(Sorry if this was covered in earlier posts....)
The Apologia drawing has 3 narrow sections and 3 'wide' sections, which leads one to assume that the design is formed of 3 parts, or is otherwise divisible by 3.
Working on that assumption, I made 3 circles from tracing paper, cutting a 120 degree section out of each one, then overlapped the 240 degree sections to try to form a similar design. They didn't.
To make the design in the picture actually requires four of these patterns to overlap.
Just an observation.....
"....the mechanism is so simple that even a wheel may be too small to contain it...."
"Sometimes the harder you look the better it hides." - Dilbert's garbageman
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
If you go to Bill Beaty's "Amateur Science" site, he has a thing on "square wheels". They take a cube and warp or "bulge" the sides slightly. If you look at the end of an axle put thru a cube on it's diagonal corners, you will see the Apologia drawing.....
Bill has some good illustrations of this on that site.
I couldn't find anything about squares, wheels, square, wheel, bessler, orffyreus, or bulge. (I used the ctrl-f find capability.)
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
So grim, is that just interesting, or do you have any ideas about this? I still continue to see three pieces, but I see multiple ways they could be. It could be two wheels each made of three 120 pieces and off set from each other by 22.5. It could be three overlapping 142.5 pieces, or 240, or 337.5, or 217.5.
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
If one were to construct an open-frame version of a "square wheel", the boards would have to be warped, and narrow at at least two of the diagonals corners, like the shape of north to south sections cut from a globe, so they could tie into the wooden axle like spokes would in a normal wheel. Bringng the boards straight in at full width into the axle would be tough to make a tie-in.
If this were so, the boards from the axle view, IF that's what we're seeing, would look exactly like JB's illustration, and would certainly be a wheel "without a normal rim", if you believe anything he wrote. Cover the frame with a flimsy normal-looking wheel and noone would be the wiser.
Just a thought, maybe just coincidence, but the resemblence of the two illustrations is noteworthy.
Does anyone know, were all his wheels covered with canvas, or were the bigger ones [outsides] make entirly of wood?
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
As far as I know they were all covered with some kind of oil cloth or canvas, which suggested that JB needed access to the insides. Certainly he did on the larger ones as the weights had to be removed prior to translocation.
Hi Mr Tim/Grim;
I found this idea interesting; I wonder if there would be enough width to the wheel for such a design...maybe an abbreviated version/concept of what is described.
I remember looking at a link to the link above(does that make any sense?) at Wolfram research when I was trying to figure out how Wallington implemented his 'rolling road'. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Roulette.html
I know this link is a bit off topic, but I found that website to have a lot of great mathematical concepts presented in a readable/straightforward way.
--Patrick
Wolfram's animations illustrate all the math he presents for sure.
The only constraint and possible problem is see in this "square wheel" frame is the width constraints, if one assumes a square was used.
Since it could have to be only a four-inch wide diagonal across one of the smaller wheel's axle, the sides of the square would have to be smaller than four inches, thus a very small frame; the eighteen inch wide wouldn't be much better.
Probably end up as just another of JB's "chase your tail" games, but I thought it was worth a second look, as the illustrations were just too much alike.
Hi Patrick,
a nice link you set. My teeter-tauter does follow the same courves. Picture you have on the board under 'name searched'.
x=a(t-sin t) and y=a(1-cos t). But what will happen if you lift a weight, the force on the surface will variable !!
Hi Georg;
Sounds good to me! Here's a couple of links about simple machines and centre of gravity. Since becoming interested in Bessler it seems there is no end to new links about this or that.
best regards--Patrick
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
Seeing the slightly "unbalanced" guy that Bessler was, I'm beginning to believe that his statement "the overbalanced wheel is impossible" just might be similar to, when asked by the cop, "Ok, Rabbit, where's Rocky?!"
Bugs Bunny replied "He's not in this stove!!"
