Gain force from their own swinging.

[jim_mich]

Ralph,
My computer doesn't seem to have 'windows movie maker' but it does have 'muvee maker' which looks like a program that packages pictures and videos into DVD type files. I don't think this is what Ken T. was looking for.

-----------------------------

I think I've figured out how Bessler's weights "gain force from their own swinging" and now have a design that I need to test. It is a variation of my "Eureka pair of pairs" concept. I've tried to build it in WM2D but that damn program just pucks on it. I've tried to learn Silux-2D put still have things I don't understand how to do. I've written a Visual Basic program to analyze the design but I've cut corners doing so and it only gives me a rough idea of what will happen.

So now I'm kind of stuck. I could build a prototype. I usually like to build wheels under 4 foot diameter, but my analysis shows me that such a small wheel would have a hard time producing enough torque to keep it going. A twelve foot wheel with close to 400 pounds of weight could produce about the same 26+ watt results as Bessler's last wheel.

If My analysis is correct then it shows me that Bessler's wheels could be build to start with just a little bit of rotation and have only a small amount of power as he demonstrated. Or they could be built to require a strong push start and have a lot of power. It seems that one pair of weights powers the wheel but needs speed to produce enough CF to move the weights properly while the second pair of weights counters the first pair so all weights move properly and the wheel can produce power at low speeds. In other words you could build a 12 foot diameter 4 or 5 horsepower 60 RPM wheel with 400 pounds of total weight but it would need to be spun up to maybe 10 or 20 RPM before it became fully functional.

I think a 7-1/2 foot wheel with about 200 pounds of total weight could be built as a prototype to test my design. Or I could try re-writing my Visual Basic program to be more accurate by calculating all the inertial momentum and forces which is what WM2D and Silux are designed to do. At least the VB program won't crash on me like WM2D does.

I believe Bessler used the CF of two swinging weights to power his wheels. In order to make the wheel start operating at a very slow speed required a second pair of swinging weights. With all four weights interconnected the heavier pair drove the wheel while the lighter pair makes it work at lower speeds. By interconnecting all four weights the lighter pair forces the heavier pair to swing at much lower RPM's. But this also robs the wheel of power because it is the weight difference between the heavy and light weights that powers the wheel.

I hope I can resolve this one way or the other over the next few months.

[rlortie]

JIm_Mich,

Denis sent me something like 54 pictures taken one at a time showing the sequence of his 18 weight wheel. Sort of a radial Newtons gravity machine. some times two would fall and one would move up and then one would move forward ETC!

Any way I put them in this Movie maker and although I never did figure out how to start it, I could click on each frame fast enough to animate it. I found it to be very .jpg friendly.

Funny! We are I presume, both running XP you have muvee maker and I have movie maker.

Read the rest of your post with deep concentration. I may be biased, but I am glad to see that you are back on the "pair of pairs" concept. I have been leaning this way for some time now. I have made a few different machines and do believe that levered pairs may hold the answer.

One of my favorites is to have weights on levers that overall are two thirds the wheel diameter. At just past nine the unit slides to the right and the ascending end of the lever rests upon the axle. the wheel is relieved of the weight completely. Of course for it to rest upon the axle means that its track or confinement must be above (right angle to) the axle.

This give you a substantial turn until it reaches keel at 7:00. It will not keel at 6:00 as the upper end is already to the right of the axle. One lever produces more amplitude than two. add more and instead of getting better it gets worse. Another weight or pair of weights is need to start counter lifting the lever at 7:00 thus we are lead to MT 137.

During my research I was playing around with this connectivity approach. I accidently came up with a five point star. Looked at it and found it very interesting. I whipped up a quicky and stuck it on the test stand axle. I do not care to go into this any deeper at this time. I still need to work on it before saying it is a dead end or it is not.

Bessler speaks of his weights moving in and out exchanging places to and fro. How about a short lever with weights that could change ends with itself. say when one end hit 6:00 the inner end would fall back to 3:00 not unlike a pole vaulter. Of course for anything like this to work, it would require warped boards.

Ralph

[john.smith]

This is a continuation of discussion from this thread.

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.

Now just what did he mean by "gain force from their own swinging"? What force becomes present when a weight swings? I say the only answer is centrifugal force.

What could "gain force from their own swinging" mean? Lots of things. Bessler was working and writing in an era where the concepts of mechanics were still a bit fuzzy. And, of course, the fact that he was a "hands on" type craftsman rather than a academician certainly did not contribute to his being able to accurate describe a mechanical system. He may have been using the word "force" to mean "torque". As far as "swinging" is concerned, that could simply refer to revolution of the weights about a wheel's axis. Or, it could refer to the small amount of shifting individual weights underwent as they traveled around the circumference of the wheel.

Both torque and force have similar meanings. Torque means force around a pivot point. This brings us back to swinging weights. By "revolution of the weights about a wheel's axis" I assume you mean just the simple rotation of the wheel and weights while the weights just ride along and don't move. This makes no sense because it clearly would not power a wheel. Therefore we are back to weights that swinging and the force/torque derived from such. Swinging and shifting have similar meanings. The easiest way to allow a weight to shift while still maintaining control is to have it attached to a pivot point. And so we are back to swinging weights and that force which is gained by their swinging. To me this is clearly referring to centrifugal force. Bessler did not use the word "centrifugal" but it is clear that this is what he was talking about.

In another place Bessler talks about one lifting four and 4 lifting 16. This is the exact ratio of centrifugal force produced when a weight swings freely a half turn from 12 o'clock to 6 o'clock. So again Bessler talked about centrifugal force.

I really would like to believe that the "CF approach" has merit, but there are a variety of factors that discourage me from adopting this approach. Mainly, there is the sticky matter of Bessler's earlier one-directional wheels being self-starting from any position. If he was, as you suggest, "harnessing" CF, then it would seem that he would have had to have always given his wheels an initial push to get them rotating. Yet, there is no suggestion of this in the Bessler literature.

Bessler's later two-directional wheels require that initial push to start them. They required a minimum rotational velocity in order to do their thing. This is a clear indication that centrifugal force was involved.

This leaves us with only the "sticky matter" of Bessler's one-directional wheels being self starting. I don't see this as a problem. But explaining why it's not a problem becomes quit complicated. I started to write an explanation then I erased it as it was too long and complicated. Simply stated the out of balance is left over from the swing of the weights as the wheel was decelerated and stopped. When the wheel was released this initial out of balance started the wheel rotating. As the wheel reached a minimum speed centrifugal force reset the weights out of balance again and the wheel then increased to maximum speed. Without any of this left over 'out of balance' condition I feel the wheel would have needed a small push to start it going again. The two-directional wheels were made differently so that when they were stopped they became balanced.

It is Jim_Mich's questions which the double pendulum would be answering. And this is his post from 2006.

[john.smith]

@All,
And if you check John Collins copy right, it's 2010
>>Copyright © 2010 John Collins<<
and he is saying the same thing that I am except that I figured out how the bob is retracted which allows for momentum to be conserved.
And with Bessler he did mention using a grindstone as well. And a grindstone might be any arc segment that retracts a weight by means of using resistance.
As for me, do need surgery so may have to quit on this and do something that's unthinkable. As for a Bessler wheel, using a simple double pendulum can work as well as having a ring gear might . But I think everyone should read what John Collins wrote. And with me I'd say that people have trouble considering a weight as having 2 different axis of rotation.
This is a basic requirement or otherwise momentum cannot be conserved.

http://www.besslerswheel.com/html/the_mechanics.html

So from three to six o’clock I shall call this the ‘power’ arc; and after the six o’clock position I shall refer to it as the ‘momentum’ arc. If the pendulum is of a certain length during the power arc and it is then shortened by a certain amount after the six o’clock position, in the momentum arc, and angular momentum will carry the bob as high, or higher, than its starting point in the power arc.

[sleepy]

I respect jim_mich immensely and I still miss him very much,but I think he was way off the mark in his assumptions about the one-direction wheel versus the bi-wheel.I am of the mindset that the bi-wheel needed a push because the inner mech that keeps the weights in drive position needed the push to flip things in the other direction.In other words,when the wheel was stopped,the mech stood straight up and the weights were held in a neutral position.But if the mech was forced with a push to either side it would hold the weights in their optimal drive position until the wheel was once again stopped.There was no movable mech in the one direction wheels,which is why they were "self-starting".This is only my opinion based on my own experimentation.

[john.smith]

sleepy,
Most likely you are right. With a bi-directional wheel the lines that retract the weight wheel would need to reposition themselves for > their optimal drive position <. This would be more complicated because the retraction mechanism would need to shift to the opposing direction >needed the push to flip things in the other direction.<. At the same time ratchet type locks can also be bidirectional. A toggle switch can allow for this. With what I've been suggesting would be a very basic test. This is because building anything can be a lot of work and knowing whether or not the principle behavior works would keep people from wasting their time on something that doesn't work. And if it's found out to work then they'll know it's not a waste of their time.

edited to add; sleepy,
If the line is positioned where the "bar" is then if that grindstone is "flipped" so it's on the right side then the pendulum would need to swing in the opposite direction. This means the retraction line would need to go in the opposite direction around the grindstone. And this would require a push to set everything in the proper motion.

[john.smith]

@All,
This might be a little better illustration. Bessler did say his bi-directional wheel rotated more slowly. This could be because of the catch and release mechanism. Some of the differences probably won't be known until the basic method he used is demonstrated.
With the 2 different images, with a rotating wheel the grind stone was most likely something as drawn. Bessler did say there was not another wheel inside of his wheel. If he used an arc segment then his statement would be correct.

edited to add: the 2nd image doesn't show the arc segment that would retract it's weight that is on the left lever. This would be a one directional function and when it swings counter clockwise it's weight would drop because it's retraction lines would be slid off of the arc segment. a ratchet type device could easily do this.

[john.smith]

A link to a block I have ordered. It has a radius of 5.5 inches. This means it should retract an over balanced weight about 2 3/4 inches on it's upward swing. I will pour my own weights for weight wheels. This means until next month it will be just waiting. It will be the end of the month before I receive my order.

http://www.vendio.com/stores/Maple-Oatm ... d=27010015