
My biggest fear is that someone else is building my wheel . When an idea flounders there is a great sense of relief on my part , because an invalid design is worthless . I have not had that feeling about this concept since I envisioned it .
ReplyDeleteHi everyone, I'm back from my holliday, hope I didn't miss too much here in the blog/discussions. I see that parametric oscillation still is a topic - I shall be looking into that a bit more myself. Fascinating stuff.
ReplyDeleteI welcome you on John's behalf.!
DeleteWelcome back, Mimi. We've missed you here.
DeleteThe Bessler wheel is definitely an over balancing wheel but it is not passive.
ReplyDeleteIt is actively primed by gravity.
PART I:
ReplyDeleteJC wrote:
"I have repeatedly pointed out that the forces of wind and water are also conservative forces and they provide excellent sources of energy. You can't have it both ways; either a conservative force cannot be used as an energy source.... or it can!"
It CAN'T! The problem with this analogy is that both wind and water are composed of ATOMS with MASS that are in MOTION. Consequently, they have kinetic energy / mass and, as they bounce off of the blades of a windmill or waterwheel, they will transfer part of that energy / mass to the blades and make the axle they are connected to turn. Gravity, OTOH, does NOT consist of particles with mass that have kinetic energy / mass. Even if gravity is considered to be composed of an inward or outward flow or "flux" of submicroscopic particles, as some now believe, those particles are massLESS and contain NO kinetic energy / mass which can be transfered to any object they happen to "impinge" upon. Indeed, if such particles do exist, then they travel right through material objects without interacting with them and that is the reason it is impossible to produce a "shield" that would cut off the effects of gravity. IF such a gravity shield was possible, then building a PM wheel would be child's play!
Can an OB PM gravity wheel be constructed using only a SINGLE weight?
Hmmm...I'd say that it is theoretically possible, but not possible to achieve in practice whereas, say, a ONE cylinder internal combustion engine is both theoretically and practically possible (my lawnmower uses one of them!).
In the case of a ONE weight PM gravity wheel, one would have to have a design wherein the single weight could somehow tap its own innate energy / mass content to lift itself farther from the axle at the 12:00 position (thus increasing its gravitational potential energy / mass) and, after 180 degress of CW rotation, again tap its own innate energy / mass to lift itself back closer to the axle for the next 180 degrees of the wheel's CW rotation (and again increasing its gravitational potential energy / mass). I can't think of ANY way that a single weight could do that although it would certainly contain more than enough innate energy / mass for the shifts in its distance from the axle to take place against the pull of gravity. Such a ONE weight PM gravity wheel would, indeed, actually still be OB since the AVERAGE location of the CoM of the single weight would always be on the wheel's descending side. However, it would not be able to start in just any orientation. It would best be started from a position with the weight out near the rim and just passed the 12:00 position.
PART II:
ReplyDeleteIn Bessler's 8 weighted lever, one-directional PM gravity wheels or two-directional wheel's "sub wheels", the descending side weights were, on average, always a bit farther from the axle than were the ascending side weights, but just a little bit so that, for the Merseburg wheel, the CoM of either of its active "sub wheel's" eight 4 lb weights would only be displaced out horizontally about ONE inch from the center of the axle. That slight imbalance was maintained because the design's use of interconnecting cords and stretched springs was able to use a FRACTION of the weights' lost innate energy / mass content to assist in the resetting of the OB configuration of the wheel's 8 weighted levers after the completion of each 45 degree increment of drum rotation.
In any sort of WORKING OB PM gravity wheel design, the weights must, because they are farther from the axle, speed up on the descending side and then slow down again on the ascending side because they are closer to the axle. Speeding up on the descending side requires that the weights there experience an increase in their KINETIC energy / mass and this does NOT come from the wheel's various structures as a whole, but, rather solely from all of its weights which then lose a bit of their INNATE energy / mass content as the transfer takes place.
On the wheel's ascending side, however, the weights must slow down a bit and then must LOSE the extra kinetic energy / mass they gained on the descending side at the expense of their innate energy / mass. That lost kinetic / energy mass by the ascending side weights, however, does NOT go back into restoring the original innate energy / mass content of all of the weights themselves! Rather, it gets EVENLY distributed throughout ALL of the structures of wheel so that they ALL experience a small increase in their kinetic energy / masses which then instantly manifests itself by the acceleration of the entirety of the wheel and its internal components to a higher rotation rate. As one can see, it appears that the extraction of the innate energy / mass content of a working OB PM gravity wheel's weights is a sort of ONE WAY process. (But, then again, it's always easier to get the genie out of the bottle, then to put him back in again! LOL!)
If an "outside" machine is attached to a running OB PM gravity wheel, then some of the kinetic energy / mass that as accumulated in the wheel and its parts as it continues to rotate will be transferred to the outside machine's parts so as to increase their kinetic energy / masses and make them accelerate.
Actually, when one thinks about it, an OB PM gravity wheel is extremely simple in the principle of its operation when interpreted in terms of 20th century physics. The HARD part is finding the PRECISE arrangement of CAREFULLY counter balanced weighted levers that will reduce this principle to practice. Bessler FOUND that precise arrangment in HIS "right track" design and now I think I am VERY close to finding it too! We'll know in a few more days...
TG, Are you saying that you think the weights only shift out about an inch on the descending side, and the overbalance caused by the shift is what powers the wheel?
DeleteI'm saying, and I am 100% CERTAIN of this(!), that the CoM of the 8 weights inside of EITHER of the Merseburg wheel's ACTIVE one-directional sub wheels that was driving the wheel, was located about ONE inch HORIZONTALLY away from a VERTICAL line passing through the exact center of the axle. However, that does NOT mean that the CoM was VERTICALLY level with the center of the axle; indeed, it was SEVERAL inches below a HORIZONTAL line passing through the center of the axle. This location for the CoM of this giant wheel's active sub wheel then gave the axle a driving torque of about 25 to 30 in-lb for the 32 lb CoM (8 weights x 4 lbs per weight = 32 lbs). The CoM of the wheel's other inactive sub wheel would always be located at the exact center of the axle and would NOT be contributing to the driving torque of the axle.
DeletePleased to see that you survived the storm.
DeleteThanks vincent...so am I!
DeleteYes, it was a rough four days, but it gave me a taste of what life would have been like for Bessler back there in the early 18th century. Not having electrical power for lighting, heating, cooking, entertainment, etc. is a BIG handicap. We take so much for granted in our modern world. But, my experience gave me a better appreciation of the hardships that Bessler had to endure and overcome as he proceeded to do what only TWO humans are known to have ever done. A VERY exclusive club, indeed. Now I know why he is wearing that covering over his ears in the second DT portrait. At one point, I was even sleeping while wearing a knitted cap on in my unheated house!
Let's hope we are not pushing this planet to a breaking point,we need Bessler's wheel
Deleteto avoid unleashing mother's nature arsenal(so far hidden).And if we fail to break Orffyreus code, she will mercilessly kick human's anus so deep in to the past, that
18th century would be regarded as Elysium ......in comparison.
I'm not going to quote you TG, but where you argue about atoms in motion...it doesn't matter, it's irrelevant. Why is it that everyone is ignoring the elephant in the room?
ReplyDeleteIt's obvious that Bessler got the energy for the wheel from gravity and he says so, except that he doesn't use the word 'gravity', because it wasn't in common use then.
So it must be possible to draw energy from gravity. Why do people persist in ignoring the evidence?
JC
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteBessler may have THOUGHT that his wheels were getting their outputted energy / mass from gravity as you seem to do. That, however, does not necessarily mean that his and your conclusions are valid. For several centuries, astronomers were convinced that the light from the Sun and stars was the produce of combustion! Finally, someone did some calculations and realized if that was the case, then the Sun and other stars would have burned out long ago. They then hypothesized that some other powerful energy / mass liberating process was at work and they were right. It was thermonuclear fusion.
DeleteEnergy / mass, as the name implies, can only be obtained from something which possesses mass. For gravity to be a source of energy / mass it would need to have some mass. Has anybody ever measured or even theoretically determined the mass of a gravity field? IF that has been done, then I am unaware of it. It's not that we are ignoring the evidence, John. It's just that there doesn't seem to be any evidence!
Yeah,..After all is said and done,take electricity or magnetism.Nobody really understands how or why it works,but we still trust and use it and design all kinds of devices that use it.
ReplyDeleteThe same goes for gravity.We can design a machine to produce power to do work just using it's inert force.
It must be a simple mechanism, but so clever that it takes advantage of various other properties in mechanical physics,(not atomic physics),to accomplish the job.
The closer I get to the solution I realize that it really is a finely adjusted mechanism with many parts doing different functions.
This probably why many have come so close only to miss it in the end.
Good point, Trevor. We don't really need to understand the finer details of electric, magnetic, and gravitational fields to make use of them in machinery. But, it would certainly be nice if we did have that understanding. Once a successful OB PM gravity wheel design is found, the physicists will be eagerly trying to understand HOW it manages to do what it does; that is, continously output energy / mass to its environment to perform useful work despite the absence of a "conventional" external or internal power source to move the wheel.
DeleteThen, I am HIGHLY confident, the discussion will be much as I included in PART II of my comment above. It will be realized that the ONLY source of energy / mass available will be that contained by the weights within the wheel. The various scientific theorists will realize that the wheel, because of the maintenance of the OB of its weights' CoM, must be CONTINUOUSLY extracting the innate energy / mass of the weights to either accelerate the wheel or perform outside work. This extraction process will NOT involve any type of nuclear reactions, but will be seen to be a quite natural process. The question will then be how to greatly increase the rate of the extraction so that an OB PM gravity wheel can actually become a PRACTICAL source of power. I have my doubts about how successful such attempts will be, but I could certainly be wrong about that and I DO hope that Bessler's basic design can be improved upon. That, however, will be the job of others to perform.
Justsomeone said : I also believe Bessler's wheels were gravity powered. John, why did you edit your post and remove the " I know how " comment?
ReplyDeleteAhhhh, I wasn't quick enough, anon. I do know how, but saying so proves nothing so I removed it. Well spotted!
DeleteJC
So John , then , no special privileges for you ... where's your proof ?
DeleteOverbalance : The condition of weight being further away from ( descent )( and closer to ) ( ascent ) a central ( fixed ) point .
ReplyDeleteBessler's Device : Not overbalanced .
Wagner : " The application of the motive force is hard to fathom in this machine , everything seems to be in motion and there is NO FIXED POINT where one would expect ...ect , ect . "
The coffee is ready fellas , wake up and smell it .
You could be right, or you could be wrong. Since you have no working wheel, and you are unwilling to give any shred of information of why or how you think it works, I don't think you can ask everyone else to simply dismiss the overbalancing approach.
DeleteNow if you can point to any material by Bessler, and not from someone attempting to discredit him or provide their explanation of how they think the wheel worked, then please tell us.
In Bessler's wheels there really was no need for a "fixed point" from which some mechanism would apply torque to the drum (as was found in Wagner's crude attempt to duplicate the performance of Bessler's wheels with his own mainspring powered versions). All that really mattered was that the lever pivots and spring to drum attachment points were fixed in space relative to each other. If that was the case and if none of the interconnecting cords or springs broke, then a wheel would continue to maintain its weights' CoM on its descending side and would run until it was forceably stopped or it finally experienced a part failure that was serious enough to prevent the weights' CoM from being projected out onto the wheel's descending side.
DeleteEveryone,
DeleteDismiss the " overbalancing " approach . There , done !
You are unconvincing. You offer no proof of your own and you can't point to any information provided by Bessler that substantiates your claim.
DeleteOh ? When did you pay (or otherwise bribe/motivate ) me to convince you or carelessly GIVE you or anyone else specific information ? You guys are such pomp asses with your internet bullying and such . Just take what I say as another opinion . If you want to seek P.M. in an " overbalanced " device ( although the bulk of dabblers have tried this approach in countless different ways already ) be my guest !
DeleteYou should be glad I'm here saying anything at all . Who do you see of serious experimenters posting their designs freely and being sufficiently specific in their explanations ? SHOW ME THE LINK TO IT !
I asked this question some time ago and didn't really get an answer, so maybe someone can give me their thoughts on the matter since overbalancing is being discussed.
ReplyDeleteAssuming Bessler's wheel employed shifting weights to create an overbalance, in his largest wheel (~ 12' diameter), how far out would you think the weights shift (2 inches, 8 inches, 1 foot). I understand the weights may not take a radial path, but I am more interested in the net shift outwards from the axle.
From my 4:1 scale models of the one-directional sub wheels used within the two directional Merseburg wheel, it seems that the centers of the cylindrical lead weights within that giant wheel's drum were, while resting on their rim stops on the descending side, located about 70 inches from the center of the drum's axle and therefore 2 inches away from the outer periphery of the drum which had a radius of 72 inches.
DeleteWhen a weighted lever's pivot reached a CW rotating drum's 9:00 position, the lever would swing CCW so that its weight was then at its maximum distance from its rim stop and at its closest distance to the center of the axle. At that point, the HORIZONTAL component of the distance of the center of the weight from the center of the axle was about 62.46 inches. Using these figures, one can quickly calculate that the CoM of JUST these TWO 9:00 and 3:00 drum position weights projected: (70 in - 62.46 in)/2 = 7.54 in / 2 = 3.77 in horizontally from the center of the axle out onto the drum's DESCENDING side.
However, this figure is deceptive because it does NOT include the contributions to the location of the CoM from the drum's other 6 weights' horizontal components. When they are included, the CoM of ALL 8 weights then only has a horizontal component with a length that projects about 1 inch out onto the drum's descending side.
When one begins to actually study exactly where within a one-directional wheel or sub wheel the location of its 8 weights' CoM would have been located and realizes how littel its horizontal component projected away from the center of the axle, it immediately becomes obvious just why Bessler's wheels had such a low torque despite their large diameters and the heavy lead weights they used. I can't, at this point in time, see any way around this VERY torque limiting problem.
" Assuming Bessler's wheel employed shifting weights to create an overbalance ..."
DeleteYou say that like it's a given , accepted , wise , no - brainer kind of thing to do .
OH ! I get it ! Bessler's wheel was a SPECIAL kind of overbalanced wheel with all the stupidity " tweaked " out of it !
"Bessler's wheel was a SPECIAL kind of overbalanced wheel with all the stupidity" tweaked " out of it!"
DeleteThat just about sums it up, but I would have substituted the word "inefficiencies" for "stupidity" in your statement.
@Anonymous
ReplyDeleteBessler's wheel has a prime mover and a perpetual mover, the perpetual mover does not generate energy and is redundant. It uses the energy given to it by the prime mover, remember in a flash the weight moves form the 6:00 position to the 12:00 position. The one hint Bessler gives of his prime mover is the Apologia drawing, but the drawing is the start you have to work at it to find the answer.
@John Collins
Bessler may have found the power of the prime mover using gravity, but he quickly understood that he did not need gravity to make is prime mover work. His principle of excess weight (singular) is the evidence for that. The principle of connectedness is the one that depends on gravity. The other clue to the power of the prime movers is Bessler's words on materials and their qualities, Besslers was hindered greatly by the fabrication capabilities of his time. Bessler's wheel is far more powerful than any of us think.
Yours Respectfully
BA
@Anonymous
DeleteWhat is the purpose of the perpetual mover, or is this your term for the wheel as a whole (less the prime mover) since it would continue to turn, driven by the prime mover?
Lol ... you can put it into WORDS all you want and it will not solve the problem . I do not need to be convinced that PERPETUAL MOTION is possible . Prime Mover is a spiritual/theoretical term ... I much prefer " mobile per se " or " that which moves itself " . All these fancy words will not get you to the solution . I think Bessler meant , in noting what he discovered to name the basic device " the first known/doscovered mover " .
ReplyDeletehttp://primum-mobile.net/primum.html
He should have called it " the only mover " since it was and apparently still is , the only one.
DeleteYou are right Chris, BW was balanced and there is only one principle that really works, I think you also know it already. If so, you know it is not easy to digest at first sight. The "FIXED POINT" was provided by gravity.
DeleteCharly2
tutte le parti in movimento e perchè tutte le parti della ruota sono sollecitate dalla propulsione ( forza motrice )
ReplyDeleteTranslation ...
DeleteAll moving parts and why all the parts of the wheel are stressed by propulsion ( driving force )
PART I:
ReplyDeleteI note some discussion about the "prime mover" above. This was a term used by Bessler in the notes to MT 15 which were:
"This ratchet-wheel derives from the previous model, except that the tensions are somewhat longer and have an additional special weight at the external ends. From this drawing alone, however, nothing of the prime mover’s source can be seen or deduced although the figure shows the superior weight."
If one goes to the trouble of actually constructing or computer modeling MT 15, he will soon realize that it will only be able to rotate a few degrees CCW (less than 15 deg.) before it comes to a stop as it encounters a "sticking point" that prevents further rotation. That sticking point basically means that, during rotation, the obvious OB state of the wheel's weights' CoM outputs energy / mass at a rate LESS than that needed to simultaneously lift two of the diametrically opposed weighted levers and the "tension" that they are attached to which has the two "special weights" at its ends. (This problem is very similar to the one that prevents MT 13 from functioning.)
In the notes to MT 15, Bessler is clearly indicating that an EXTRA source of energy / mass, a "prime mover" is needed to make the design run. Of course, he does not tell us exactly what that prime mover might be, but it is nothing that can be provided by the design as it is shown. It must, therefore, be some ADDITIONAL structure that is to be physically attached to this design. What then, could his prime mover be?
I think that he must be referring here to simply attaching one of his one-directional OB PM gravity wheels to MT 15's axle in order to make it run, but that will NOT be of any real benefit because one would only wind up powering a design that consumes as much externally supplied energy / mass as it outputs! One would be better off by simply using the one-directional OB PM gravity wheel by itself and thereby not have to waste energy / mass overcoming all of the various drags that would be added by attaching MT 15 to it.
PART II:
ReplyDeleteIn the "right track" design that I am currently working on, the exact nature of its "prime mover" is actually quite obvious! It is the weighted lever that travels between the 6:00 and 9:00 drum positions of a CW rotating wheel. From 6:00 to 7:30, this weighted lever stretches TWO springs which later provide extra assisting energy / mass to help shift the weighted levers moving between 9:00 and 3:00. From 7:30 to 9:00, this weighted lever then serves to simultaneously shift the VERY carefully counter balanced weighted levers moving between 9:00 and 3:00 so that their weights all move closer to their rim stops (final contact being made at 3:00) and the CoM of all 8 of the weights in the design will remain on the drum's descending side as it rotates through each 45 degree increment of rotation.
What makes this "right track" design so unusual is that, during any 45 degree increment of CW drum rotation, only 2 springs are stretched and thereby drain energy / mass from all of the parts of the rotating wheel, yet 6 springs are contracting and releasing their stored energy / mass to assist in the shifting of the weighted levers which then maintains the OB of the design's CoM! As long as the OB is maintained, the innate energy / mass of all of the 8 weights will be continuously drained away during rotation and made available to either accelerate the entire wheel (which increases the kinetic energy / mass of all of its parts including the weights) or perform outside work (which transfers some of the wheel's kinetic energy / mass to accelerate the parts of some external attached machine).
Unfortunately, I had a really exhausting workout today cutting up and removing some of the downed timber that landed on my property (thanks "Sandy"!) and have not been able to yet complete the Stage 2 verification testing of my design. Hopefully, I'll get to it in the next day or so and have some VERY "good" news to report here. IF I am 100% satisfied with the results of this testing, then, as far as I am concerned, the Bessler wheel mystery will finally be solved!
It's very easy to design a wheel having its center of mass offset permanently on its descending side. Pierre Richard did it in 1858; a development of Schwiers' 1790 wheel. All of Richard's descending weights were shifted from the vertical centerline, but none of the ascending weights were. It didn't work.
ReplyDeleteTo make that wheel work, its offset center of mass would itself have to fall, obviously a "one-shot" deal.
So, the offset center of mass cannot be allowed to fall if the wheel is to continue to operate, which doesn't look good for the whole "overbalanced wheel" idea.
The voice of reason ! Thank you ... for using your noggin .
DeleteThe problem with Richard's wheel is that, like all other OB designs other than Bessler's and Jackson's, it can not output its weights' energy / mass at a rate fast enough to reset and thereby maintain the OB of its weights' CoM during each increment of rotation. ALL such designs quickly hit a "sticking point" after startup which they can not overcome. They all look good on paper, but only turn into big disappointments for the mobilists who spent so much time and money constructing them. Happily, Bessler's wheels did NOT suffer from this problem.
DeleteBA here.
ReplyDeleteHello to all, no one understood what I was saying so let me show you how far we are from the true design. A while back it was estimated that the Weissenstein Wheel outputted about 25 Watts, but no one estimated the input power. Bessler has stated that as one weight moves to the outer position the other moves to a position near the axle. We use this as proof of the overbalanced design, but it is only a clue of the perpetual mover design. Let us calculate the power the prime mover gives to the perpetual mover, because we know the perpetual mover gives us 25 watts (Weissenstein Wheel).
The Weissenstein Wheel is 12 ft dia. I am assuming two 4 lb weight per bar, four bars per wheel. Length of bar 8 ft (so there is a 4 ft shift of the two 4 lb weights).
Under load the wheel spins 20 rpm. Here we go.
The wheel take 3 seconds to turn once, in one revolution it lifts 8 lbs, 4 ft, 8 times.
distance lift per revolution 4 x 8 = 32 ft.
Speed of lift 32 ft x 3 sec = 10.667 ft/sec.
Power 10.667 ft/sec x 8 lbs = 85.3 ft lbs/sec or ~115 watts
So the prime mover gives 115 watts, but the perpetual mover gives 25 watts.
???????? please, someone tell me I am wrong in my calculations.
Notice I did not include friction or the weight of the bar.
Yours Respectfully
BA
We can , If we choose , use the words of others and challenge our readers to recognize when we are doing it ... ( a sort of " you should know me better than this " kind of thing " .
DeleteExample: Me: The Bessler wheel was overbalanced and I must accept that . You all are perfectly right and your turning wheels substantiate your beliefs . ( Now I wouldn't say that would I ?)
When Bessler begins his description it is not very far into the paragraph that he implicates Wagner as having described it briefly .
Respectfully , BA , you are talking the P.M. language like an expert , prime mover , perpetual mover , etc ... . These people won't engage you . There are other know-it-alls already flooding the pages with text , speaking the language . etc . You will not impress anyone . You must build something ... and make it good .
Bessler :" I never let anyone see it or I never informed anyone about it . I was quite wrongly implicated ... "
PART I:
DeleteBA wrote: "???????? please, someone tell me I am wrong in my calculations."
Okay, you are WRONG in your calculations!
You wrote "I am assuming two 4 lb weight per bar, four bars per wheel. Length of bar 8 ft (so there is a 4 ft shift of the two 4 lb weights)."
I would have to immediately challenge this assumption. My research indicates that there were NO bars or other solid structures thorough which the opposed pairs of weights inside of the Weissenstein wheel were DIRECTLY attached to each other. You seem to imagine Bessler's giant two-directional wheels to have internal mechanics similar to those of MT 14, 15, 37, and 38. Bessler's wheels had no sliding bars with end weights that passed through the portion of axle inside of the drum. He emphatically stated that ALL of his "timbers" were solid and that NOTHING was attached to the axle. The weights were actually mounted at the ends of short levers (short relative to the drum's radius, that is) near the periphery of the drum.
You assume a separation distance of 8 ft between the opposed weights in a "pair" which you imagine as attached to the ends of four sliding bars passing through the hidden section of axle inside of the Weissenstein wheel's drum such that, during rotation, the weights passing the 12:00 position and the 6:00 positions of the drum must TOGETHER rise through a distance of 4 ft. I can only say that you are assuming an EXTREME amount of shifting of the weights AND the wrong method of shifting them. As a consequence, you derive a required "resetting" power INPUT of about 115 watts which is WAY too much! I've seen such OVERestimates for the Weissentein wheel made by others and they all assume far too high lifting distances for the opposed pairs of weights when their ASSUMED connecting bars become vertical at their 6:00 - 12:00 orientations.
I've concluded that the actual horizontal components of the weights at the 9:00 and 3:00 drum positions of Bessler's 12 ft diameter two-directional wheels only projected away from the center of the axle by distances of 62.46 in. on the ascending side and 70 in on the descending side. Thus, even though Bessler's wheels contained no connecting cross bars between their opposed weights, we can, for the purposes of APPROXIMATE calculations, imagine that they did and that the opposed pairs of weights inside of the Weissenstein wheel's drum were actually attached to solid bars of metal (perhaps hollow tubes to reduce the wheel's overall weight) which were 132.46 inches in length (70 in. + 62.46 in.) and that passed through four guide holes in the drum's interior axle section. Then, TWICE per drum rotation, the TWO weights attached to any one of the four bars would EACH only have been lifted through a distance of 7.54 inches and NOT 4 feet as you assume. You also erroneously, IMO, state that the weights inside of the Weissenstein wheel weighed 4 lb each. I think they actually weighted about 8 lbs each because Bessler had probably tried to impress Karl by telling him that he would build him a wheel that was TWICE as powerful as the Merseburg wheel which did use 4 lb weights.
PART II:
DeleteWith these revised figures, we can now easily calculate the power INPUT required for the resetting of the Weissenstein wheel's weights as their assumed connecting bars reached a vertical orientation inside of the drum even though the motions of the "pairs" of opposed weights being described in this treatment are NOT how they were moving inside of the actual wheel. To save time, I will use your calculation algorithm with the revised figures inserted into it:
Under load the wheel spins 20 rpm. Here we go.
The wheel take 3 seconds to turn once, in ONE revolution its FOUR double end weighted bars EACH lift 8 lbs x 2 = 16 lbs, 7.54 inches = 0.62833 ft, 8 times.
Distance lifted per revolution = 0.628333 ft x 8 = 5.02666 ft.
Speed of lift = 5.02666 ft / 3 sec = 1.67555 ft/sec.
Power = 1.67555 ft/sec x 16 lbs = 26.80888 ft-lb/sec = 36.34796 watts
Obviously, the required resetting power INPUT here of 36.34796 watts is less than a THIRD of your figure of about 115 watts DESPITE the fact that I used values for the Weissenstein wheel's weights that were TWICE as massive as you assumed them to be (8 lbs instead of 4 lbs). To obtain the calculated NET OUTPUT power of the Weissentein wheel of 25 watts when it was rotating at 20 rpm's and running the attached Achimedean water screw, one need only assume that the actual TOTAL output power of Bessler's last known two-directional wheel was actually about 61.34796 watts. 36.34796 watts or 59% of this would have been used for the resetting of its weights and 25 watts or 41% would have been left over to operate the water screw. How did the wheel output 25 watts MORE power than was required to reset its weights? This is only possible if the extra outputted energy / mass was being provided by the continuous slow draining away of the weights' innate energy / mass content as drum rotation took place.
Again, I MUST emphasize to the reader that these calculations ASSUME a mode of operation for the Weissenstein wheel which did NOT exist. But, they at least show us that, even when using erroneous mechanical assumptions, one can still obtain a net power output which is "reasonable" for the size of the wheel and the mass of the weights it employed. That net power output being about 25 watts at 20 rpm's.
I'm not sure whether I am missing the point of this discussion: so, some of you think the wheel was not overbalanced. If you are trying to say that the attempt of moving the positions of the weights by a mechanism into a continuously overbalanced state - then I yes, I can see that maybe you think this approach has no merit. But if you are going against the whole principle of overbalancing, then I am lost. The opposite of "overbalanced" would have to be "balanced", which would mean no movement at all. If you favour a model of oscillation (kiiking, parametric oscillation, etc.) then you are looking at a system that is not balanced. Its centre of mass (COM) is not always in the pivot point about which it is turning. Obviously, the mathematical formulas for pendulums are about torque... Somebody in the fraction of "not overbalanced" please explain.
ReplyDeleteYou can continue to pursue the OB approach with your wheels, Mimi, and not feel "lost". Those that advocate the "non-OB" approach to attaining PM usually have to rely upon obtaining and sustaining an imbalance in the inertial forces acting within a wheel and conveniently forget that, IF this could actually be done, then it would be a BLATANT violation of Newton's 3rd Law of Motion. Therefore, it can NOT be done and ANY approach based upon it is doomed to FAILURE.
DeleteWhen Bessler makes mention of his "Preponderance Principle", he is telling us that his ONE-directional wheels were a bit heavier on their descending sides than they were on their ascending sides and this, of course, was due to them having their weights' CoM's continuously located on the wheels' descending sides.
Stay with the OB approach...it is the ONLY one that has ANY chance of working!
Mimi5 November 2012 09:04:
Delete"... Somebody in the fraction of "not overbalanced" please explain . "
That would be me . I am stating that I have a deign that is in no way overbalanced because by definition overbalanced implies certain criteria that is not incorporated in this design . If you want me to explain the design to satisfy the ignorance of the masses then I am sorry I cannot ... that would let the cat out of the bag . Assume that I know nothing if that's the only way you can wrap your brain around what I am saying .
That is such an easy assumption!!!!! Just look at the fraud section on Besslerwheel.com.
DeleteChris wrote: "If you want me to explain the design to satisfy the ignorance of the masses then I am sorry I cannot ... that would let the cat out of the bag."
DeleteAside from an idea or sketch that might look "promising", do you have ANY sort of verification testing of your "Cat in the Bag" design that would indicate that it MIGHT actually work? In other words, have you done ANY computer modeling with it so far or actually build anything?
TG. Posts up in the thread get lost. Christo probably won't read these.
DeleteIn my opinion there can be no doubt that the wheels were overbalanced. The single-direction wheels started spontaneously, as soon as the brake was released.
ReplyDeleteJC
John,
ReplyDeleteYour opinion gives me quite a sense of relief . So I assume that if my concept is not an overbalanced wheel of some type then I am hopelessly doomed to fail and just totally on the wrong road also in your opinion . Why must it be that the alleged inventor of P.M. (Bessler)
after ten years of failure building 100 or so machines ( including no doubt various attempts at overbalanced concepts ) would be suddenly enlightened with the mechanical " tweak " that would make these ill-conceived devices revolve ? He was not is the answer to that .
This is more like religion than science . Is it because Bessler's MT is filled nearly half way with OB concepts that all are following suit ? ( Sarcasm ) Let us change our leverage points and the positions of our rim stops and springs and such , oh yes this will suffice . ( Not ) .
ReplyDeleteChris, can you at least tell us what the motive force is that drives the wheel (CF, imbalance, inertia change, ...)? You may find that you have more support than you think if you could give us some general details.
Delete"MY IMBALANCED DESIGN"
I have an old design I work on from time to time that some might say is a balanced design. By balanced I mean no weight shifts inward or outward. Instead the weights advance angularly (or circumferentially) at the appropriate time so that more weight is on the descending side than on the ascending side. Of course they also retard angularly at the appropriate time so that the overbalance is maintained.
Sorry to repeat myself, but if you read my webpage at www.besslerswheel.com, published in 2010, you will discover that, although the wheels started spontaneously, I have suggested that the OB is a by-product of the parametric oscillation. In other words, whenever the wheel was brought to a halt, one mechanism was bound to react to gravity and lift a weight ready effect a portion of a turn.
ReplyDeleteThe wheel was never able to balance because its mechanism always responded to gravity and fell, and in doing so lifted another weight leading to imbalance and further rotation unless the brake was applied.
So although OB was induced, it was not the key to the wheel's motion.
JC
BA here.
ReplyDelete@Chris Wilson, I hear you.
We use different ways of get others to understand our point of view. I see the other know-it-alls and I will try my best to tame them ;) but I am building ( though very slowly). If you have not done so already Chris, please look at the Apologia drawing with your new eyes you will be very surprised what you find.
@Technoguy
What a piece of work you are. I gave you proof of where I made my assumptions, you give me no proof of yours.
You write many things, but you say nothing.
@ John Collins
The wheel has overbalanced elements, If you remove the overbalanced element ( namely the perpetual mover) and replace it with some other energy capturing device the wheel will still work. John you know Bessler's writings better than anyone, have you notice the duality in his writings. He constantly shows two view points ( sometimes they are opposite and sometimes they are just different). I ask that you start a new thread to explore this duality. this is an example of what I mean.
In Apologia: A driver drives, A runner runs.
This is clearly a description of the operation of his second and first wheel. ( a driver has more control than a runner). If you had a brake on the two devices and you release the second wheel, the wheel will ask 'which direction'. The first wheel when released will just start to run. The rest of the poem you can separate accordingly and you will see it's meaning.
Yours Respectfully
BA
BA,
DeleteFirst let me say I'm assuming you are "Besslers Assistant" from the BW forum. Are you still pursuing the Milkovic/Pendulum design (or variation thereof) you presented on BW around June of 2011?
My initial interests were in the area of the Milkovic 2SO and after reading the "Little Book Parable" (no laughs guys ...) I built a prototype along those lines but have not had much success over the last two years, until a recent discovery which may yet yield positive results in this type of design.
BA wrote: "What a piece of work you are. I gave you proof of where I made my assumptions, you give me no proof of yours.
DeleteYou write many things, but you say nothing."
IF you gave any "proof" of your assumptions, then I must have missed it. I can see no justification for the extreme lift distance you suggested. But, when I checked the calculations you did, I did find a serious error in them. You had written:
Speed of lift 32 ft x 3 sec = 10.667 ft/sec
Multiplying distance by time does NOT yield a velocity! With a gross error in units like this, how can anyone trust ANY of your assumptions of which you claim to have provided proof?
Despite what you may think, I've provided more accurate and detailed information about Bessler's wheels on this blog than anybody else. You seem to have embraced the types of designs illustrated in MT as a model for your approach. Well, all I can say is that you are, IMO, wasting your time if you are doing this. Bessler made VERY sure that NOTHING that was left in MT could be used, AS SHOWN, to duplicate his wheels. At best, one will only find a few vague hints in the MT notations about the ACTUAL mechanics that were employed in his wheels.
BA here.
ReplyDelete@Zoelra
Yes I am. As you see on BW forum I normally go all the way till I hit the wall, those ideas lead no-ware, so I let them die. I noticed, however that everyone was doing the same thing. So I decided to look for the power source,(the prime mover) the true power of Bessler's wheel. That is where I am now, I had to re-learn all the literary tricks form all my poetry and humanities classes I took before. To my surprise I see Bessler very differently than I did before. Bessler is a master of the verbal joust, if you have any flaws he will use that against you. So now I am trying to purge myself of them. One thing I do know is that the wheel Bessler showed to everyone was elementary.
bye for now
BA
@ BA
ReplyDeleteI say that TG is wrong to say that you are WRONG in your calculations! The result of your calculation, 85.33 ft-lb/sec is right, given the data you start with. It's your assumptions, not the calculation itself, that are open to challenge.
@ Mimi
I suppose I'm currently in the "non-overbalance" group, simply because I don't see how a weight can deliver more energy falling in a constant gravity field than it requires to raise it back again. But I know, others might see something I've missed.
There are other options besides gravity. Three I've looked at are:—
- Changing the natural frequency of a rotating mass-spring system so that its forward-swing is of longer duration than its back-swing (i.e. changing r to change I in I = mr² ).
- Splitting centrifugal force into say two components, and reacting only one of them to a wheel, and the other to Earth.
- Exploiting the Earth's rotational energy (possible I think, but only with a large, expensive, "high-tech" approach).
I can forgive BA's error in units since it did not carry through to his final reset input power estimate. But, like you, I must question the validity of his assumptions that the calculations are based upon which then throws THEIR validity into question also. Mainly, I question the validity of his weight mass of 4 lbs for the Weissenstein wheel which is only about half of what I think it should be and the validity of his estimate for the total lift distance per drum rotation which is about 6.37 times MORE than I think it should be. These erroneous assumptions lead, IMO, to grossly exaggerated estimates of the power required for resetting the double weighted bars in such a design.
DeleteMy main objection, however, is really the tacit assumption he makes that Bessler's wheels were using a design similar to what is depicted in MT 14, 15, 37, and 38 which requires the use of sliding bars that must pass THROUGH the axle. This type of construction is excluded from consideration as a solution to the Bessler wheel mystery by various quotes Bessler made and at least one eyewitness report. Thus, I have to consider it MISleading to suggest that Bessler was using this type of design.
BA here.
ReplyDelete@Arktos
Since you asked so nicely, I thought everyone new these things. Some of it is from Besslerwiki and the others are form the great assembler 'Rocky'. These are the foundations of my assumptions, If they do not convince you, then I accept my view to be delusional ;)
"If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in my machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself at all, but, on the contrary, when I arrange several bars, pulleys and weights, the machine can revolve much faster" - AP 355
"I don't want to go into the details here of how suddenly the excess weight is caused to rise. You can't comprehend these matters, or see how true craftsmanship can rise above innate lowly tendencies (as does a weight above the point of application of a lever)" - AP 357
"On one side it is heavy and full; on the other empty and light, just as it should be." - AP 363
“Wagner babbles about "excess weights" being snatched along. But the weights which rest below must, in a flash, be raised upwards,
and it is this that Wagner cannot force himself to accept.” AP 329
“A constant interchange of rise and fall, of excess and deficient weight, resulting in a living machine. Imagine how a heavy material body,
in defiance of its innate natural tendency to gravitate towards the center of the earth, could be induced to rise once more.” GB 52
2. “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. (This principle [excess weight]) is the one Wagner said he owed to me.” AP 291(Part 1)
bye for now
BA
I agree those are all useful clues. The last one is really the basis of the (unsuccessful) "paired-mass" computer model I mentioned above, 2 November 20:40.
DeleteThe problem I have (don't we all?) is how to get a successful wheel from Bessler's clues.
PART I:
DeleteEVERY single quote you've provided can ALSO be perfectly applied to an OB design that contains 8 weighed levers whose pivots are near to a drum's periphery and whose diametrically opposed weights are NOT directly connected to each other by solid bars passing through the enclosed axle section of the drum.
It looks to me like your choice of a model for Bessler's wheels is mostly based upon the quote:
"If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in my machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself at all, but, on the contrary, when I arrange several bars, pulleys and weights, the machine can revolve much faster" (AP, pg. 355)
Unfortunately, this quote gives one the FALSE impression that there were "cross-bars" INSIDE of a wheel's drum. I think it is actually a POORLY translated description of a block and tackle whose rope Bessler would have attached EXTERNALLY to a wheel's axle for the purpose of lifting external loads. There is a type of variable block and tackle that allows one to ADD additional pulleys and the "bars" or axles upon which they turn to its frame in order to increase the mechanical advantage of the system.
As Bessler completed the construction of each of his various wheels, he, naturally, would have wanted to measure their maximum lifting power. To do this, he would have attached a rope to a peg on a wheel's external axle and then slowly increased the mass of a hanging weight attached to the rope's end until the load was too massive for the wheel's axle to continuously DIRECTLY lift as it wound the rope around itself. He would also have begun to experiment with the use of an overhead block and tackle arrangement in order to try to further increase the maximum mass of a load that a wheel could lift before it stalled, even though the rate of such lifting would be very low. There is mention of this being done with the Merseburg wheel by an eyewitness to lift a load of 60 lbs by apparently using a block and tackle arrangement that had been "reduced" to give it a mechanical advantage in excess of 4:1. "Reduced" here means that either more pulleys were added to the block and tackle OR the rope passing through it was made to wrap around more of the pulleys it already contained. While using a block and tackle with a mechanical advantage of, say, 5:1, then for every 5 inches of rope wrapped around a turning axle, the load suspended from the overhead block and tackle would be raised only 1 inch! But this arrangement would allow one to raise a load 5 TIMES more massive than could be done by just DIRECTLY attaching the load to the wheel's axle (which, of course, for every 1 inch of rope wound around a turning axle only raises the load 1 inch).
PART II:
DeleteAs far as the quote above is concerned, if Bessler noted that one of his wheels could just barely continuously lift a certain size load at a certain lifting rate DIRECTLY via a rope wound around its axle, then, when he switched over to using the overhead block and tackle to lift the SAME size load, he would have noticed an very interesting effect taking place. As he proceeded to incrementally increase the block and tackle's mechanical advantage by installing additional pulleys and their axles into its frame for a series of tests, he would have noticed that the rotation rate of the drum would ALSO incrementally INCREASE although the load would not rise any faster than when it was directly attached to the wheel's axle!
This effect would be due to the presence of the block and tackle that then incrementally REDUCED the COUNTER torque acting on the wheel's axle due to the load and thereby allowed to drum to accelerate to incrementally HIGHER rotation rates before its OWN driving torque DECREASED to the point where it EQUALED the counter torque of the rope wound around its axle.
It is strongly suggested by the described performance of Bessler's wheels that the driving torque they produced was at a maximum value when the wheel was either stationary (for the one-directional versions) or shortly after startup (for the two-directional versions since they had zero driving torque while stationary). Why torque would decrease with increasing drum rotation rate can be rationalized by assuming that, as the CF acting on its ascending side weights increased, this action would interfer with a wheel's internal mechanics' ability to keep the CoM of its active weights projected out onto the wheel's descending side. As a wheel's drum rotation rate increased, the CoM of its 8 active weights would slowly be drawn to a location almost directly under the axle and, consequently, the driving torque created by the OB of the CoM would decrease until it matched whatever counter torques were acting on the wheel whether from air and bearing drag or from these PLUS any added external drag caused by having to lift a load or run a machine attached to its axle.
Thanks everybody for your feedback on "over-balanced". I suspect that any disagreements stem from unclear terminology. I think we all agree that a balanced wheel would just stand there and do nothing. In order for it to move, something has to shift/be shifted. A really elegant solution would be that the shifting happens "naturally" by something "falling", once the wheel is untied. When the wheel is moving, then perhaps some of its energy can be used to feed back into the system and keep it going, and some can be used externally to do work. If this feeding back of energy requires a mechanism (sounds very much so in all explanations) then we can widely disagree on what the mechanism was like. However, I don't see how we can disagree on the cause of movement being due to an imbalance. Changing of the moment of inertia I=mr2 by changing r is the mathematical description of causing an imbalance - isn't it, Arktos? I guess the non-overbalancers are actually saying that they do not use levers or such to create the imbalance? As for the nice feature of the earlier Bessler wheels that they would turn spontaneously - this does not necessarily mean that each and every position of the wheel was imbalanced - Bessler might have cleverly positioned the locking device so that it held the wheel in place in the best position for the next start.
ReplyDelete@ Mimi
DeleteBy changing the moment of inertia, I was looking for something analogous to the linear mass-spring system, where periodic time T = 2Ï€√(m/k), but using a rotary system, where T = 2Ï€√(I/k). The rotary system looked more promising for an imbalance, because:—
If we increase/decrease the magnitude of a moving mass, (or the constant of a deformed spring) that must increase/decrease its energy. But we can change rotational inertia, and hence T, by changing r, and energy can stay the same. I was hoping to exploit that, but so far without success.
Mimi wrote: "A really elegant solution would be that the shifting happens "naturally" by something "falling", once the wheel is untied."
DeleteThat is, indeed, exactly what is happening in my "right track" design for Bessler's OB PM gravity wheels. The coordinated shiftings of the weighted levers necessary to maintain the OB of all 8 of the design's weights' CoM on the wheel's descending side during drum rotation happens "naturally" as the carefully interconnected cord and spring counter balanced weighted levers moving between the drum's 9:00 and 3:00 positions are gradually and continuously reset by the "falling" of the 7:30 going to 9:00 position weighted lever during each 45 degree increment of drum rotation. That SINGLE weighted lever functions as the design's "prime mover" and it "falls" by merely continuing to rotate CCW as its pivot approaches the 9:00 position of the rotating drum so that its weight moves farther and farther away from its rim stop. After its pivot passes the 9:00 position, however, this weighted lever then changes the direction of its swing and begins to rotate CW about its pivot at which time it goes from being the design's "prime mover" to just being one of the four weighted levers moving between 9:00 and 3:00 whose weight is "lifted" in the sense that all of the weights are continually and gradually moved closer to their rim stops during the 45 degree interval of drum rotation (with final weight to rim stop contact not being made until a lever's pivot reaches the 3:00 position of the drum).
The secret of making this design work is finding the EXACT arrangement of the TWO springs that were attached to EACH of a one-direction wheel's 8 weighted levers AND the correct spring constants, k, to use for them. The clues to the spring arrangement ARE in the DT portraits, but it takes a LOT of work to interpret them and then verify that the interpretations are correct.
I think that, finally, I do have THE design that Bessler found and used, BUT, I will not know for sure until the Stage 2 verification testing of my current design has been performed. I've decided, because of the large amount of debris cleanup I'm still doing now due to "Sandy" and the coverage of the US Presidential Election today and tonight, that I will have to postpone this final verification testing until sometime AFTER today. But, it will be completed before the end of THIS week and I'll then report the results here, whether good or bad. IF I am satisfied with the results, then I will be declaring the Bessler wheel mystery solved (and, of course, I don't expect anyone to believe me immediately. Such belief will take time, perhaps months or even years, to take place!).
It's taken me a LONG time to reach this point. Let's hope that this is finally IT. It's time to start building wheels that ACTUALLY WORK!
John, trying to shift my paradigm, but if I knew what it is I might have more success !
ReplyDeleteWhen I built my first "Blue Peter" style 8 spoke wheel, with the usual 8 weights on arms,it naturally
found it's equilibrium, then when I moved the one weight at 11 o'clock, the wheel moved.
This is what I based my "Big Twang Theory" on, twanging one weight, one at a time over it's tipping point, at the 11 to 12 o'clock position, making the wheel move 1/8 th. of a turn at a time.
The weight of the wheel having a smoothing flywheel effect. Is this the wrong approach ?
My thinking was if you have a balanced wheel, and take a section out of it at the bottom, the lighter
section would naturally turn to the top, so if you lift just one weight on one side, it's the same as
taking out a section. Stephen Burke.