I’m going to try to provide a better explanation for my design. This will be in two parts because there are two aspects to this explanation.
To answer questions from my previous blog, the scissors mechanisms are mild steel, but the curved guide arms are/were aluminium. The weights are mild steel and there are two per lever, each pair weighs 80 gram grams about 2.8 ounces. Not much but it seems to be enough on 36 inch diameter wheel.
To begin with I’ll concentrate on the so-call “work-around”, (WA) without which my wheel design won’t work.
Some of the text which follows contains assumptions about Bessler’s thinking. The ideas described are how I imagine Bessler’s thoughts proceeded.
The main focus of action occurs around the six o’clock radius, when a mechanism approaches it from the right. I use the word “approach”, because as we know, the wheel is permanently out of balance. The weighted lever in the approaching mechanism is almost vertical but leans back to the right, or to the rear, by 18 degrees. This encourages it to fall back a full 90 degrees immediately it’s pivot reaches the six o’clock radius.
At this point I believe it’s worth reminding everyone that every angle inside a pentagram is a multiple of 18 degrees, so the angles include - 18, 36, 54, 72, 90 and 108. But there is one 30 degree added which doesn’t normally appear in the pentagon.
So the weighted lever falls to 108 degrees from the vertical radius, 18 + 90 degrees = 108. This provided a very small mechanical advantage (MA). It wasn’t enough to do more than rotate the wheel a few degrees.
It occurred to Bessler that making the weighted lever fall back to a point closer to the following radius and its weighted lever, would generate a considerably larger MA. If he could design a system that achieved the extra MA, then the wheel would rotate further than the few degrees from before. Incorporating this feature to generate the extra forward rotation would cause the previously fallen weight to counter-rotate, making its weighted lever ride further backwards towards its pre-fall position. From this position the weighted lever would require less lifting effort to return it to its original pre-fall position.
Bessler noted that in the action of a falling lever there were very few comments about the potential energy generated by a falling weight. He thought that the loud noise made as it landed disguised the possibility that he might be able to tap the small extra source of energy before it landed, which it usually spent creating noise and miniscule heat.
He designed a scissor mechanism which would control the descent of the weighted lever, sending it in an elongated arch straight towards the following radius which had its own weighted lever ready to fall.
The scissor mechanism could expand or contract and was operated by a weighted lever. Bessler warned us to put the horse before the cart, so the weight used it’s falling mass to begin operating the scissor mechanism, reacting to its lever’s position and driving the mechanism.
The path of each mechanism was controlled by one long lever which was fixed to a pivot close to the wheel’s centre of rotation. The other end was connected to the mechanism but was lengthened to pass through it almost to the edge of the wheel.
Bessler used the scissor mechanism because he had observed that it was the most suitable method given it worked best when moving horizontally. A slight slope would send it extending, whereas a slope in the opposite direction would send it contracting.
The long control lever extended through the scissor mechanism to provide an anchor at its outer end to tie the end of a cord. The outer end of the long lever was thrust backwards quite strongly by the fall of its weighted lever, providing a good pull on the attached cord. The cord passed over two pulleys. One pulley was positioned close to the edge of the wheel and directed the cord up and around a second pulley close the axle. This redirected it down to the weight on the weighted lever in the previous mechanism.
NB. This last sentence is not necessarily correct. The images I’ve interpreted suggest it might not connect with the previous fallen mechanism because it would be counter-rotating anyway. Alternate suggestion requires the lifting of a weight around two or three o’clock, i.e, just past TDC.
Continuing…
As the first mechanism at six o’clock fell, it’s cord pulled the weighted lever in the previous mechanism back up just 30 degrees, into a neutral position aligned with the inner circle upon which all the lever pivots are stationed. This small lift is designed to be work as quickly as possible.
This fast lift is necessary because once the the weighted lever moves past its own radius, it begins to travel uphill, causing a braking action on the turning of the wheel. It can be likened to the action of a pendulum which falls until it reached bottom dead centre, and then begins to climb, unless the pendulum is shortened somewhat, when it speeds up.
The potential energy formed during the weights fall is used by the scissor mechanisms to drive them sideway towards the rear and the oncoming mechanism.
In the picture below I’ve removed the metal strips I added to reduce the lateral sway evident in my own model as they are not necessary in a well-built model!
Hope this helps. More details in next post.
JC
"As the first mechanism at six o’clock fell, it’s cord pulled the weighted lever in the previous mechanism back up just 30 degrees, into a neutral position aligned with the inner circle upon which all the lever pivots are stationed. This small lift is designed to be work as quickly as possible."
ReplyDeleteOkay, you've given us some more information like the two weights at the ends of each of the five scissor arms weigh, together, 2.8 ounces. That's much lighter than I thought they would be and I'm starting to think that the parts in each scissor mech, added together, could actually weight more!
I get that the sudden horizontal extension of a scissor mech approaching the wheel's 6:00 position is supposed to cause the scissor mech that previously passed that position to quickly retract and, by so doing, quickly raise its two end weights right up to a position near the axle of the wheel "in a flash". That sounds great...IF it works. But, I'm still a little confused about how you connect two consecutive scissor mechs together with a single cord to produce that "workaround" effect. However, you did say this:
"The outer end of the long lever was thrust backwards quite strongly by the fall of its weighted lever, providing a good pull on the attached cord. The cord passed over two pulleys. One pulley was positioned close to the edge of the wheel and directed the cord up and around a second pulley close the axle. This redirected it down to the weight on the weighted lever in the previous mechanism."
I've taken the photo of your wheel, edited it a little, and added where I think the cord (dark blue) is attached to two consecutive scissor mechs and also where I think the pulleys or eyelets (black circles) might be. But, I did not attach the end of the dark blue cord to the previous scissor mech's weights. Rather, I attached it to one of the pivots in that scissor mech because I think it might produce a faster lifting action by being attached there. If it does not work when simmed, it can always be tried by connecting it directly to the weights. Here's what I came up with:
https://i.postimg.cc/JnqVXhJ4/possible-cord-pulley-locations.jpg
Is this basically correct? If so, then I can see some potential problems with it. One has to arrange the parts so that the cord is not rubbed by the rising scissor arm with the weights at its end. Also, once a weight is risen at the 6:00 position, its cord to the scissor mech ahead of it (then at around 10:30 with its cord colored light blue) should become loose. If that happens, then what keeps that scissor mech's two 10:30 weights near the axle? If some sort of latching system is not used, then I'd expect those two weights at 10:30 to just swing cw until their scissor arm is vertical and pointing straight down. That would then cause the cog of all of the weights to swing back toward a position under the axle.
Also, you still have not provided us with the distances between the pivots in your scissor mech pieces. Without that info a simmer will not be able to make an exact model of your wheel's scissor mechs. However, maybe that info is not critical and a simmed model, even if it does not perfectly match what you've built so far, might still work.
In my photo the 10:30 weight stayed near the axle, because of the wheel’s turning, but it did tend to stick. This is my problem, most of the parts don’t move easily.
DeleteEach connecting part of the scissor mechanism is two inches long.
JC
Thanks for the pivot to pivot distance on the scissor parts. That should make simming easier. Let's hope someone comes up with something that looks like it can work.
Delete@Anon 10:36 first off , thanks for the amount of work you have put in to your edit & explanation pic for our understanding . I think that some things in it may be out of proportion & placement if I'm not mistaken . if so , can you re-edit so that the 5 sectors are all the same pie wedge shape . some scissor mechs etc may be in different positions to what your current edit pic shows . thanks .
Deletehttps://i.postimg.cc/mDzfwHnk/Anon1a.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/mk3bY9zf/A-JC-1.jpg
@anon 19:49
DeleteMy edited version of JC's photo of his wheel was very hastily done. I just copied the 1:30 scissor mechanism, flipped it around 180° and 45°, and then pasted them over the 7:30 and 10:00 scissor mechanisms. I was just trying to get a general idea of where to attach the cord to adjacent scissors and place the pulleys. Anyone making an accurate sim will show all of the anchor pivots for the scissor mechanisms at precise 72° angular intervals around the disc.
Correction: I just copied the 1:30 scissor mechanism, flipped it around 180° and 90°, and then pasted them over the 7:30 and 10:00 scissor mechanisms.
DeleteIf I understand correctly, supposed "workaround" is that when weight falls down, it is directly connected to next weight which is pushed up. However if this is it, it seems like non-runner. There is no additional potential energy acquired by falling down which would be wasted in noise. Only way to extract energy from gravity is by moving up and down, and that's all. So when weight falls horizontally, real energy from gravity is only as much as vertical movement. And from image it seems to me that next weight is supposed to be pushed up to much greater vertical movement than vertical movement of first weight, and if that is the case, it will lock the wheel.
ReplyDeleteYour criticism was also sounded by an anon in the previous blog's comments who noticed that the GPE lost by the weights of an extended scissor mechanism reaching 6:00 was only about 1/3 of that needed to raise the weights of the just past 6:00 scissor mechanism up to near the axle. He provided this drawing for us:
Deletehttps://i.postimg.cc/PqrrY9WK/bessler-workaround-01.jpg
This appears to be a serious objection. But, as the scissor approaching 6:00 extends horizontally, it should also give a bit of a cw kick to the wheel. Maybe that kick helps to raise the weights back to near the axle? I think the only way to judge this design is to either accurately sim or build it. Let's not be too hasty to toss in on that growing pile of dead ducks we've accumulated so far. We need to see some more sims of the design and accurate ones.
No, my explanation is confusing for which I’m sorry. I’m going to have another go at explaining my theory, but not today!
DeleteThe few things we do know, is that firstly, Bessler’s wheel worked; that it had no additional, external energy source; and received enough energy to continue turning and doing work; and this was achieved through the actions of a number of falling weights. So the sole source of energy came from those weights, nothing else.
We must either make better use of the energy from the falling weights and/ find a better way of lifting the fallen weights more economically. This has been my attempted solution.
JC
there probably will be some cw kick to the falling & extending lever SB pivot from conservation of momentum , & the opposite may happen when the forward lever is lifted up again pulling ccw on its pivot above it . an accurate sim should show the wheel reaction . the rope eyelet positions for the ropes will also probably have some effect .
DeleteI think it may be very helpful if you would draw trajectories through which are weights supposed to go in finished wheel. That should make understanding your workaround easier.
DeleteJC wrote: "So the sole source of energy came from those weights, nothing else."
DeleteBut where was that energy in the weights? They were just lead cylinders. They would have had some thermal energy in them due to being at room temperature. Ken B claims any energy they supplied came from the slow conversion of the masses of their atoms' subatomic particles directly into mechanical energy via a wheel's design. They were not magnetic so no magnetic energy. Some here in the past suggested that the weights were getting their energy from the Earth's rotation, but no explanation of how they did that.
Hmm...I vaguely remember years ago someone here gave us a link to a US patent for a machine that actually used a giant Foucault pendulum's slow swinging and a long train of gears to make a final output shaft spin at high speed, but its torque was very low. No matter because Bessler's wheels were way too small to house something like that. That inventor's Foucault pendulum machine was the size of a small house!
No matter how you dice it classical physics says to output mechanical work (fxd = energy) energy must be supplied to a Bessler wheel. because force is not energy. UNLESS a Bessler PM wheel imbalance was always regenerating as it turned, which is what B said it did. once we accept that it is a manufactured reoccurring overbalance the next question is what mechanical arrangement did it contain that didn't consume net energy to cause the regenerative reset? the focus is not on imbalance, but how it maintained the imbalance & external work at no net cost or consuming of ANY traditional energy source!
DeleteMaybe Bessler found a self-balancing arrangement of weights, levers, springs, and ropes that, when a wheel was stationary, had their collective cog located on one side of the wheel. Then, as the wheel started to turn due to the imbalance, the weights, levers, springs, and ropes, being "perturbed" by the rotation of the wheel, just automatically adjusted themselves so as to return their collective cog back to its starting location. This process would use no energy because, if one could actually see the cog floating in space inside of the wheel, its elevation relative to the center of the earth never changed.
DeleteDoes the mechanism at 4:30 end up in the position of the one at 6 when you turn it by hand?
ReplyDeleteIf you turn a pm wheel that works should it take off like B’s at least a little?
Yes, after JC's wheel is turned about 72 degrees, the 4:30 mech should expand out and look like the 6:00 mech. It is that expansion, acting through a connecting cord which JC does not show in his wheel's photo, that is then supposed to contract the scissor moving toward 7:30 and swing its weight up to near the axle. Apparently, many here think that is impossible!
DeleteAlso, when dealing with Bessler's one directional wheels, there was no need to turn them a little to get them started. They were always out of balance and, as soon as their tethers to the floor were undone, they would immediately begin turning and accelerate up to some final terminal rotation rate when running freely. If, however, they had machines attached to their axles and had to do some external work to run those machines, then a Bessler pm wheel's terminal rotation rate would be reduced.
SECOND ATTEMPT at simming the "Bessler workaround"
ReplyDeleteI greatly improved the scissor mechanisms which are now moving smoothly. However, I found that I had to move the attachment point of the cord to the extending scissor's guide arm from the bottom to the middle of its length if I wanted to see the extension taking place before that guide arm became vertical at the wheel's 6 o'clock location. I also, as JC suggested, attached the other end of the cord directly to the weight of the prior scissor mechanism that had passed the 6 o'clock location and was to be raised toward the axle. I had to do that or, again, I could not get the extending scissor to extend until its guide arm was well past the wheel's 6 o'clock position. The new attachment point to the middle of the guide arm allowed me to eliminate the pulley near the rim of the wheel. Note that the wheel in the sim is being driven cw at a steady rate of 1 rpm by a motor attached to its axle. If the motor is removed, the motion becomes too rapid to be able to easily observe the movements of the scissor mechanisms.
Unfortunately, when I did those things the rising weight did not rise "in a flash" to a location "near the axle". It rose a vertical distance that was actually LESS than the extending weight dropped! So far, I see no gain in gpe with this "workaround". Here's a gif showing the relevant portion of the second sim:
https://i.postimg.cc/mgqf2FsB/2nd-B-workaround-sim.gif
Unlike JC's build, my sim model wheel is larger with a 6 foot diameter and I made the weights 2 pounds each. However, if the workaround principle is valid, that should not have made much difference.
I don't think a full five scissor mechanism sim model wheel can be justified until and unless the problems with these two scissor mechanisms can be resolved. Anyone got any ideas about how this sim might be improved?
Am I the only one beginning to sense the faint decaying odor of a deceased waterfowl? Maybe it's just a momentary phantosmia I'm experiencing. Let's see if it persists and intensifies in the coming days...
DeleteNice animation, but a weight that slides or shifts to keep the wheel moving will never work... there must be another solution 🙂.
DeleteA single pulley is insufficient to obtain 30° of lift
ReplyDelete