Gaining Force

[graham]

Bessler says "certain diposed weights gain force from their own swinging" .

I have often wondered about those words because I think he was honest about this and felt that it was a loose enough description not to give too much away.

I see it as him saying that his weights gained angular velocity greater than the wheel itself thereby driving the wheel as each weight impacted onto something behind the oilcloth , hence the banging sounds as the wheel rotated.
What do you get from reading his description??

Graham

[amateur]

I've thought about that some, and I've wondered about the following....

If a wheel is rotating in one direction, and "mechanism"s attached by string/rope(peacock wheels, pendulums, ?) are swinging, if the period of the swinging item is "just so", (1/2 cycle of swinging item matches 1/2 revolution of "wheel", I think would be correct proportions [edit - think that should be 1/2 pendumlum cycle to 1/4 wheel cycle]), then seems the swing item would benefit from traveling a little bit further "up" is area of travel in one direction, relative to the outer wheel...

See http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/download.php?id=949

for the general layout/orientation I'm thinking of - although that was not intended to swing freely in two directions.

However my efforts to produce that in simulator did not reach a satisfactory conclusion. That was intended to "push" in one direction, and then swing back in the other. (I was stymied with appropriate latch design, a common problem we have it seems. I'm improving with simulator, so may go back to it eventually. I did try to sim. the orientations at various points in pieces, but couldn't decide whether the final differences I observed would balance out, or show excess. I really needed the entire thing or more exact numbers.)

But, I did think the "gain" idea was interesting - that if a "pendumlum" rode to a certain point say on left side, and then released to swing back to a "driving" position on right side, it would be slightly further up its area of travel on that right side, than where it had begun. Whether it actually gains any force as a result, I don't know.

[graham]

Hi Amateur, years ago I tried what you described with swinging pendulums but eventually gave up. My design had the pendulums restricted on the ascending side but allowed to swing out on the descending side. I had a ratchet arrangement that locked the pendulum at its outermost swing on the descending side and felt sure that this was what Bessler meant by "gaining force from their own swinging". Of course it did not work , I was trying to get an overbalanced condition by locking the weights at the outermost part of their swing . I had eight pendulums and experimented with different lengths of pendulums but eventually gave up and realized that this was not the swinging referred to by Bessler. I also learned a lot about inertia and reaction, all of which played a part in making that wheel a "non runner".
However if you build a wheel it would seem to me that there has to be some sort of swinging involved in its operation , just have to be more creative that's all.

Graham

[ovyyus]

Graham, again we have a translation/interpretation being taken perhaps a little too literally. I remember John and I discussing this some time ago and I'm sure we agreed that, "certain disposed weights gain force from their own motion" was a better interpretation.

John's away for a couple of weeks and might like to add to and/or correct this himself when he gets back. Perhaps Stewart could also provide his interpretation?

[Joel Wright]

Hi Bill, I cut and pasted this from Bessler writings from this site.Are you saying you don't feel this is a accurate translation :::::::::::These parts are enclosed in a case and are coordinated with one another so that they not only never again reach an equilibrium (or point of rest) for themselves but incessantly seek >>>>>with their admirably fast swing <<<<<to move and drive on the axis of their vortices loads that are vertically applied from the outside and are proportional to the size of the housing.

[graham]

to move and drive on the axis of their vortices loads

Where exactly did this come from, and what is a vortice load?
It sounds rather a convoluted description ,and not being fluent in ancient German I can't argue the point.. A vortice is like a spinning whirlpool , a vortice load ,hmm.

Graham

[ovyyus]

Hi Joel, the text you quote from here - http://www.besslerwheel.com/writings/da ... phans.html - is from "Al Bacon" and differs considerably from John Collins DT translation (page 20-21)... compare:

Al Bacon: "These parts are enclosed in a case and are coordinated with one another so that they not only never again reach an equilibrium (or point of rest) for themselves but incessantly seek with their admirably fast swing to move and drive on the axis of their vortices loads that are vertically applied from the outside and are proportional to the size of the housing."

John Collins: "To this end they are enclosed in a structure or framework, and co-ordinated in such a way that not only are they prevented from attaining their desired equilibrium or 'point of rest', but they must for ever seek it, thereby developing an impressive velocity which is proportional to their mass and to the dimensions of their housing. This velocity is sufficient for the moving and raising of loads applied to the axis of rotation."

[Joel Wright]

Hi graham,Look at the top of the screen.You'll see BESSLERWHEEL.com ,Left click your curser on it.To your left you'll see a selection of subjects click writings.This will take you to Das Triumphirende Perpetuum Mobile Orffyreanum.From this I got :::::::::::These parts are enclosed in a case and are coordinated with one another so that they not only never again reach an equilibrium (or point of rest) for themselves but incessantly seek >>>>>with their admirably fast swing <<<<<to move and drive on the axis of their vortices loads that are vertically applied from the outside and are proportional to the size of the housing.Good reading by the way, hope you enjoy it.Joel Wright

[Stewart]

Hi Bill

Perhaps Stewart could also provide his interpretation?

I'm more than happy to do so, but I'm not sure what the original source of this is: "certain diposed weights gain force from their own swinging". Is it AP or DT or some other Bessler document? Help me track it down and I'll see what I can do.

All the best
Stewart

[ovyyus]

Hi Stewart, the text that Graham mentions comes from John's, "Perpetual Motion - An Ancient Mystery Solved?". It is the text I used on my quotes page at orffyre.com - it's from DT.

On page 20 of John's DT translation this same text is delivered somewhat differently to the one included in his first book. I think the one below, taken from John's recent DT, is more accurate. (anyone seriously interested should obviously obtain a copy of John's DT - there's so much more to read)...

"The internal structure of the wheel is designed in such a way that weights applied in accordance with the laws of Perpetual Motion, work, once a small impressed force has caused the commencement of movement, to perpetuate the said movement and cause the rotation to continue indefinitely - that is, as long as the device retains its structural integrity - without the necessity of external assistance for its continuation - such as the mechanisms which are to be found in other 'automatics' - e.g. clockwork, springs or weights that require rewinding. For this concept. my 'principle of excess weight', is NOT just an external appendage, an 'added-on device' which is there in order to cause, through application of its weight, the continuation of the motion (the revolution) so long as the cords or chains, from which it depends, permit. NO, these weights are themselves the PM device, the 'essential constituent parts' which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (Oderived from the PM principle) indefinitely - so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity."

...this text leads directly into the text I quoted a few posts above..

"To this end they are enclosed in a structure or framework, and co-ordinated in such a way that not only are they prevented from attaining their desired equilibrium or 'point of rest', but they must for ever seek it, thereby developing an impressive velocity which is proportional to their mass and to the dimensions of their housing. This velocity is sufficient for the moving and raising of loads applied to the axis of rotation."

[Stewart]

I've worked out where it comes from with a bit of help from Ed. It's from John Collin's book "Perpertual Motion: An Ancient Mystery Solved". Here it is (page 89):

The inward structure of the wheel is of a nature according to the laws of perpetual motion, so arranged that certain disposed weights once in rotation, gain force from their own swinging, and must continue their movement as long as their structure does not lose its position and arrangement. Unlike all other automata, such as clocks or springs or other hanging weights which require winding up or whose duration depends on the chain which attaches them, on the contrary these weights are the essential parts and constitute perpetual motion itself; as from them is received the universal movement which they must exercise so long as they remain out of the centre of gravity; and when they come to placed together, so arranged that they can never obtain equilibrium, or the punctum quietus which they unceasingly seek in their wondrous speedy flight, one or another of them must apply its weight vertically to the axis, which in its turn will also move.

This is a translation from "Das Triumphans...". I'm not sure who did this translation, but there is a different translation in John's more recent book of "Das Triumphans...". Here it is (page 190):

The internal structure of the wheel is designed in such a way that weights applied in accordance with the laws of Perpetual Motion, work, once a small impressed force has caused the commencement of movement, to perpetuate the said movement and cause the rotation to continue indefinitely – that is, as long as the device retains its structural integrity – without the necessity of external assistance for its continuation – such as the mechanisms which are to be found in other ‘automatics’ – e.g. clockwork, springs or weights that require rewinding. For this concept, my ‘principle of excess weight’, is NOT just an external appendage, an ‘added-on device’ which is there in order to cause, through application of its weight, the continuation of the motion (the revolution) so long as the cards or chains, from which it depends, permit. NO, these weights are themselves the PM device, the ‘essential constituent parts’ which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the PM principle) indefinitely – so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity. To this end they are enclosed in a structure or framework, and co-ordinated in such a way that not only are they prevented from attaining their desired equilibrium or ‘point of rest’, but they must for ever seek it, thereby developing an impressive velocity which is proportional to their mass and to the dimensions of their housing. This velocity is sufficient for the moving and raising of loads applied to the axis of rotation.

Please remember these quotes are from John Collins' books and are copyrighted by him.

I'll work on my own translation of this section of DT when I get some spare time.

Stewart

[ovyyus]

Ahead of you Stewart ;)

[Stewart]

Hi Bill

Thanks! I'll do a translation of my own as soon as I can.

All the best
Stewart

[Joel Wright]

Hi Bill I am disappointed to see that the word vertical (icheitelrecht according to Hills vest pocket german english dictionary published 1898)was lost in the re-translation.I wonder why the first translation includes vertical.As you may remember vertical pendulums are a main component of my lastest experimential wheels (Joel Wrights Ideas community buzz). The first translation was some inspiration to that design.Hmmmmm maybe its time to go back to the old drawing board.Step back and punt.Plan B.Just kidding I have faith in my design.I get very intresting results from them.I just wonder ,it seems like such a unmistakable word.

[ovyyus]

Thanks Stewart, that'd be great :)

Joel, I think the point is well made that translations and interpretations can vary considerably and that while we can perhaps rely on getting the general gist, we should be careful with literal specifics. Good luck with your design!