I'm sure I've written on this subject previously but it bears repeating I think.
I have noticed that some people on the besslerwheel forum describe their ideas for reproducing the two-directional wheel; this seems to me to complicate finding the solution. Bessler's first wheel could only turn in one direction and he only introduced the ones which could be turned in either direction, to answer the accusations that his machine was driven by clockwork. He says that it was a very difficult task to accomplish.
In looking for the correct path it seems sensible to take a look at the simplest machine, which was the one direction wheel. This had to be locked to prevent it spinning, because it was in a permanent state of imbalance. I know there are some who have dismissed this claim by Bessler and have suggested that the wheel had to stopped at a certain point where the weights would tip over and begin the rotation s soon as the brake was released. I see no reason for adding speculation to the words written by the inventor himself; "these weights are themselves the PM device, the ‘essential constituent parts’
which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force indefinitely – so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity. To this end they are enclosed in a structure or framework, and coordinated in such a way that not only are they prevented from attaining their desired equilibrium or ‘point of rest’, but they must for ever seek it,"
which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force indefinitely – so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity. To this end they are enclosed in a structure or framework, and coordinated in such a way that not only are they prevented from attaining their desired equilibrium or ‘point of rest’, but they must for ever seek it,"
I have emboldened the critical words; the weights keep away from the centre of gravity, followed by this comment, they prevented from attaining their desired equilibrium or ‘point of rest’, but they must for ever seek it. What could be clearer? The machine is continually out of balance, hence the need for the brake.
I performed some experiments a few years ago, with a Savonius windmill and a large fan. I
first spun the windmill with the aid of the fan and noted its speed.
Then I mounted a second Savonius windmill onto the same vertical axle.
This second one was designed to turn the other way. I drove the two
windmills with the fan and noted that although they turned in opposite
directions their speeds were still similar to the first run with the
single windmill.
I
then linked the two windmills together. Whereas before, the two
windmills had begun to rotate spontaneously as soon the breeze from the
fan hit them, now they remained motionless. But when I gave the joint
assembly of both windmills a gentle nudge in one direction or another,
it began to turn slowly at first but reached full speed in about three
turns. The speed reached was half that of the single windmill - exactly
the same result as demonstrated by Bessler's two-directions wheels.
OK,
this is not an unexpected result but it shows that the two-direction
wheels were also performing as expected - and it also shows that the
one-direction wheel also performed a expected; starting spontaneously
So we should be studying the one-direction wheels and trying to find a way to make them always out of balance.
PS Forgive the unintentional links to the boy band One Direction!
JC
10a2c5d26e15f6g7h10ik12l3m6n14o14r5s17tu6v5w4y4-3,’.
It seems you believe there was only one method of PM that bessler discovered , maybe there was only one way of doing it .
ReplyDeleteBut did he not say there was another way of going about PM ?
One way is where weights switch positions and another way is for a light weight to lever a heavy weight , did he not talk about those two different methods ?
"But when I gave the joint assembly of both windmills a gentle nudge in one direction or another, it began to turn slowly at first but reached full speed in about three turns."
ReplyDeleteThat's very cool, John.
I'm assuming that when you "linked the two windmills together", that they were still on the same vertical axle and that you made them both turn in the same direction. Please verify whether or not that is correct.
Thanks
Yes that's correct Mark. I made the Savonius windmills out of used baked bean tins sawn in half and glued into position on narrow card board tube which fit over a three foot high screwed thread. The bottom of the thread was bolted onto a heavy chunk of plywood. There was a nut about three inches off the base with a large washer on which supported the first windmill. Another nut and washer above the first windmill to support the second one. For the joint test I linked the two windmills with a long thin nut and bolt. Try this at home!
ReplyDeleteJC
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteMy recent thoughts on this:
ReplyDelete- either the OB torque drives the repositioning of the weights causing the torque, or else the torques from the weights repositioning drives the wheel. It's one or the other.
His first wheels used the latter transmission direction, and his later ones the former.
However, the difference between the two transmission modes can be nothing more than an extra tooth on a cogwheel, or one less...
Consider that the power ratio was exactly 1:1 - the machine would be locked, all torques cancelling. But then remove one or more teeth (ie. tweak the ratio up to 1:1.01) and you get transmission in one direction; invert that ratio and you get the alternate drive mode.
Timely post, as it's something i've been playing with in recent days....
John,
ReplyDeleteMy solution to the bidirectional wheel involves a symmetrical design which acts according to which direction it is pushed in . I can imagine that the first wheels were similar but not exactly like the latter ones .
The question is... what exactly moved the wheel? When this clear, it is no problem to reproduce the mechanism for both directions. If that was,, what I am currently thinking about it, it must have been quite easy... actually. Bessler did not imagine, that one might have doubted his idea... or even acclaim him as a imposter with a wheel only turning in one direction...
ReplyDeleteTherefore he made the bi-directional one (that had less power by the way...)
Bessler needed to prove something....
Lets wait for the first one to build a true mechanism working... how will he be treated.
Keep the ggod work up, folks :-)
Weights were being lifted in the self starting wheel but weights were always falling in the two directional wheels , thats what Bessler said .
ReplyDeleteThere must have been two principles , unless a weight was being lifted as it was falling , in that case it would have been one principle of operation for the two wheels !