Looking back I see I wrote something along the lines of this post back in 2009, 2012, 2019 and 2022! Why am I so hooked on making working models, after all a working model can be simmed and will be if one ever materialises?
But a suggestion on the Bessler wheel forum yesterday prompted me to re-examine my model and I saw a simple but crucial error that I might have missed on a sim.
Anthony (a newbie) has this signature “it’s not where you see the weights on the wheel that matters, its where the wheel (FEELS) the weights thats important”. Now that is a fact I learned so long ago that I almost forgot how important it is.
Imagine you place pendulum on a wheel with its pivot just below the axle, so the weight hangs downwards. If you rotate the wheel a few degrees clockwise, the pendulum rotates anti-clockwise relative to the wheel. The pivot bears the weight of the pendulum and as long as the pendulum moves relative to the wheel, the weight is pulling down on the pivot.
But if you place a stop in the path of the pendulum forcing it to stop and remain motionless, the weight is no longer felt on the pivot, but rather where the weight actually is, resting against the stop.
As soon as the pendulum is free to move again the weight is again felt at the pivot.
The error I found was a simple mistake. A supporting rod I had fitted into the mechanism was too short, meaning the part it was supporting did not have its pivot close enough to the axle to gain a big enough advantage? Unless you keep the fact mentioned in Antony’s signature in mind you might not even realise you’ve overlooked it. Like I did!
Actually I didn’t forget about it, but I was so intent on correcting what I saw as an unnecessarily long lever in a drawing, I shortened it too much.
JC
"...the weight is no longer felt on the pivot, but rather where the weight actually is, resting against the stop."
ReplyDeleteIt really does not matter where the stops are placed inside a pm wheel. A stop can be in direct contact with and supporting a weight or it can be closer to the axle and supporting the lever to whose end the weight is attached. What matters is the location of the weight itself. Try not to be misled by the locations of pivots and stops. It's only the locations of the weights that count.
Everybody knows this. If the pendulum is hanging so that it's COM is vertically beneath the pivot and it is free to move the weight is felt by the wheel at the pivot point as though the weight were there. As soon as the pendulum is resting on a stop or locked to the wheel the weight is felt where it is located.
ReplyDeleteThe locations of the weights, or where they’re felt don’t matter. The only thing that matters is that nothing was seen of the prime mover either in the demonstrations or the drawings. It was easy to hide the prime mover in the drawings. What prime mover would have been invisible at the demonstrations?
ReplyDelete"What prime mover would have been invisible at the demonstrations?"
DeleteAnthony & JC are talking about pivoted levers with weights inside a wheel and where the weight is felt if hanging verses locked. A Prime Mover structure is a different matter & it is hidden inside the covered interior of the wheel obviously. And it went around with the wheel because Bessler said everything must go around with the wheel and nothing hangs from the axle.
I think many are totally confused about Bessler's use of the term "prime mover". It is not what they imagine it to mean which is not surprising considering how confusing Bessler's words or the translations we have of them can be. Bessler uses the term as an alternative description of his pm wheels and nothing more. It is not some mysterious extra machine that must be attached to his wheels to make them run. It is the entire wheel ITSELF.
Delete"Prime mover" means something that moves without itself needing to be moved. It is motion without cause. Bessler did not know how that could happen and many today still do not know. All that most pm chasers know or think they know is that if they can come up with an overbalanced wheel design that stays overbalanced as it rotates, then they will have the problem solved. Far, far easier said than done, of course, as millions of man-hours of labor have proven.
All motions of objects in our one and only universe must have a cause. Maybe the ONLY exception is the entire infinite universe itself. It is simultaneously its own cause and effect at all times from the infinite past to the present moment to the infinite future. Can you accept that? No? Then don't worry about it because I certainly won't.
So take a nap, eat some grub, and get back to work on your wheel. It's later than you think and you won't live forever. Even after you are gone, you will still technically be in our universe, but unfortunately not in a form that can work on pm wheels. Even a day came along when Bessler was not able to watch another sunrise...or work on another wheel.
Here are 2 translations of MT15 years apart where it is the only time Bessler in writing uses the noun (naming word) "prime mover". It is not an adjective for the whole wheel because he says the overbalance is shown but not the source that causes the overbalance or superior weight configuration.
DeleteNo. 15 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.
2007 No. 15. This ratchet-wheel derives from the previous model, except that the tensioners are somewhat longer and have an additional special weight at the outer ends. From this drawing alone, however, nothing of the prime mover's source can be seen or deduced although the figure shows the overbalance.
The problem with fabricating is that it is painfully slooooooow..... A pm chaser can spend weeks making some little tweak to all of the mechs in his wheel only to eventually (more like inevitably!) discover that it was just another waste of his time and effort and, worst of all, his emotions. With simming he could have found that out in minutes and then made his plans to move onto something else. Imo, it's best to sim first and then, IF it's a runner or even looks like it's a runner, start fabricating it. If one only has a one in a million chance of finding a runner which approach increases his probability of finding it more? Completing the fabrication of, say, a hundred physical wheels in a lifetime or simming thousands of wheels in his lifetime? After one has a working sim, he could get his real world runner with his very next build!
ReplyDeleteA lot of pm chasers are afraid of simming or may think they are "too old" for it. That is just nonsense. With as little as an hour or two of practice, a person of average ability can be simming and testing maybe 90% of any designs that might occur to him. Imo, the real reason for not simming is just plain laziness or the crazy belief that since Bessler didn't sim to find his runner, then they don't need to either. Do anyone actually think that Bessler wouldn't have been simming if it was available to him back then? Of course, he would have.
Instead of needing a decade to find his runner, he might have found it in only six months! With the resulting extra nine and a half years to market his invention he might have sold it and we might actually be using it right now! I recommend all pm chasers get themselves a copy of Working Model 2D and give it a try. It's so "user friendly" it almost hugs you!