The secret behind Bessler's wheel...

[raj]

Dear Ed,
With due respect, I, humbly, beg to differ.

I know the onus and burden is on me to show facts that my wheel will work.
Remember, I have NEVER claim that my wheel works.

Likewise, the onus and burden is on those who say my idea won't work, to show some facts why they think so. Not just repeat what they learnt by heart.

I am working on my idea, seeking to understand where it can lead me. After you presented your animation, I was delighted, because it showed that I was right in my concept of the motion of the wheel, as I had presented to all on this forum.

But at the same time of presenting your animation, you went on to say that it was only the wheel turning to push the pendulums and that the pendulums swinging had NO EFFECT on the wheel.

This was hard to swallow. You had presented no facts to convince me. Then I asked three elucidating questions which could have satisfied my curiosity, but you ignored my questions.

I am still seeking answers to my questions, and I am working everyday in find the answers... That the pendulums, in my concept, DO HELP the wheel to turn. By how much, it remains to be seen


The facts I am seeking are about the different simultaneous motions,TORQUE in figures and its effect on MoI.

Those who know maths,physics,computer simulations care to show some figures to back their comments.

As at now, I feel confident my concept looks promising.
The day I shall claim I have a WORKING WHEEL is centuries AWAy.

Raj

[raj]

Most importantly, I failed to point out that I am treating the pendulums in my concepts, not simply two swinging pendulums, but more so as two identical CLASS 3 LEVERS.

The effort and load distances from the fulcrum change every instant as the wheel turns, affecting motion, torque, angular momentum and MoI.

I wonder how many of you can visualise this.

Raj

[preoccupied]

EDIT Sorry I need to reconsider. I thought there was a string.

[raj]

There is no string used in this concept.

I am treating my pendulums as class 3 levers, simply because in my concept the effort force and the load force are both on the same side of the fulcrum.

Proven?

Raj

[ChrisHarper]

Raj,
You said:-

'Likewise, the onus and burden is on those who say my idea won't work, to show some facts why they think so. Not just repeat what they learnt by heart.'



Not trying to beat you up, but it is ALWAYS for the proposer to have proved / proofed a concept. And have results quantified through repeated / repeatable experimentation.

Finally, then for those specifications / results handed off for others to duplicate , validate and hopeful verify.

Chris

[preoccupied]

ChrisHarper, You said it's always for the proposer to have proved a concept. I think that you are confusing publication for random hypothesis sharing. If we are collaborating together we are still in research stage of a perpetual motion machine. I think my contribution to the idea is correct. If the existing force on the wheel tugs up on weights by a pulley that it would run forever as a perpetual motion gravity wheel. Oh well now that I think about it mid sentence you might be right about what you are saying to Raj. It is the proposer responsibility to prove a concept. That is his credibility.

[raj]

@ Chris.
I have already accepted that the onus is on me to prove my concept and I am still in a quest for that proof and presenting, unlike any other on this forum, every bits of my thought process.

Instead of collaboration by referring to actual cases of similar mechanical system published or unpublished where I can verify your opinion, just casual denial of my thought process is hurtful.

I am not gullible and I do not accept opinion under duress or blindfolded, just because someone gives it freely.

What you all expect me to prove to you,if my concept is right, will be proven during my patenting endeavour( not as a PMM but as a toy) and the patent office will provide me with written evidence to show why they disagree.

Raj

[Ed]

Raj,

Please don't take my last comment as some sort of attack. I was merely asking you the questions based on my observations of your process. If I am wrong about you not working the ideas from initial sketch to heading to the patent office and / or building, please accept my apology. It seems from watching here that you will come up with an idea and vet it here until you are satisfied it will work based on people say or don't say here and further contemplation or until you have a better idea.

Also, I may have had my differences with Chris, but I have come to realize, in my discussions with him and my observations of him on this forum, that he has knowledge, skills and experience, and I'm sure that when he comments on your ideas that it's thoughtful and not a "casual denial".

My animation was not a proof that your idea was sound, it was to try and help you see that the movement as you were visualizing it would not work. Unfortunately, it would be of little use to just see the thing sit still, as it does, as you initially drew it. That's why I made the wheel turn to show the movement, but I realized later that it might look to you like it works. I did do other simulations and prepared animations from them which would show the futility of this line of thought, but in order to see the complete motion, as I mentioned, the size would be way to big to post here. These simulations and my experience with past building are my proof.

Again, I apologize if I am incorrect, but it seems you are looking for confirmation your ideas work and then it's off to the patent office and/or building? Do you ever make analysis of those ideas, on paper or via computer or other tools?

[raj]

@Ed.
NO! I am not looking for confirmation that my concept works.

I am looking for PROOF that my concept works.

I am worked up about this concept because this is my first concept using a flywheel, a pair of pendulums, acting as class 3 levers,connected by a pair of treadle mechanism (cranks) , emulating Bessler's own famous drawing of this working wheel, and I am told it won't work.

I respect others' opinion, but I do not have to agree with these opinions, until I have some clear elucidation of these.

What I see in my concept is this ( I have already explained that above several times and surprisingly no one has referred to it here):

Once my concept wheel mechanism is built, installed and given an initial push/pull force, motions will start but this motion will a complex motion, producing asymmetric motions of the different parts, producing asymmetric torques difficult to calculate because of the changing effort and load forces acting alternately by and on the wheel and pendulums.

So far nobody has commented on what I see.

Raj

[Ed]

Yes, Raj, I have commented on what you think you see. Though I didn't need one to know it won't work, I built a simulation of it anyway, mostly to try to show you it not working. I don't need to upload a huge video of the animation, only one frame of it sitting still. It's up to you to decide to ignore what some of us are presenting to you as "opinion".

So to be clear, you find this idea too complex to calculate and you hope someone will come along and prove it for you?

[raj]

Ed!
NO! You have not commented on anything I see. You only keep repeating ''IT won't work''.

I do not expect anyone to come along to prove anything.

But if they did, I do need to be convinced of such proof.

I can tell what a computer animation can do. It can make a dead horse fly in the sky.

If I believed that your animation was any proof on my working concept, I should have been dancing naked on the streets, shouting ''EUREKA''.

But if, instead of an animation, you would have done a computer simulation, I would have probably died of ecstacy by now.

I have explained just above, what I see in this concept.
Apart from seeing that the concept won't work, what else do you see in this concept??
What are the forces acting in this system?
Where are the points of application of these forces? on the wheel? on each of the pendulums?

I have asked you and other many questions on my concept drawings and explanations on this thread,
You and others have ignored these questions and have not replied to any of them.
I would have been grateful to you all, as always for your collaborating help.

Final questions:
What pushed you to do an animation of my concept, in the first place?
What were expecting to see?
You were sure the concept won't work at first and you did the animation to prove it won't work. Why?

Can a computer animation prove a mechanical concept wrong?

Raj

[raj]

@ All.

I learn more about my concepts by time frames drawings of all movements during a complete revolution of the wheel, than by Ed's gif video.

Computer animations use this time frames of drawings, pictures and objects to make video animation of all kinds, like making a video of a dead horse flying.
Anybody can attempt animation, even without a computer software, because no real data is required to make anything move.

Computer simulation designed by top engineering brains, is the next best method of testing to actual physical build test, of mechanical concepts.

Again what I learnt in my first days at the Open University in UK, back in the 1970's, regarding computers is '' Garbage in, Garbage out.''

That is why my first question to Ed, after watching his gif video, was about the data he fed into his simulation program, that should emulate my real concept build.

He did not answer my questions, simply he had not done a computer simulation. He had done a computer animation, like making the a video of a flying dead horse and came to the conclusion that dead horse cannot fly.

So please do not confuse computer animation with computer simulation.

Kind regards to all.

Raj

[Ed]

Raj, I called the first thing I posted here an “animation� only because it was an excerpt of a larger video output from a simulation. All of the tests I did were simulations. Anyone who is familiar with Working Model 2D will recognize the software used in the video. I was trying to avoid the typical argument that usually arises, but obviously that backfired.

[Fcdriver]

The problem with a crank vs a ratchet is thst as rpm increases, what the pendulum is doing at low rpm, or stationary changes! What was a pushing force becomes pulling force. You have to be able to allow for changes, or a point of 0. A pendulum can only be set for a narrow rpm range.

[Ed]

Raj,

Here is your simulation:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/jt53diijn644qrn/raj_sim.gif

When it starts off, the wheel does not move due to insufficient forces, then I give the wheel some force for a bit and let it go by itself, and all it does is come to a stop. Now I have also ran this where I give the wheel long enough force to act as a flywheel with stored force and all it does is come to an abrupt stop. This would be a way longer video file to create from the SIMULATION, but it could be done.