Two Similar ideas from the same source ? Decide for yourself ...

[christo4_99]

Haa... okay. Here goes Stewart, and everyone else who replied. believe me...it is good. If anyone makes this work... please, please remember me. And to John C. If this is imposing upon your idea, I apologize.

First of all the three things are the same thing. Think of a crab. As it moves side to side the legs on one side create an acute angle, and the legs on the other create an obtuse
angle. Look at the slider mech on the first and last drawing mentioned. It has the combination of the 2 different crab legs.
Now look at the last drawing. See the two weights attatched to the rods? Notice they are placed together? See the two circles the rods attatch to on the other end? Consider them to be two gear wheels of the same ratio. The interesting thig about this is, when the rods and weight are straight out horizontally, like in the picture, the leverage is balanced, and the weights don't move. If you were to tilt it clockwise, they still would not move because the upper weight (remember the term upper weight, as quoted by Bessler) has the greater leverage, and wants to move downwards, but because they are geared together it's pushing the lower weight up- and nothing can move because they are touching. But move it any slight angle counter clockwise, and the lower weight has greater leverage and it will swing down, and cause the upper to swing up, until they smack in to each other again on the other side, or until they stop by another means. Now think of the drawing that says "and still you do not understand?", and regard the angles. Consider the attatchement of this mech, by the gears to the rim of an inner cylinder "like a grindstone." and consider one pair, counter balanced by another on the other side, like in the last drawing. Now...Bessler said the greatest torque begins when the weights come to be placed together. Like in the drawing-out horizontally. This could be the driving force of the wheel. He also says the upper weight drives the force suppled to the "push" of the other parts? This could be the movement of the pairs, tilted on angle so as to cause them to seperate. Do you see what I mean? Part of their respective movements could also be by stationary angle, like shown in the main drawings, and as mentioned before by myself and Grim.
Thing is, there are so many variables of combinations with this idea. When Bessler said "the flail belongs to the farmer, not the scholar", he could have meant the solution will only come to the worker-the experimenter, because of the seemingly endless combinations of these mechs (if this is correct.) Like it came to him, possibly. And of course then John C, is correct in his advice.

I have a few other possible insites, I'll provide soon.

Best regards,

Michael

My idea of the construction is thus : The two thick black hoops are mounted to the axle by their own supports/bearings per so that they move freely and remain centered . The two round pendulums are fastened at their respective ends to the hoops at two places per , one per hoop . This causes the two round pendulums to move in duplicate . The two round pendulums have brass or other metal hollow spheres (the lowermost one slightly heavier than the other) along with a arm per fastened to their periphery and are movable within . The arms of the metal hollow spheres have chords attached to them so that they can be raised and lowered with tension and slack . The chords are attached as in the third illustration to a central arm which is attached to the outer hoop . The two round pendulums are arranged to contact the inner hoop as they move inward . The inner edges of the round pendulums are arranged to only contact the spokes of the wheel . The spheres are suspended in a liquid that may be capped with an appropriately shaped piece of wood or other object to prevent the fluid from moving chaotically . When the wheel is turned the pendulums are displaced thus causing the liquid within them to move and raising one sphere while lowering the other , this action gives slack to one sphere and as one sphere is lowered it pulls itself and the pendulum within which is is contained inward . As the liquid rocks back the other way from the spoke passing and another spoke displacing the higher pendulum the process reverses . In between the inward arms of the round pendulums there is a rod (weight ) which can rotate freely on the axle and is spun and returned both by a spring tension in the thin downward arms of the round pendulums and the ends of the round pendulums alternately . Note : when this rod is centered it is not affecting the machine for a brief instant and it's function is to convey the bulk of the pressure from the movement to the round pendulums alternately and to sustain the movement .

[christo4_99]

The voice of reason interjects:

Golly gee, by now you guys have got me totaly confused. I think many are trying to read too much into these drawings. If as some later date someone were to gather up all my many idea sketches and put them into a note book ( I have no idea why they would do such) and then try to read some hidden meaning into the sketches, I would just laugh. There would be no meaning. They are just a collection of mechanical concepts and ideas. If there were some text describing each drawing they would have much more meaning.

On another note, I have been making a list of concepts or mechanical movements that are the palette from which a bessler wheel must be made. I should start another thread but here is a beginning. I hope to expand on these at sometime.

1] gravity - continious force from above.
2] inertia - continious travel of an object.
3] centrifugal - outward force from the center of a spinning object caused by inertia.
4] circular speed - speed of a rotating wheel, outer edge travels faster.
5] circular inertia - outer edge has more inertia because traveling faster.
6] wheel rotational speed can be varied by changing a weights radius from center.
7] leverage - can be used to change movement speed or force.
8] gears - just fancy levers
9] belts (string, rope, chains, etc.) just a method of redirecting movement.

Of these inertia, centrifical force and leverage would seem to be the keys to a working wheel. Centrifical force can make a weight seem lighter near the top of a wheel and heavier near the bottom. A weight traveling at a fixed speed can travel farther around a wheel during a given time if it moves toward the center. Or it can give up or take on energy by changing its distance from the axle and pressing against the wheel. Leverage can be used to cause a movement at an earlier or later point on the rotating wheel. Combine all of these in the right mix should give a pretty working picture.

Now where did I put my paint brush??

[jim_mich]

Just so readers know where you are getting these quotes from... they are from Michael's "AHHH!! HMMMM............" thread from 2004, about eight years ago.

[christo4_99]

Ok, fair enough . I was just trying to point out that they are two totally different ideas and that your opinion on the drawings was that they are insignificant and not to be studied carefully or something along those lines . I don't really understand why the interest died (in the drawings anyway ) because it seems to me , and some people have noticed that there is some elegance in the design/animation/explanation that I have made . My investigation/excitement/belief/progress all to do with this design is the whole reason I am here .
What do you think of my interpretation Jim ? Do you think that the whole idea/discovery is plagiarized ?

[jim_mich]

Christo, why didn't you include a link to where these quotes came from? Failure to do so is inconsiderate to the readers. There are thousand of postings on this forum. If you are going to post a member's quotes taken from some other thread from eight yeas ago, at least have the courtesy to include a link to it or at least the name of the thread so that the reader is not left sitting here scratching their head, wondering where these quotes came from. Also note that when taken out of context of the whole thread, they have a tendency to loose a little something.

I think we dissected those drawing every which way that we could back then. If you see something in these drawings, then go for it!. Make a model of the mechanism and see if it works. I personally don’t see that combining these two drawing accomplishes anything. One side is printed page M.T. 135, which was more or less just a piece of scrap paper to Bessler, and which he used to make the sketch M.T. 142.

You must realize that the M.T. drawing are a series of wood-cut prints. Bessler could print any number of these pages any time he wanted, because he had the woodcut blocks. Bessler (or maybe someone else) used the backs of some of these prints as scrap paper to doodle some ideas. Because the wheel could be seen through the paper on the back side, he used it as a guide to make the sketch that got labeled, at some later date, as M.T. 142. There is no reason to think that M.T. 142 should even belong with the MT drawings. But there is also no reason to say that it should not be included. Maybe Bessler intended to make another woodcut like M.T. 142 ?

There is also the possibility that the sketches were made by someone other than Bessler. Most of the M.T. drawings have index numbers that were written on them by some librarian or such. These index numbers seem to indicate that there are now some pages missing. For instance, the page that contains M.T. 1 & 2 is labeled as 408 and 449. The page containing M.T. 3 & 4 is labeled as 450. The other pages are labeled in a similar manner. M.T. 135 is labeled (hand written) as 135, 555, and what looks like 574.

My point is that I don’t see any value in combining front and back images. And also my point is to please attribute quotes to their source when they come from some distant time & thread.

[christo4_99]

Are you saying that this is the same piece of paper ? One reason is as good as another to include/exclude anything . I am surprised that no one who looked at the drawings before came up with something similar to what i did . The first step was to divide everything because nothing stiff moves very well . The second step was discerning maybe what the upright was for . The third step was realizing that ( the way it is apparently drawn) the pendula are actually one pedulum .The fourth step was determining how it would move if it was revolved ... that resulted in the movement of the small weights . The fifth step was determining whether there might be liquid in the pendulums . Actually at some point the small anvil on the toys page came to mind for the flailing arm and a concept of excess weight being instantaneously created and exchanged between "sides" by velocity and spring tension instead of positioned or whatnot .And after all of that I took this as an undocumented suggestion or clue :

"I've also long thought of applications in smelting and stamping,
and of course, mining, as I've just said. To elaborate further,
water-power (or lack of it!) has often been a factor in mines not
being fully exploited, and many a mineworker has been reduced
to the ranks of penury as a result. Who's to blame for all this, I
ask - since no-one knew about my Wheel at the time! Who now,
though, could look askance at the Wheel, and deny its powers? If
it were to be incorporated into a mining operation, just think of the
profits that would ensue; the riches that would come from the
shafts and the rich workings that would be freed from excess
water. Many galleries and passages could then be once more
traversed for their full length. Many a treasure, that originally
came from Heaven, could be won from the mud."

[jim_mich]

I apologize Jim , are you saying that this is the same piece of paper ?

Yes, that is what I am saying. Go back to the old thread and read it carefully. The sketch was drawn on the back side of printed page M.T. 135. They are the same piece of paper. Whoever drew the sketch used the print from the other side as a guide for the circular spokes. The paper is thin and the ink from the printed M.T. 135 bleeds through to the back side, which is M.T. 142

[christo4_99]

Jim I edited the above comment before I knew you had already replied . My name is actually Todd btw if anyone cares to call me by it .

[Richard]

Hello again..Todd :-)

of course I care

richard

[murilo]

Jim I edited the above comment before I knew you had already replied . My name is actually Todd btw if anyone cares to call me by it .

I would prefer Todd4_99 in order to show a not so shinning profile... 8)

Edition: I mean, NOT so much pretentious... a minimum of modesty may also be helpful...

[christo4_99]

Murilo ,
Don't forget that to many this all is a joke , no matter how much time we spend stroking our own or others egos (or not) really doesn't accomplish anything .At least I have the advantage of having nothing to lose . The only thing that does accomplish anything is decisive design and subtle notions of some kind of continuous movement . Any way you slice it up it all amounts to whether or not the movement can sustain itself .