Over the last few weeks I have made considerable progress towards making a working version of Bessler’s wheel. Last year I awoke with an image in my mind of why and how Bessler’s wheel worked. It’s taken until now to begin to apply the right configuration using previously discarded parts.
Bessler left visual clues as well as ambiguous comments and coded ones. It was only when I began to seriously try and build again that difficulties began to accumulate. This forced me to study the drawings again and combine this with the other less obvious clues.
So, here are some conclusions about what I believe I know. Firstly do not ignore the seemingly obsessive concern about the number 5; it’s a vital ingredient and I’ll try and explain why.
It has been suggested several times that to test a suitable mechanism you only need two of them. Not true. To rotate continuously you need a system that drives continuously. In other words overbalancing needs to be continuous. If you only produce two overbalances they would each have to produce it for more than half a revolution of overbalance which I think is impossible.
Bessler said (in a disguised way) when he tried the wheel with just four mechanisms it was as if the wheel could barely turn. But when he added more levers, weights and pulleys then the wheel turned quickly.
I know the original translation says cross-bars, but this is wrong, the actual word used was creuze, which mostly means cross. My friend Mike Senior who translated all of the German, thought cross-bar would fit best as a part of a mechanism, but I think Bessler was indulging in his favourite method of obfuscation - ambiguity. Using the word for ‘cross’ was hinting at the four arms of a cross.
But with four arms the wheel didn’t move, however, when he added another arm, plus weights and pulleys then it turned.
Four arms means each arm covered a quarter of the wheel or 90 degrees each, five arms means each arm covered a fifth of the wheel, or only 72 degrees. If each of his overbalancing methods applied its drive to each fifth of the wheel, that is much better because it evened out the rotation, by reducing any potential gaps in the drive. He also discovered that he could fit five mechanisms in the same space as four, therefore reducing the gaps between each mechanisms overbalancing action.
Bessler said his weights worked in pairs, as one fell, it lifted the previous fallen weight back up, but a shorter distance than it fell.
This would provide a continuous drive, something the mechanisms had to provide. It was not enough to make it turn continuously, it also had to do work so the overbalancing had to be cumulative, building up the rotational speed. Many witnesses remarked on the smoothness of the wheel’s rotation.
Just some of my thoughts.
JC
For proof of your concept of odd numbers of mechanisms above 3 you could build a deeper wheel with more internal volume allowing for some overlap and clearance of your mechanisms. 7 at 51.43 degrees would be better than 5 at 72 degrees, and 9 better than 7 etcetera.
ReplyDeleteThank you anon 22:02. It’s not just using odd numbers of weights, as the fact that one weight lifts its paired weight at the same time, so that you get a double mechanical advantages, which is why Bessler’s wheels accelerated so quickly.
ReplyDeleteJC
"Bessler said his weights worked in pairs, as one fell, it lifted the previous fallen weight back up, but a shorter distance than it fell.
DeleteThis would provide a continuous drive, something the mechanisms had to provide."
That would be then the vertical distance lost by the actionable mechanism and a lesser vertical distance recovered by the mechanism one forward. The linear distances traveled for both mechanisms would be the same distance. If as you say the vertical distance for the recovery would be less then mgh down is greater than mgh up leaving a surplus pe available to convert to ke and "drive". Does the geometry in your drawings of your build in progress show this "shorter" distance?
Yes, sorry I posted a reply but it didn’t arrive! The distances are visible but have to be deciphered and it’s a complex cipher,
DeleteJC
"It has been suggested several times that to test a suitable mechanism you only need two of them. Not true. To rotate continuously you need a system that drives continuously. In other words overbalancing needs to be continuous.
ReplyDeleteBut with four arms the wheel didn’t move, however, when he added another arm, plus weights and pulleys then it turned.
This would provide a continuous drive, something the mechanisms had to provide. It was not enough to make it turn continuously, it also had to do work so the overbalancing had to be cumulative, building up the rotational speed. Many witnesses remarked on the smoothness of the wheel’s rotation."
With 4 identical connected together by ropes and pulleys mechanisms of levers and weights simultaneously pulling upwards the previous mechanisms weight while the following one loses height does not create any continuous rotation force. But when 5 mechanisms are used there is a continuous overbalance force that smoothly rotates and drives the wheel. Does your 5 mechanism prototype show the wheel centre of gravity remaining well over to the side of downward rotation to cause the continuous rotation force you mention? Many will be thinking your proof of concept build only initially needs to show a minimal continuous rotational force from your overbalancing mechanics to prove your principle is correct. The next step I'm sure you have considered would be to engineer and upscale it to a more powerful smooth and fast accelerating wheel closer to what Bessler managed with his wheels.
Thank you, anon 23:22.
ReplyDelete