Monday, 3 June 2013

Update - and problems encountered along the way

This is partly an update and an account of my thoughts during the current build and the problems I'm encountering.

Bessler once commented in his Apologia Petica, "If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in the 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...'.

Now I have always believed that Bessler had five mechanisms in his wheel (and I could supply convincing evidence that this was the optimum number) and that anything less was a waste of time, but it is obvious that just getting a wheel to turn continuously, no matter how slowly, would be a perfectly acceptable proof of principle and a major achievement.  So what's the problem?

I recently decided to build just one mechanism on a test rig and try to perfect it before building more for the wheel itself.  But instead of then assembling four more mechanisms and attaching them to the wheel, I realised that the next logical step would be to test the wheel with just one mechanism - which isn't the same thing as building a single one and then making the wheel with however many I designed it for. Having designed mechanisms which operate as one of three, four or five, I see a problem in designing a wheel using just one of my mechanisms. With more than one, they are intended to operate in conjunction with each other, but with just the one, I'm wondering how to use it effectively.  Do I add one or more weights at certain points to counter the missing mechanisms and their weights?  Should I reposition the mechanism so that it is more central?  I depends on how big it is relative to the wheel's size and more importantly, how it is designed to work.

So now I have a mechanism that appears to do what I want it to do, but it is hard to fit five of them on a wheel, which means either making each smaller, or using a larger wheel.  Much better to try to adapt the single mechanisms to operate on its own in driving the wheel "very slowly,just as if it can hardly turn itself at all!" Of course another option is to build it with more than one, maybe two,three or four mechanisms, I'd have no problem fitting two or three on the existing wheel

The mechanism works according to the concept I have encoded at the end of each blog.  I know that some have suggested that I should include pictures of my work, but I can't yet until I know that it won't work.  I will try to post some pictures of my failed design using the 'kiiking' principle, unfortunately I cannibalised the parts to make this next desing, but I may have some parts remaining.

JC

10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’. 

32 comments:

  1. Balance the wheel out with weights and then try the mechanism.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, balance it then MEASURE the input vs output energies.

    As a general observation, any overunity interaction has an input force/displacement integral, and a greater output force/displacement integral. For most purposes we can just crudely multiply force, distance and gravity (newtons times meters times 9.8m/s^2) to get the energy of either the output or the input.

    Presumably the output half of the interaction applies torque, and the input half lifts or shifts a weight.

    As an example, i recently looked for a proof (tho not sure you could call it 'formal' proof) that 'shift energy' always equals the subsequent rotational kinetic energy, or RKE. To do this i made a simple test rig with threads attached via low-friction pulleys to both the lever (a single, balanced one) and the rotor itself (actually a balance arm). I used a bent hairpin as a horizontal fixed reference point on teh rig, and the thread hung across it. All i had to do was measure the weight attached to the thread, and mark off the displacement on the thread using a black marker thread. Then i measured the distances between marks, multiplied that by the weight and gravity, and viola... i found shift energy always equals RKE whatever the differing input vs output forces and distances.

    To be perfectly honest, i actually measured a very small gain. But i believe it was below my error margins, and so not significant.

    The method's accurate to millijoules though (ie. millimeters and grams, if your friction's low enough. I made low friction pulleys by inserting cheap RC bearings off eBay into drinking straws from a famous high street restaurant chain..)..

    ReplyDelete
  3. agh "black marker thread" - i meant PEN, obvioushly..

    ReplyDelete
  4. If you think it takes 5 mechanisms to either prove or disprove your mechanism, then build one that is big enough for 5. Why torture yourself and us?

    ReplyDelete
  5. John,
    I always thought the mechanisms worked incrementally, i.e. if there are five mechanisms, No.1 would turn the wheel 72 deg. No.2 the next 72 etc. etc.
    Knowing now that the wheel will turn, albeit slowly, with one mechanism, it looks like I'm in for more splinters from all the head scratching!

    ReplyDelete
  6. Yes - me too! Increments of 72 degrees might not be enough because the range of each mechanism would need to overlap the preceeding one to give its mechanism time to fall. Four mechs would have increments of 90 degrees so for five, I guess they would need a range somewhere between, a bit more than 72 deg, and less than 90 degs.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  7. You could balance the wheel with one counterweight. I read from your suggestions that you still work on a mechanism where the "crossbar" don`t work across the wheel, but on one side of the axle, so adding more mechanisms don`t change their individual operation or gain. If so, you can just add a counterweight, or several weights around if you also feel the need for some flywheel. (remember that the sum of many weights spaced around always equals one bigger weight (Center of mass/es). Good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Thanks Øystein. How's your own project coming along?

    JC

    ReplyDelete
  9. John,
    If you truly confident in your design, invest in a larger wheel big enough for the 5 mechanisms.
    I would think there would be more room for error with 5 vs. 1. If you are using just one and don't have it just perfect, maybe it doesn't barely revolve. JMO

    ReplyDelete
  10. It is going ok (ok = slow), Running a company, a family and children can be a litle too much from time to time. As I mentioned, one mechanism (weight pair) is buildt and confimed to work just as predicted. (Stage 1) Stage 2 is to build new mechanisms, more accurate and in a better material etc. We have not had time to get together and make a new parts-list and find a suitable local supplier of aluminium parts. The difference between your principle and mine, is that I can not do a premature test to find OU. As all the mechanisms must be coordinated and dependant of eachother to achieve the desired motion. For the same reason the individual calcultaions /path change if more mechanisms is added. Secondly I have also found a litle more information about Besslers geometry codes and his references.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Some have previously suggested that most, if not all, of the mechanism action possibly takes place within the lower quadrant of the downward side of the wheel. Looking at a clockwise turning wheel, this would be between the 3:00 o'clock and 6:00 o'clock position. If this is possible, and we also speculate that each mechanism is independently responsible for imbalance, working by itself without being linked to another, then five mechanisms, equally spaced within a wheel, would guarantee that at least one of the mechanisms is at all time 'acting' within the lower quadrant on the downward side. This one mechanism would be causing the system to be continuously out of balance.

    If this is the case, then this would demonstrate that five mechanisms would be necessary for a wheel to be 'self-starting', without any addition of an outside force (i.e. turning it by hand to start the wheel, etc.)

    If the above is true, then one to four mechanisms would work only if started with additional force, but five or more mechanisms would be 'self-starting', and out of balance at all times.

    Oh, how I wish I knew what Bessler was thinking!

    The best of research to everyone!

    Hutch




    ReplyDelete
  12. Hey! guess what,
    everyone who was calling for Ealadha to do nasty things should check this out.
    www.simonsfoundation.org/.../perpetual-motion-test-could-amend...
    Perpetual motion, time crystals, everything!
    Maybe an apology is in order?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Scientists are preparing an elaborate lab experiment, although it may take “anywhere between three and infinity years” to complete. Well that's right up Trevor's street. :-)

      Delete
    2. Funny ED,..why don't you just go away!

      Delete
    3. @STEVO

      www.simonsfoundation.org/.../perpetual-motion-test-could-amend

      Can you give a full path. Not sure what ... is supposed to be.

      Delete
    4. Zoelra,
      That is how the address came up under the subject title, I just copied it after trying it out myself.
      I'll try it out again, if I got it wrong, I'll re-do it.
      ... is in the address.

      Delete
    5. https://www.simonsfoundation.org/features/science-news/perpetual-motion-test-could-amend-theory-of-time/

      Delete
    6. Zoelra,
      looks like you found it, maybe it comes up differently on Firefox.
      There's plenty of sites with the same info, probably just came up in another order.

      Delete
  13. This is further proof of what I postulated awhile back.
    Time does not exist,period.
    Those time crystals are actually,..Zero time crystals.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Time does not exist because Trevor postulated it "awhile back".
      And the wheel will get finished "in the future". LOL!

      No Trevor, I won't go away, but thanks for asking.

      Delete
  14. Consciousness is the only thing that exists, everything else is illusory.
    I will not be on the internet for a while because I have not paid my internet service provider they are disconnecting me in one hour.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Ealadha,
      things are looking up right now, why don't you find a nice internet cafe with free Wi-Fi ?

      Delete
  15. Guys, you're not going to believe this!
    Check www.rexresearch.com/bull/1bull.htm
    It's Ealadah's circular Orffyreus aircraft!

    John, do you think the mechanism could be adapted to a purely mechanical one, in imitation of the Columbian Wheel gymnasts?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Hi Stevo, I remember reading about this report many years ago and incorporated the idea in the last chapter of my book, 'Perpetual Motion; An Ancient Mystery solved?'

    My suggestion was that if we could tap gravity, a linear force, by manipulating the movement of of some weights to turn a wheel, then by turning a wheel we might produce a linear force. This would drive a space ship etc etc.

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes John,
      I must check my book first!
      I've done some head scratching on a one beam wonder, I made sure I didn't use my index fingers, so I'll have a least two splinter free ones to type with :-D
      Standby for a muse, once I've got the wording right.

      Delete
    2. Here we go, like it or lump it!
      Take one side of your wheel, and fix the one beam across the diameter.
      Fix the axle to the centre, and place on the supports, in the bearings.
      One free spinning wheel.
      Take a hammer in each hand,and knock the top r.h. side of the beam anti-clockwise,
      while simultaneously knocking the bottom l.h. side in the same direction.
      One spinning wheel. That's the principle behind my thinking.
      Take your R shaped springs, that you prepared earlier, and fix them to the spot on the beam that you struck with the hammers.
      Don't forget to invert the bottom one!
      Take your weights, and fix them to the free side of the R springs, they now move like grandma's old wooden laundry tongs, knocking the sides of the beam like a movie clapper board. Connect the two weights together with a cord, to ensure simultaneous knocking, using pulleys to divert the cords past the axle, and to change the direction of the weights movements, pantograph style.
      Now, extend the axle, and fit two cam lobes, to lift one "stamper beam".
      Give the wheel a push start, and when the cam lobe contacts the stamper lobe, the wheel will pause slightly, but the spring mounted weights will continue on their own momentum, and hit the side of the beam, knocking it round again.

      Delete
    3. A drawing would be handy, Stevo?

      JC

      Delete
    4. OK, give me a while, maybe tomorrow.

      Delete
  17. John ,
    It took me a while but I have an answer to your question of whether or not there were two opposed mechanisms in the Bessler wheel . But since I have said so much without saying anything at all I will leave it at that , accordingly .

    ReplyDelete
  18. Nice one Chris :-) More head scratching!

    JC

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Basically we are talking symmetry restoration . I can name that tune in a little over 1/2 turn . How about you ?

      Delete
  19. John,
    I'm scratching my head again, are you scratching yours because because of Chris' cryptic post, or did you get us mixed up?
    Anyway, if the cylindrical weights are hollow, but
    filled with many pieces of lead (shot), they would produce a more effective dead blow.

    ReplyDelete

Johann Bessler’s Legacies.

Bessler’s wheel is one obvious legacy and although there are some who believe that it’s potential power output is too limited to be of pract...