What is the longest your wheel has ever ran

[Jon J Hutton]

So it looks like the Bessler wheel trophy goes to Fletcher for a wheel that runs for Nine Minutes.......maybe if we set our sights on beating 9 minutes we will reach the goal of pm faster.

Way to go Fletcher.

JJH

[Fletcher]

Hey .. I was being slightly facetious there Jon - it was just a shell [a flywheel] with no internal levers or weights etc - does bring home to roost Alden Park's theory of graviton spin direction being able to turn a flywheel with very low bearing friction - add windage & no chance in hades imo.

[Jon J Hutton]

Ok, Fletcher

So let me ask the question what is the longest running time anyone has achieved for their over balanced wheel using a gentle push. Not a thor push or a "the price is right spin" but a gentle 2 or 3 finger spin.

JJH

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Jon...You know, I don't really mess with the duration any more. I think that, for me anyway....the best approach is to get it to want to take off....accelerate on its own.

"This experiment, Sir, showing the rapidity of the wheel augmenting from the very slow movement I gave it, to an exrtaordinary rapid one, convinces me more than if I had seen the wheel moving for a whole year."
J. E. Fischer....PM:AAMS, J. Collins...page 95

Any idea I come across I look for the way to make this happen.....yeah, it's hard...real hard...just an OOB is not going to do it. The balanced wheel that Fletch mentioned is really balanced...I mean, just a small, constant offset should be all that is needed. Bessler had more than just a small constant offset....this thing leaned real hard one way or the other. What I look for is the medium to make this happen....to make it lopsided...push or pull it all to one side and keep it there...trying to get out...but it can't...and it can't stop trying.


Steve

[graham]

Here's a nifty little rotary pendulum for your viewing pleasure.

Graham

[rlortie]

Reviving an old thread, (2007} but it seemed appropriate for the following.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPe1zB5JQmU&list=UL
point of interest starts at 2:18 in presentation.

Ralph

[Jon J Hutton]

Very interesting!

[primemignonite]

What I find so hard to understand is WHY no one has yet been able to do what Bessler did.
Nearly 300 years have passed, generations have come and gone, countless inventors, probably in the thousands have attempted this "simple arrangement".
All have so far failed.

Are we in todays world in a better position with all the modern technology at our disposal to be able to build wheels that performed as his? I think not. He had only what was available in the 17th century yet he built them with apparant ease.

I believe it's one of the greatest tragedies in Human history that JB never disclosed his method . We would all be living in a much cleaner nicer and probably safer world had he not been so selfish.

Graham

Hi Graham:

I think much of the problem lays in the fact that the organ building experience is like no other sort of training.

The spectrum of discipline is wide and, past apprenticeship, is quite deep.

Of mastership (Orgelbaumeister) I would imagine even more so but, Bessler was not such a master, as far as we know. Nevertheless he got enough from it to succeed in his prime quest. My guess is that he did not fulfill seven years of the torment of apprenticeship.

(The journeymen are not all that easy on the boys. This serves to separate-out the future masters from the chaff. It is usually a 'good cop - bad cop' sort of thing.)

As for the "simple arrangement" part of your observation, as Prince Karl is supposed to have remarked, one man's 'simple' may be another's 'complex'.

The fact is that we do not at all know what he was shown by Bessler.

My guess is that it was the minimal runner, i.e. one having the fewest sections as would cause it to 'go of itself', a model having, say, around a mere 150% efficiency factor, leaving only around 40% to-the-plus?

If so as I speculate, this could have allowed Karl to conclude for simplicity, generally.

I hope and trust that you are doing well?

Do let us hear from you more often?

As always,

My Kindest Regards

James

[primemignonite]

(Admittedly, the following is mostly "for the Record" - The Net never forgetting.)

Graham said: "What I find so hard to understand is WHY no one has yet been able to do what Bessler did. . . ." but which I did not adequately address above.

It IS hard to fathom, Graham. This difficulty of imagining we've all wrestled with, and often. (Are there any here that might claim legitimately, otherwise?)

From my perspective (whatever in actual truth that may be and, according the requirements of Necessitas as dictator, remaining unknown for the while) it doubtless is because Nature's natural demands are so plentiful, and, are unforgiving utterly, of any error of their absence in our various trials.

Truly: This and this and this might about cover it if their actual truths were known. Well, see to them friends, and we will have the most pure of all types of automation that ever was, and should be again. (But . . . will it according to such willing?)

If but one of them is addressed in Mecha in any way slightly flawed, then all the others - even if splendidly perfect of execution - will have been utterly to no avail, in the resulting lifeless lesson of disappointment. (Of these various, how many do learn and, in the more substantive of needed ways?)

Such events are often perceived by the lessers and betters of us as failure per se but, such a case is not necessarily that. Seek further (if one is enough-enabled) and . . .

My means of kindly opacity, have I now made myself enough clear???

James

P.S. The "Naughty & Nice" list continues it's plodding procession, towards it's final, blessed precession. (Best believe it!)

[jim_mich]

What I find so hard to understand is WHY no one has yet been able to do what Bessler did.
Nearly 300 years have passed, generations have come and gone, countless inventors, probably in the thousands have attempted this "simple arrangement".
All have so far failed.

The answer as to why no one has been able to do what Bessler did is very simple. Everyone is searching for a gravity solution. Bessler's wheel was not a gravity wheel. It was a motion wheel. Thus everyone is looking in the wrong direction.

Bessler stated that he found the solution where others had looked. So why didn't others find the same solution? Bessler was looking at moving weights in and out on a rotatable wheel. Everyone, including Bessler, were trying to make a wheel perpetually unbalance by moving weights in and out. Then Bessler stumbled upon a method whereby CF oscillates the weights in and out. The in and out motions of the weights as the wheel rotated caused the weights to gain force from their motions. Bessler did not anticipate this, but he recognized it when he saw it happen.

Of course this is just my speculation. We are all free to believe whatever we want to believe. Please feel free to keep searching for the impossible gravity wheel. I walk a different path.

[primemignonite]

jim_mich:

"Studied and understood."

Words and ownership of their meanings create The Reality, do they not?

Just how amusing is it - all of those recent tortuous pullings as-done, over the definition for poor old Perpetual Motion? What is it that such perfervid arguers intend? To OWN the final, remaining reality, is what the contest is. (Not doing 'rocket science' here, chaps.)

To us, good old George Orwell made this operative principle nicely and perfectly clear, and with no opacity with which to belabor any peering.

(Now we live it, and like it. So much for fair warnings gone unheeded. "James, why are you SO damned cynical?". Guess!!!)

Thanks much for your views on this matter instant, jim_mich.

In the Final Equation, as all summed-up , all such will result in THE truth appearing unvarnished. (Just watch; there is but one only.)

CHEERS!

James

P.S. As is the identical case with yourself, I as well reserve that right to be wrong in any one of the miscellaneous ruminations as I do. Life is risk. So-be-it.

[BIBLEAL1]

I built a model about 5 years ago that had a rim 1/4 inch steel , 4 feet in diameter, 12 inches wide. The rim itself weighed 125 pounds. I gave it just a normal push and it ran for 19 minutes and 40 seconds. It did not rotate very fast because of the weight ,perhaps 25 -35 RPM.
BIBLEAL

[primemignonite]

"I built a model about 5 years ago that had a rim 1/4 inch steel , 4 feet in diameter, 12 inches wide. The rim itself weighed 125 pounds. I gave it just a normal push and it ran for 19 minutes and 40 seconds. It did not rotate very fast because of the weight ,perhaps 25 -35 RPM."
BIBLEAL

To me, this seems most impressive as well as reasonable, BIBLEAL.

As it is in the case of Amourean Tooling as well, no doubt (and, according to legend as well as naughty rumor), the larger the wheel, the more likely it is to 'of itself go', I do think.

Very well. With all that born firmly in-mind, let us all go forward to our ultimate success!

James

[david jenkins]

I built a wheel 18 months ago that was balanced at rest and rotated for 2 minutes and 23 seconds with a slight push. It used springs and pairs of weights.

Dave