Have always had a fascination with 38, 40, 41, 42, and 60.

[axel]

Number 40 in particular. As drawn in MT, it will never work. I've pounded all of these many times trying to see what could be done to alter the parts preventing them from working. Everything tried, makes the situation worse.

I see something now with 40 though.
It will take awhile try the principle out for real.

I can tell you now though, the crossbar may cause the imbalance, but its weight is not what gravity causes to turn.

[AB Hammer]

Axel

Those have also been in my favorite MT list. But all to often the trade kicks our behinds.

[MrVibrating]

They're also my favourite MT's. Without blubbering all my thoughts on them, one detail i find particularly interesting, alluded to in MT40, is trading axial for radial displacements.

Axial or radial, height is just height with respect to the gravity field, but with respect to the rotating frame perhaps there's more to it... dunno. Another unresolved hunch, for me...

Anything to do with these MT's grabs my interest though, so do keep sharing..

[rlortie]

I am and have been for the better part of three years working on axial designs.

Do not just let it be a "hunch"; there is more to it than meets the eye. Sorry but it will not be found pursuing Bessler drawings!

Ralph

[Triplock Jnr]

I agree with Ralph ( hi by the way x ); Besslers' drWings are no more than a footnote , and his clues are just anecdotal and can be made to fit any design retrospectively.

I will referto some clues and drawings on my other post but to do so will not be in support of the core concept as any idea must stand alone.

Chris

[axel]

I've realized this for several years, but do you know how you can tell Bessler actually made #40 instead of just dreaming up something and drawing it?

See the black rectangles on the crossbar? I believe those were somehow counterweights that would stop backtracking caused by the bar when it fell below the wheel COG. That was to try and eliminate the negative influence of this part's movement. He wouldn't have known about that unless he had built it or something similar.

I think #40 was the last non turner he built before making his discovery.

That's good to know, but no matter what, the weights have to be lifted. If they fall, they have to go back where they were.

I've seen this stalling feature Hundreds of times.

[Triplock Jnr]

For me , with the exception of the toys page, the MT drawings highlight man's folly at trying to mechanically overcome height for width within a closed system . Typically a circle, which represents the essence of the conservation of energy has to co-exist or be impacted by other systems by virtue of its position - re Venn Diagrams. For it is in that area of over-lap that extended motion beyond the norm exists.

Chris

[ME]

When weights fall, torque flows away.
The trick: raise them in pairs.

[MrVibrating]

I remain unclear as to whether the various descriptions of "weights acting in pairs" refer to two pairs alternating between axle and rim, or two weights in a pair swapping places.

@ME - care to expand on your little teaser there?

MT41 shows us a pair of pairs, and together with MT42 also represents a progression away from shift weights as a means to raise the OB weights. This may be important as shift weights always seem to be robbing Peter to pay Paul.. MT41 and 42 instead take torque from the horizontal stator wheels to raise the weights, although in MT41 the means by which the scissorjacks then raise the weights remains a mystery.... and of course, Bessler's working designs had no stators at all..

MT35 also uses these horizontal stator wheels, but has the same problem as MT42, in that the energy required to raise the weights is equal to the overbalancing torque * angle produced on the wheel. The same is probably true for MT41, if only it showed how the weights are actually raised.

@axel - a quick sim shows that the long levers in MT40 produce a slight anti-clockwise rotation of a few degrees, but it's stable with no significant torque. So the black rectangles aren't counterbalancing the levers' CoG... i think they're intended to indicate a second mechanism orthogonal to the one illustrated - note also that the levered jack shown to the right of the wheel also depicts the weight atop it as a similar small black rectangle.

The most significant effect of the weighted levers in MT40 is to lower the CoG of the wheel, negating the intended raising of the CoG by the weights lifted upon the jacks. In short, MT40 produces no significant torque at all.

The longer rectangles shown attached to the jacks in the wheel seem to be roughly twice the length of the shorter ones. MT41 also depicts the shorter items, again omiting to show how they're shifted, then MT42 goes back to displaying the longer ones.

So there's a correlation in that the shorter ones are shown disembodied from any mechanism to actuate them, whereas the longer ones are shown connected up to a shift mechanism. Is this just an incidental impromptu convention, or something more meaningful? I suspect the former is explanation enough; "longer" can't be assumed to imply "heavier", since the shift weights woudn't then be able to raise them.

The only immediately apparent clue in these images is MT41's enigmatic assurance that there's something special behind the scissorjacks...!

[ME]

care to expand on your little teaser there?

Sure...
It takes me some effort to formulate it properly, this is my first draft:
Link: The Importance of Raising Weights

Marchello E.

[cheors]

MT41 has ropes and pulleys to activate the scissor jacks :




The horizontal stator wheels to raise the weights (MT41,42) are symbolic.
Some mechanism to be determined. But MT40 shows us 2 levers and 2 weights in charge of moving the scissor jacks.

[daanopperman]

Hi Mr V ,

The scissorjacks that is longer at the input end and shorter at the output end is good for lifting vertical , it will have a slow start and will increase in velocity as it opens , whereas the one on MT41 ( horizontal ) will be a linear opening from start to finish .

[gravitationallychallenged]

The MT40 concept of mounting arms to hinges on the perimeter of the wheel and mounting the arm weights past the axis close to the opposite side of the wheel I find most interesting. Since the hinges and weights are mounted outside the center of gravity, they would be unaffected by centrifugal force but would be affected by gravity. Also, wouldn't a cable fastened to the weighted lever and then routed around a pulley located on the rim of the wheel be preferable to using jacks on the axis of the wheel to lift the other set of weights? It seems to me that pulling from the outside instead of pushing from the inside would transfer the load to a higher position and create an overbalanced condition. By the way, I use a larger font size in my posts to make it easier to read. I don't see as well as I used to in my younger years.

[ME]

Since the hinges and weights are mounted outside the center of gravity, they would be unaffected by centrifugal force but would be affected by gravity

Why would they not be affected? I guess they it would be rather more.

It seems to me that pulling from the outside instead of pushing from the inside

The amount of force would be the same.

By the way, I use a larger font size in my posts to make it easier to read

Most browser have a zoom option: shortcut is probably <Ctrl> +

[justsomeone]

Edit.