Assuming that Bessler’s wheel consisted of an equal number of weights and support arms (levers) arranged in pairs, there must have been some arrangement of working parts to cause the movement.
Here’s my question.
If a unidirectional wheel has x number of parts, does the multidirectional have twice as many parts?
Supporting mechanisms
Moderator: scott
re: Supporting mechanisms
Assume that the minimum mechanism is two weights and one cross-bar on a wheel, which barely turns. Then when more weights and cross-bars are added is turns much better.
Then, so as to cause continual balance, each mechanism needs to be doubled so as to have two and two weights with appropriate cross-bar type mechanisms. Thus for each weight that moves out on one side another weight also moves out on the other side. And for each weight that moves in on one side another eight moves in on the other side. Thus the whole wheel remains always balanced. The weights gain force by their motions and not from gravity. When rotated in reverse they loose force and soon stop their motion on the wheel.
This does not mean that the wheel needs more weights. Suppose the uni-directional wheel has 8 mechanisms, each with two weights, i.e., 16 weights total. If you re-connected the mechanisms so each mechanism worked with two and two weights, you would have 4 mechanisms with 4 weights each for a total of 16 weights.
Then a bi-directional wheel would require each mechanism to have a second reversed mechanism that gains force when the wheel is rotated the opposite direction. You could add 16 more weights and have 4 forward mechanisms each with 4 weights and 4 reversed mechanisms each with 4 weights and so you would have doubled the weights to 32 total weights.
-OR-
You could reverse 2 of the 4 mechanisms and end up with 2 forward mechanisms having 4 weights each and 2 reversed mechanisms having 4 weights each, for a total of 16 weights. Bur then you are getting very close to the one cross-bat type wheel that barely turns.
So I've made an argument for all wheels having a same number of weights and also an argument for the bi-directional wheels having 4 times and many weights. In other words any wheel design can have any number of weights because the number of mechanisms can be increased or decreased at will.
Just my opinion. I could be totally wrong.
Then, so as to cause continual balance, each mechanism needs to be doubled so as to have two and two weights with appropriate cross-bar type mechanisms. Thus for each weight that moves out on one side another weight also moves out on the other side. And for each weight that moves in on one side another eight moves in on the other side. Thus the whole wheel remains always balanced. The weights gain force by their motions and not from gravity. When rotated in reverse they loose force and soon stop their motion on the wheel.
This does not mean that the wheel needs more weights. Suppose the uni-directional wheel has 8 mechanisms, each with two weights, i.e., 16 weights total. If you re-connected the mechanisms so each mechanism worked with two and two weights, you would have 4 mechanisms with 4 weights each for a total of 16 weights.
Then a bi-directional wheel would require each mechanism to have a second reversed mechanism that gains force when the wheel is rotated the opposite direction. You could add 16 more weights and have 4 forward mechanisms each with 4 weights and 4 reversed mechanisms each with 4 weights and so you would have doubled the weights to 32 total weights.
-OR-
You could reverse 2 of the 4 mechanisms and end up with 2 forward mechanisms having 4 weights each and 2 reversed mechanisms having 4 weights each, for a total of 16 weights. Bur then you are getting very close to the one cross-bat type wheel that barely turns.
So I've made an argument for all wheels having a same number of weights and also an argument for the bi-directional wheels having 4 times and many weights. In other words any wheel design can have any number of weights because the number of mechanisms can be increased or decreased at will.
Just my opinion. I could be totally wrong.
re: Supporting mechanisms
On a two weight system, only one weight should move at a time. There would be a locking mechanism that locks when the weight is up, and released when the weight is down, or vice-versa. That would cause an imbalance.
". . .one of them takes up an outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axle. Later, they swap places, and so they go on and on changing places all the time." (from wiki clues)
". . .one of them takes up an outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axle. Later, they swap places, and so they go on and on changing places all the time." (from wiki clues)
-
cloud camper
- Devotee
- Posts: 1083
- Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:20 am
re: Supporting mechanisms
Absolutely spot on Ben. What you're describing is a commutation mechanism.
No internal combustion, electric, or steam engine has ever operated without such a system.
This is the function of the camshaft/valve mechanism in an IC engine or the commutator in an electric motor.
The steam engine has a valve system as well.
Our gravity/inertia driven device needs the same mechanism. This system
was the cause of all the clattering in JB's wheel, just like valve clatter in an
OHV IC engine when the engine is run with the valve covers removed.
Modern IC engines use soundproofing to quiet the clatter, JB used a felt liner, at least at first.
The scratching noises were also due to the commutation mechanism engaging and disengaging.
"The Merseburg wheel clattering noise is caused directly by the real motive power of the machine, and nothing else." JB
So JB is essentially saying here that the commutation mechanism is the heart of the entire system and the machine will not work without it.
No internal combustion, electric, or steam engine has ever operated without such a system.
This is the function of the camshaft/valve mechanism in an IC engine or the commutator in an electric motor.
The steam engine has a valve system as well.
Our gravity/inertia driven device needs the same mechanism. This system
was the cause of all the clattering in JB's wheel, just like valve clatter in an
OHV IC engine when the engine is run with the valve covers removed.
Modern IC engines use soundproofing to quiet the clatter, JB used a felt liner, at least at first.
The scratching noises were also due to the commutation mechanism engaging and disengaging.
"The Merseburg wheel clattering noise is caused directly by the real motive power of the machine, and nothing else." JB
So JB is essentially saying here that the commutation mechanism is the heart of the entire system and the machine will not work without it.
re: Supporting mechanisms
Thanks, Jim and Cloud Camper for your replies.
So, Jim says only one commutation system is necessary, because the wheel is powered by something other than gravity (magic maybe?) though it's only made of wood and lead.
Cloud, do you think a commutation system would be necessary for each direction?
So, Jim says only one commutation system is necessary, because the wheel is powered by something other than gravity (magic maybe?) though it's only made of wood and lead.
Cloud, do you think a commutation system would be necessary for each direction?
-
cloud camper
- Devotee
- Posts: 1083
- Joined: Tue Mar 15, 2011 12:20 am
re: Supporting mechanisms
I'm not sure about that one Ben. The bidirectional wheel just doesn't seem to important to me. I suppose if the bi-wheel is just two uni wheels back to back then it would probably require separate systems.
A commutation system is used to define multiple operating phases of a mechanical cycle,
such as intake, compression, power and exhaust in a 4 cycle IC engine. All these phases are essentially setup and housekeeping
phases necessary to allow for the single power phase or stroke.
In the electric motor, the commutator switches magnetic fields at precisely
the right times to keep the armature turning.
In the BW, just like you say we need to keep one arm locked in position
while the other arm is repositioning to set up for the next power stroke.
In a four weight system, two arms would be locked while two are repositioning, eight weights four and four.
Due to counterbalancing requirements, I believe the minimum configuration was a four weight system.
This was the one that "barely turned" as it has two nodes that are balanced. The eight weight system
is the one that eliminated the balanced nodes and thus had greater power.
The commutation mechanism is the setup or housekeeping mechanism that coordinates all this activity.
IMO this needs to be an "active" mechanism in that the setup action must precede the intended actions rather than follow it.
That would be a "passive" mechanism, with no direct control.
For me, the clattering noise is a dead giveaway that JB used an "active" system.
Why would an experienced clockmaker design a system that was
so mechanically "noisy" if it wasn't absolutely required?
The "clattering" noise is essentially an unavoidable aspect of a change in
phase in the system. A commutation mechanism essentially defines an interface between otherwise unrelated phases of a mechanical cycle so is inherently noisy. An electric motor commutator is also "noisy" in that
continuous sparking occurs as the fields are rapidly switched. This noise
is output on the RF band and is easily heard on any nearby AM radio.
A commutation system is used to define multiple operating phases of a mechanical cycle,
such as intake, compression, power and exhaust in a 4 cycle IC engine. All these phases are essentially setup and housekeeping
phases necessary to allow for the single power phase or stroke.
In the electric motor, the commutator switches magnetic fields at precisely
the right times to keep the armature turning.
In the BW, just like you say we need to keep one arm locked in position
while the other arm is repositioning to set up for the next power stroke.
In a four weight system, two arms would be locked while two are repositioning, eight weights four and four.
Due to counterbalancing requirements, I believe the minimum configuration was a four weight system.
This was the one that "barely turned" as it has two nodes that are balanced. The eight weight system
is the one that eliminated the balanced nodes and thus had greater power.
The commutation mechanism is the setup or housekeeping mechanism that coordinates all this activity.
IMO this needs to be an "active" mechanism in that the setup action must precede the intended actions rather than follow it.
That would be a "passive" mechanism, with no direct control.
For me, the clattering noise is a dead giveaway that JB used an "active" system.
Why would an experienced clockmaker design a system that was
so mechanically "noisy" if it wasn't absolutely required?
The "clattering" noise is essentially an unavoidable aspect of a change in
phase in the system. A commutation mechanism essentially defines an interface between otherwise unrelated phases of a mechanical cycle so is inherently noisy. An electric motor commutator is also "noisy" in that
continuous sparking occurs as the fields are rapidly switched. This noise
is output on the RF band and is easily heard on any nearby AM radio.
Last edited by cloud camper on Tue Aug 21, 2012 4:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
re: Supporting mechanisms
Cloud Camper,
I promise you I'm not working on a bidirectional wheel. I've been working for years with two weights (unidirectional). That makes my objective easy to understand. All I have to do is get a full half turn with two weights.Not easy enough to have done it, but I believe if it won't work with two, it won't work with twenty. The question is just something I've thought about. I think, as you do that it would require two sets of commutators. That would be one tricky build!
Thanks, again for your reply.
Ben
I promise you I'm not working on a bidirectional wheel. I've been working for years with two weights (unidirectional). That makes my objective easy to understand. All I have to do is get a full half turn with two weights.Not easy enough to have done it, but I believe if it won't work with two, it won't work with twenty. The question is just something I've thought about. I think, as you do that it would require two sets of commutators. That would be one tricky build!
Thanks, again for your reply.
Ben