Sam Peppiatt wrote:oldNick, No--------- Imagine one slider for simplicity, with the slider more or less vertical and down. one lifter, or 4 to 1 lever, will raise it back up. When it rotates 180 degrees a second lifter is needed to again lift it up. If there is only one lever it will first lift at @ the 7 O'clock position which is good but when the wheel rotates 180 degrees it will lift at @ the 5 O'clock position, which makes the wheel want to turn the other way.
You are right about MT-123. I have looked at it dozens of times. But never clicked on it. It does give the right idea. Imagine that the rack is the slider but in a vertical position, the weighted lever / pinion would fall down and raise the slider up. My levers aren't on the center line and mess things up.
Some how they have to pivot on the center line. Sam Peppiatt
Live Your Days Inspired Anew, LYDIA.
Yes Sam,
But because I am using 2 levers together where only their combined force can lift the slider, they can only lift when the lever on the descending side is past 12 , and the lever on the ascending side is past 6. Basically one lever acts as a latch for the other until they are in a position where gravity can reactivate them together and lift the slider.
You only need the 2 levers described because they change direction after the 180 degrees turn, and lift again.
Hi Nick! My feeling is; (if I have it pictured correctly), the lever on the ascending side would tend to lift too soon; maybe you just have to try it and see.
If you are lifting for 180 degrees , and dropping for 180 degrees, what portion of the dropping force, goes towards sliding the weights vs rotation? If you are taking away from rotation to shift the weights, where is that force coming from?
Hi Fcdriver, If I understand your question; all of the force of the weighted lever is used to lift the slider up at or about the 7 to 8 O'clock position for CW rotation. The lever is positioned 90 degrees to the slider. The offsetting of the slider to the right, for CW rotation, causes the wheel to turn.
The sliders have to be reset every one half revolution, perhaps a weighted lever is the way to do it. MT-123 kind of gives a sense of it. See MT-15 for the sliders. In other words the sliders do the turning and the levers do the resetting. Does that answer your question? Sam Peppiatt
I tried something like this, had a very hard time adjusting for the changes from rotation, the faster it turned, the more violent the lever fell while moving the slider. I had mine set to shift at a 45 degree angle, to the 90 degree. Now I did have a 23 lb weight shifting 96 lbs, but after the third rotation, I found that lifting the 23 lb weight quickly put more force on the shifting, which can become delayed do to rpm. Let's just say it was very very violent, and something I didn't try twice. I had three arm sets instead of two. I used steel cable and rollers from a garage door. Of course trying it with such large weight was foolish, but my previous try was a garage door counter balance system, and these were the left overs. So basically I went from a tilting garage door spring lift system, remove the springs with a counter lever.
Hi FC, WOW! You must think I'm a dunce; I'm afraid I don't understand. Does the slider or sliders go all the way across the wheel with a weight on each end? You said three arms; is that three levers? I did bend the levers to 45 degrees. This helps when the slider is @ horizontal. Tell me more,Sam
I had sliders equal to the radius, which pulled from one side to the other side. Three sets arms for three sets of weights. As the arm rotated with the wheel, from 6 to 9 it shifted the weights from 7:30 to 2:30, another arm dropping from 12 to 3. I used bearing pinching 2 inch bars as gliders, sort of a homemade drawer slide. It really slid easy. I was trying to move the weights ahead of the natural movement of if the were free to move on their own. I was using the 48 inch lift and drop, to move the weights back and forth 24 inches
The bottom side when the arm is moving against rotation worked great, but at the top when the arms move with the wheel movement, the force of lift is less. I even tried putting at a 22.5 degree offset, instead of straight across from each other.
Last edited by Fcdriver on Sat May 14, 2016 7:14 pm, edited 2 times in total.
I even tried putting them at angles too, instead of straight to center. My first thought was to move them half way from center to 12 to 2:00. Instead of up and down. I should have tried it with less weights. My next try in that method, was a curved slider, but I went in a different direction
Fletcher wrote:Something I've wondered about over the years. I decided I'd ask the forum for your opinions.
..................... How can more mechanisms and sectors allow for an increase in rpm ?
Can you think of any mechanical examples, or more importantly circumstances, that would show an increase in rpm this way ?
It has me flummoxed - perhaps the answer is simple but I suspect that it may be more complex than that.
Your thoughts appreciated.
My thought:
More mechanisms make things go more smooth and let a coasting wheel act more like a flywheel.
A single mechanism should be able to do the "trick" of producing a positive overall-net-torque, but it's assumed there needs to be that annoying reset-action.
Such reset action causes back-torque or at least not causing positive torque (What would be the problem when this was not the case).
Therefore an unstable single mechanism has some instability or shaking effect on the wheel.
This is more obvious when putting such mechanism at the rim, as its position alone projects a pendulum effect.
Thus at least a second mechanism at the opposite side will solve that pendulum effect.
A more stable (fly-) wheel (-effect) is "simply" a more efficient wheel as otherwise all the energy goes into the frequent (shaky) acceleration and deceleration of the wheel and (I deduce) eats torque: τ=I· α; resulting in less net-velocity(ω) or RPM's; resulting in less Power: P=τ·ω
Thus a wheel with 4 mechanisms for example will be more efficient than two wheels with 2 mechanisms.
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
Even though I believe Bessler's early small wheels to be true overbalance systems, his later ones were noted for not starting by themselves.
I can only conclude from this that no overbalance was evident and that he utilised some kind of other motive force to turn the wheel.
One possibility is that he utilised reaction force of a moving pivot system to hammer the outer wheel on one side. Newton's 3rd law ( every action has an equal and opposite reaction) applies differently to a pulling force such as gravity in that the reaction is felt after the moment. E.g. If you drop a weight from your hand. No reaction or recoil is felt by your hand as the weight pulls away. But the reaction is evident at the point of impact.
Stay with me on this-
If the reaction force is engineered to occur at right angles to the force's direction, e.g. A ball rolling down a wheeled ramp, would push the ramp in the opposite direction horizontally ( at right angles to the direction of the force - gravity).
Now if this "rolling ball" for example were to Apply its force to the ramp at a pre defined position in the rotation so that its reaction is directed toward the axle, gravity could (in theory) be utilised to hammer the outer wheel at the same point but regularly. (Hence more mechanisms increases the velocity).
The ball and ramp is an example but I believe he designed a mechanism to do just this. It would also mean that his later wheels were in fact, Gravity assisted and not gravity powered as some suggest; staying within the laws of physics.
Just thought I'd put that out there.
“We have no right to assume that any physical laws exist, or if they have existed up until now, that they will continue to exist in a similar manner in the future.�
Quote By Max Planck father of Quantum physics 1858 - 1947
Fletcher wrote:How can adding more mechanisms increase rpm and power?
"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
If one mechanism worked, it seems it would run more smoothly with more mechanisms, even though your question is about increased rpm and power. A four cycle engine has a power stroke, exhaust stroke, intake stroke, and compression stroke. You only get power on one stroke, and the other 3 strokes are used to reset the system. The more pistons you have, the smoother it runs. And who's to say that only one revolution would reset the mechanism of a BW.
Bessler wrote:"If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in my machine...when I arrange several bars, pulleys and weights, ..."
Does this mean that a working wheel needs cross-bars, pulleys, and weights to operate?
Did we ever figure out what a cross-bar is? MT-21 from the BW wiki uses the term "cross-pole", but MT-21 from Maschinen Tractate (Edited and published by John Collins - paper version) uses the term "cross-bars" instead of "cross-poles". Or did you already answer that on page 2 with quotes from JC "...Kreutz and Kreutze and they include the word cross-bar among too many others of varying relevance to the mechanism" and Stewart "...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".
I agree with Wubbly - more power strokes = more energy / time / cycle, = more power.
Another clue that feeds into this issue is Bessler's claim that given sufficient time, he could construct a wheel that turned very slowy but with great force.
As i've pointed out previously, this seems to imply that such a wheel would employ many more interactions per cycle, increasing its energy / angle, rather than simply being a slow-motion version of the usual number of interactions / cycle, since GPE is not time-dependent.... simply lowering a mass more slowly offers no direct benefit.
And yet another angle is the stable 50-odd RPM one-way / 26 RPM bi-directional speeds - implying that the ratio of positive to negative torques is speed-dependent - a certain amount of time is required to generate a favourable torque asymmetry, and this window narrows as RPM rises.
Which in turn, feeds into yet another clue - depending on how much weight one places on it - the witness report (i forget whose) suggesting that the wheel appeared to show little change in speed between lowering and raising a suspended load winding off the axle via a pulley - taken together with the apparent speed-dependent 'homeostasis' (dynamic equilibrium) circa 26 / 56 RPM, implies that the ratio of negative to positive torque increased beyond this operating speed.
Thus, taking all these points together, adding more interactions per cycle, and gearing-down their workloads, are both consistent with there being a time-dependent limitation to the exploit... whereas the top speeds, and thus power (energy / time) of many types of motors are only limited by mechanical stress tolerances, the maximum net torque of a Bessler wheel corresponds to an optimal velocity - the amount of time required for an energy gain to be generated / harnessed.
In much the same way, to get more power from a given-sized water wheel and river flow, we might add more buckets, rather than trying to make one with just two opposing buckets turn faster than the water flows beneath.
All of which is consistent with the need for a vertical wheel, and the role of gravity...
The idea suggested by KAS above has a lot going for it - although picking up a weight incurs a counter-force (propelling the planet downwards), dropping one, especially inside an independent (ie. rotating) reference frame, exerts no counter-force on whatever it's dropped from.
This is a concept i've considered recently - rather than an effective weight asymmetry, gravity might provide an effective N3 violation, allowing excess torque, momentum and thus KE to develop in direct proportion to an unbalanced inertial interaction.
As such, when such a system is forced to over-speed, this benefit is diminished, and forcing the weights downwards restores a previously-attentuated counter-torque.
So, to me, the consistent implication is that more interactions per cycle is the only way to increase power if more cycles / time are required and RPM is inherently limited by an optimal period per interaction.
Weak comparison, but a bit like a 16v DOHC engine vs a V8 - the former can be cranked to 15 kRPM, but the latter uses more displacement to make equal power at lower revs.
Another clue in all of this is the recurrent indication of strong unbalanced forces during a cycle - such as Bessler's concerns about the internal arrangement maintaining alignments should the wheel be rudely shoved (remember that he says all of the internal parts, and the perpetual motions structures, retain the power of free movement, so this speaks to a dependence upon an emergent synchronicity), together with the reported lurching of the support post seen at the Gera demonstration. This would also be consistent with the optimal operating speed per cycle being constrained by the inherent period of an inertial interaction.
So the bottom line appears to be that power as a function of RPM was limited, hence had to be raised in terms of interactions / cycle, rather than absolute cycle speed.
Fcdriver, Thanks for you time and consideration, however, I'm absolutely confused. Would loved to have seen those 96 lb. weights wanging around!
Fletcher, I've ben pushing the idea of sliders that go all the way across the wheel; the sliders being the so called cross bars. I see three as kind of a minimum, three sliders six weights. MT-15 shows eight sliders sixteen weights. So I say yes, the more the merrier.
Admittedly I haven't found a way to reset them, Sam
Fletcher wrote:How can adding more mechanisms increase rpm and power?
"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
If one mechanism worked, it seems it would run more smoothly with more mechanisms, even though your question is about increased rpm and power. A four cycle engine has a power stroke, exhaust stroke, intake stroke, and compression stroke. You only get power on one stroke, and the other 3 strokes are used to reset the system. The more pistons you have, the smoother it runs. And who's to say that only one revolution would reset the mechanism of a BW.
Bessler wrote:"If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in my machine...when I arrange several bars, pulleys and weights, ..."
Does this mean that a working wheel needs cross-bars, pulleys, and weights to operate?
Did we ever figure out what a cross-bar is? MT-21 from the BW wiki uses the term "cross-pole", but MT-21 from Maschinen Tractate (Edited and published by John Collins - paper version) uses the term "cross-bars" instead of "cross-poles". Or did you already answer that on page 2 with quotes from JC "...Kreutz and Kreutze and they include the word cross-bar among too many others of varying relevance to the mechanism" and Stewart "...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".
with Mt 21, it shows the influence of inertia. And the weights that move towards the inside ? They are tethered like a dog on a leash. The tether negates inertia so it's influence can be controlled. just imagine if F = mv^2/r is acting on the levers pushing against the outside of the wheel.
I'm just having some fun with ya'all because I know no one will get it :-D
