How can adding more mechanisms increase rpm and power ?

[ovyyus]

I agree, but that would be rather too obvious I would think.

I think Bessler was afraid of mentioning an obvious word. I don't think he would fear uttering the word 'backwards' in relation to his secret, simply because that word gives nothing away. Maybe 'backwards' could have some meaning in retrospect, after knowing the secret, but that's besides the point.

[raj]

The wheel rotation should not slow down when we have net negative torque(x) for PART of a cycle.

SIMPLY because if we can provide a net positive torque (x+y) ( increase momentum) for at least half the cycle, this should allow us to climb over hill easily.

RPM is time per revolution.
If one revolution takes one minute, then one half revolution would take 30 sec and the other half revolution will take 30 sec equally.
OR one half revolution would take 28 sec and the other half revolution would take 32 sec UNEQUALLY, that is taking more time UPHILL, but hardly noticeable when we count RPM.

Raj

[Fletcher]

Yeah - 'backwards' doesn't give a lot away, I agree. And it might make a lot more sense in hindsight as would a lot of 'clues', as you say.

'Backwards' might be a type of metaphor perhaps (figurative), for something else similar but not literal.

Since it's kind of topical at the moment in another thread let's say I can call it 'left-handed' instead of 'right-handed'.

All conventional gravity-only wheels are what I'd describe as right-handed (forwards). That means, turning CW, that if they are for instance a weighted lever design like many of the notated MT's, then the lever on the descending side falls forward losing GPE and outward gaining width and creating torque.

On the ascending side they migrate inwards and backwards to a secondary inner rim reducing that torque ability.

This right-handed approach looks reasonable - but when we add up the number of weights on the ascending side of the axle they outnumber the number of weights on the descending side. When the turning moments are calculated we find that the positive torque always exactly equals the negative torque like a U curve, and after frictional loses the wheel oscillates into a position of zero torque, with position of least GPE (the PQ or keeling point). Clearly this common forwards or right-handed approach is a dead end.

So let's take a look at some of the earlier MT's that might support the notion of left-handed (backwards).

Before I start lets see what Bessler had to say about MT10.

"The principle is good, but the figure is not yet complete until I delineate it much differently at the appropriate place and indicate the correct handle-construction."

Somewhere else that is translated as the right-handed construction. So I might say that the figurative meaning is right-handed wheel construction which is not yet complete, and the literal meaning is the correct-handle construction. This literally means the correct handle construction, as part of the Prime Mover, hero mechanism ?!

Moving on .. as mentioned MT13 is deliberately reversed because the lettering is reversed but the number 13 is the correct orientation.

In MT15 we have another CCW wheel (no's 4; 13, and 15). Here Bessler says ...

"From this drawing alone, however, nothing of the prime mover's source can be seen or deduced although the figure shows the superior weight."

The superior weight is the very obvious upwards lifting on the descending side of the superior imbalance weights. This is very visual in the drawing. They appear to be lifted early from the bottom and are in place by 6 o'cl.

This is the opposite of MT13 where he says ...

"This invention would be very good for running if not so much friction were present or someone was available up by D to always lift up the weight with lightning speed." (on the descending side)

Seems lifting on the descending side (going backwards, or left-handed) is a useful thing.

hmmmm ...

[oldNick]

Something I've wondered about over the years. I decided I'd ask the forum for your opinions.

.....................

Bessler said in AP & DT (from wiki clues).

"If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in my machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself at all, but, on the contrary, when I arrange several bars, pulleys and weights, the machine can revolve much faster" - AP pg 355

Fletcher,

Sorry to interrupt your flow in this interesting thread but........

Do we know exactly what or where a Bessler cross-bar is, ?

Is it from the centre to the rim, from one rim through the centre to the other rim, or elsewhere ? What is the consensus of the forum ?

[eccentrically1]

I think it means from rim to rim. From rim to center would have just one mechanism on that side, and you'd need at least a counterbalance, if not another mechanism on the other side. To barely work at all, would seem to be two mechanisms on opposite sides, on one cross bar going from rim to rim. But at least one mech.
So several crossbars could be four, with eight mechanisms if they worked in pairs and later, pairs of pairs.

[james.lindgard]

A wheel containing 1 weight flipped or thrown from the bottom to the top will not replicate the characteristics of Bessler's wheel. Bessler's wheel acted as though it was wound up with an internal clock spring, ie; constant torque. That's what Bessler describes in his quote above - constant, albeit small, wheel torque from just one 'cross-bar'. A weight flipped or thrown up inside the wheel cannot provide constant wheel torque.

Kind of why I like water. Air (gas) works in water. When a weight is lifted using a lever and gear system, it will always be in equilibrium.
With air, when a cylinder is expanded in water, it becomes less dense and can float. The opposing behavior is a cylinder collapsing and becoming denser.
By the way, if a wheel is "pushed", then inertia can allow for a weight to do more work. This simply means that a weight dropping 10 cm's could lift another weight higher because of the extra force that inertia allows for.
Kind of why I've mentioned in the past about understanding the difference between momentum and inertia.

[daanopperman]

Hi Fletcher ,

We cannot take it that Bessler's ppm was a wheel , he hinted to that himself .
If it was not a wheel , how would you describe a cross bar , we all assume it was a bar going from one side of the wheel to the other , that never was .
It could have been a connecting rod , going from one part of the prime mover to a next .
A small , lifted mass , over and over , would give the correct motion of a slow rotating wheel , where the prime mover is a oscillator . In MT , there is a drawing of a mass on one side of the pivot , without the prime mover .
If the prime mover oscillate , you may have rising and falling weights on the same side of the wheel , where both will give pos driving torque . The pendulum being a oscillator by itself , points me to the part of a oscillating prime mover .

I truly believe that the pendulum is part of the prime mover , where it's KE is exchanged for PE . Once the energy have been transferred , just before reaching it's apex , the pendulum will start it's return journey under the influence of gravity , just to be sent on it's next exchange after receiving some input from the falling mass .

As I have stated before , the amplitude of the pendulum will vary , but the frequency cannot change for a given bob length .

[Fletcher]

Do we know exactly what or where a Bessler cross-bar is ?

I think it means from rim to rim.
From rim to center would have just one mechanism on that side, and you'd need at least a counterbalance, if not another mechanism on the other side.
To barely work at all, would seem to be two mechanisms on opposite sides, on one cross bar going from rim to rim. But at least one mech.
So several crossbars could be four, with eight mechanisms if they worked in pairs and later, pairs of pairs.

1. "Creutz and Creutze in my very fat German/English dictionary are explained as being similar to Kreutz and Kreutze and they include the word cross-bar among too many others of varying relevance to the mechanism. (The letter C was hardly used in German being substituted by K and this might indicate a foreign origin in his case)." - John Collins

2. Creutz/Creutze and Kreutz/Kreutze are in fact identical words. The letter 'c' was used extensively in old German but the spellings of most words with a 'c' were changed to use a 'k' at some point. So it's quite safe for you to look up Kreutz for Creutz. The 'e' is added to the end to make it plural. In modern German the 'tz' is often now just a 'z' - so the modern word to look up would be 'Kreuz'. I've looked up this word in many German-English dictionaries old and new, book and internet and not one lists 'crossbar' as a translation, so I'd be interested to see the translation in your book - could you take a photo of that bit and post it here please? It's not that I don't believe you, I'm just interested in seeing what your dictionary has. The word for 'crossbar' is 'Kreuzstange', and so it's quite possible that 'crossbar' might sometimes be abbreviated to 'cross'/'Kreuz', and in fact I even agree with you that the word 'Kreuz' in the passage in question probably refers to a bar that passes through the centre of the wheel i.e. a crossbar (as I've said the last time I discussed this on the forum). However, it's not safe as a translator to put 'crossbar' as a translation for 'Kreuz' - it's not possible to be that specific from the word 'Kreuz' (which means 'cross') without further explanation and cross-referencing (no pun intended!) with other text that proves the use in this manner. - Stewart

~~~~~~~~~~

"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, these weights, on the contrary, are the essential parts, and constitute the perpetual motion itself; since 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 be placed together, and so arranged one against another that they can never obtain equilibrium, or the punctum quietus which they unceasingly seek in their wonderfully speedy flight, one or other of them must apply its weight at right angles to the axis, which in its turn must also move."

Machine was set in motion by weights. - Bessler

Weights acted in pairs - Bessler

Weights gained force from their own swinging (or movement). - Bessler

Weights applied force at right angles to the axis. - Bessler

Springs were employed, but not as detractors suggested. - Bessler

Weights were heard hitting the side of the wheel going down. - eyewitness accounts

Weights may have been attached to movable or elastic arms on the periphery of the wheel (observer speculation). - Johann Christian Wolff, eyewitness account

Weights may have landed on planks/boards at right angles to the circumference of the wheel. - Johann Christian Wolff, eyewitness account

"A work of this kind of craftsmanship has, at its basis of motion, many separate pieces of lead. These come in pairs, such that as 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." - AP pg 295

"Many would-be Mobile-makers think that if they can arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the center than the others, then the thing will surely revolve. A few years ago, I learned all about this the hard way. And then the truth of the old proverb came home to be that one has to learn through bitter experience." - AP pg 295-296

"If one weight is giving an upward impetus, another one, at the same time, is giving an equal downward one." - AP pg 362

"by all intelligent people, who, with true understanding, have sought the Mobile in a place no different from that in which I eventually found it." - AP pg 367

"The wheel's own inner force must come into being, without external momentum being applied". - AP pg 362

"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." - DT pg 191

1. "the motive force, the ability to move itself and drive other objects makes up the FORM of the device" ... The "essence" - DT pg 221

2. "as an example of the ideas I am discussing, consider the case of two small metal spheres, one of iron and one of lead. For both of them, their FORM consists in their regular sphericity. But we find that placed in a furnace, one loses its shape quicker than the other. Therefore the greater or lesser "meltability" of such spheres is not the result of "sphericalness" - common to both - but of the physical characteristics of the two materials. And it is this "material accident" which is the FORMAL CAUSE of the difference." - DT pg 221

3. "The case is no different from that of a leaden or even waxen sphere. They are both as perfectly deserving of the description "sphere" as is an iron one, despite the fact that the latter will withstand fire and other attacks better than the two former. For form give the essence of the thing." - DT pg 222

[eccentrically1]

No one can figure out how weight can give an upward impetus?

[Andyb]

Hi for what it is worth bessler said that these weights need to be a contained in a structure or frame work, if this frame work was a single side then adding another side to make a solid frame work would double its torque ,taking up its rpm very slightly, adding weights would take this principle further, bessler did say it will spin with or with out weights ,to me that indicates that the frame work is the driving force ,i at present do not believe the crossbars did cross the wheel i believe they were lifted on the fall side and then again on the lift side this interaction is slow with no real driving force as i have said, but shows the principle is correct, later bessler says that weights would be used with pulleys and leavers and the thing would move faster.

I like your self have pondered this for a long time,and to be honest i can not link the crossbar increase with any thing other than what i have said ,what i can say is adding more weight is useless unless you lift it on both sides if you add lots of bars across a wheel all that happens is you increase the negative torque weight factor and screw your self before you have even started ,so the question is critical to answer correctly and i am open to sharing ,good question if we could answer this then we will get it ,all the best Andyb

[Fletcher]

In the notes accompanying MT9 Bessler says ..

"In all places where I have found weight-figures (lever weights), these weights are seen to be simple and nothing is attached to (with) the belts or chains. Such is the case with Leopold, but nothing is to be accomplished with this thing unless one acts out of my connectedness principle;


There must be a connected principle, else nothing can be accomplished. This is a prerequisite for a successful PMM that uses gravity-only imbalance and power. Nothing can be achieved without it !


Let me say categorically and unequivocally that ANY leverage mechanism, of any kind and use, which includes levers and weights and a fulcrum to move another weight or structure etc can not raise more weight than itself over the same distance. By that I mean, and I have said repeatedly, that for a static system leverage (Archimedes Law of Levers) provides a mechanical advantage which is countered by the speed ratio. This is a horizontal distance and applied force from a fulcrum times vertical height moved equilibrium with an opposing horizontal distance and force and vertical distance. In order for a structure to move downwards (and an opposing in another direction) the system (coupling) in isolation must have a NET GPE loss at ANY incremental height loss. It is the ability to lose GPE that CAUSES the movement. So it does not matter what the mechanical arrangement is, as long as objects are free to move around a fulcrum, it will lose NET GPE and the forces will not be in equilibrium.

That being said, we can use Ockham's razor and logic to determine that Bessler's Wheels were not driven by Cf's or Precessional forces. Purely CoG imbalance and prolonged positive torque by all accounts. We can know this because Bessler said his one cross-bar (kreuz) turned very slowly, but if he added more it could revolve very fast. He also said that he could make the size and power both small and big etc. This was the dynamic situation of rotation.

"If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in my machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself at all, but, on the contrary, when I arrange several bars, pulleys and weights, the machine can revolve much faster" - AP pg 355

"I make my machines in such a way that, big or small, I can make the resulting power small or big as I choose. I can get the power to a perfectly calculated degree, multiplied up even as much as fourfold." - AP p355

A slowly turning wheel does not generate any Cf's of significance and usefulness. Therefore he did not harness Cf's to assist the imbalance torque generation.

~~~~~~~~~

So what are we left with ?

Pure imbalance of CoG and prolonged positive torque by the manipulation of weighted structures within the wheel in an unordinary way. There must be a connected principle applied. The manipulation of internal weighted structures done in part by the application of ordinary leverage and subject to its well known constraints (for which the LAW can not be subverted). Done in such a way that the overall effect is an ordinary loss of GPE but a gain in a favourable CoG displacement not seen or replicated in ordinary right-handed constructions where everybody else has failed to gain increasing rpm and power, regardless of how many mechanisms are added.

So he applies leverage techniques, and loses Net GPE per mechanism, but gains a new CoG paradigm, which allows wheel acceleration and excess power and self sustaining because of prolonged imbalance.

And we're only up to MT15.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi, Fletcher! The cross bar must be a slider, a long bar that went all the way across the wheel with a weight on each end. It could slide back and forth. It's what he meant by the weights acting in pairs. Also they swap ends twice each revolution. This is the best way to OOB the wheel. The idea is to add more cross bars like the spokes of a wheel. Three slides, six weights.
The trick then, is to find some way to reset the sliders. Sam Peppiatt.

Live Your Days Inspired Anew, LYDIA.

[Fletcher]

Hi Sam .. all those types of constructions are in the class where they are not able to replenish GPE after translocation of internals.

The torque is real but insufficient after system frictional losses are accounted for to end up with net wheel momentum and RKE surplus. That's because the sum of the torques during rotation thru a sector add to zero. In sim world we call them zero runners. They can not replenish GPE AND accelerate each revolution.

These class of designs are the normal trading 'height for width' or as sometimes said trading 'width for height'. The problem being that the torque and RKE of the wheel is insufficient to 'lift' the cross back to its starting position and height.

These types have a system of a weight falling outwards and downwards on the descending side and either free-wheeling back in closer to the axle on the ascending side, or perhaps being pulled up and in early by the use of a rope connection etc. What I'm calling right-handed (forwards) designs.

A sliding bar arrangement, whilst not a weighted lever able to pivot mechanism, also follows this scenario. Falls outwards and downwards on the descending side after say 12 o'cl and falls inwards after 9 o'cl.

The trick is as you say is to "find some way to reset the sliders". That would take additional energy not supplied by the wheel rotation, or stored PE that needs to be replenished periodically.

What we want is a mechanical way to replenish GPE by way of system excess momentum and RKE, aka imbalance (prolonged), if Bessler is to be believed.

That calls for different thinking and mechanics.

[jim_mich]

A slowly turning wheel does not generate any Cf's of significance and usefulness. Therefore he did not harness Cf's to assist the imbalance torque generation.

I very strongly disagree with this statement. Do the math. CF need not lift the weights OOB. It only needs to cause weight motion. The weight motions then cascade to cause more weight motions. And soon the weight motions are driving the wheel rotation.

[Fletcher]

Your strong objection is noted jim_mich.

I will rephrase that to be the I believe that "A slowly turning wheel does not generate any Cf's of significance and usefulness. Therefore he did not harness Cf's to assist the imbalance torque generation."

I note that if your theory is right, and Bessler used the same approach, then you are the only two in history to find such an internal arrangement of weights, levers, ropes, and pulleys that can accomplish the task.

I also note that Bessler does not support the notion of Cf's (inertia) as the motive force in the MT drawings (not that I can find), although obviously all rotation is subject to it. Cp = mv^2/r. N.B. With the exception of a latterly hand drawn top in the toy page, sans rope !

Whether he hints at that in his writings is open for conjecture. But since no one has found a way to self sustain a wheel (except you) using Cf principles then I hardly think that was the one word that could give it all away.

Additionally both John Collins and Oystein have publicly and categorically stated, thru their extensive study of Besslers codes etc, that the wheel is a gravity-only driven wheel, from imbalance. Neither of those two are anyones' mugs so based on the balance of probabilities and greater numbers I would rate their input about the perpetuating motive force more highly than any other individuals, at this time.