Just my 2 cents .. FWIW.
It appears obvious to me (with eyes unfocused) that the setup resembles the lower half of a cyclor (had to get that in) from the hips down pedaling a bike crank. Legs bent at the knee and full leg extension etc.
However, when a cyclist pedals he is of course adding chemical energy into the system to keep the revolutions going, else frictions would bring everything to a halt at position of least GPE. In this case I'm not seeing where the extra energy might enter the equation to replenish those frictional losses and fully restore original GPE each oscillation.
Having said that there are many types of pendulums to experiment with if one has a mind to. All fixed pivot ones have things in common, such as starting with positive GPE and oscillating thru bdc and position of least GPE to recovery of GPE (less frictional losses).
As has been mentioned on this forum at times it seems the trick is not to in fact fully replenish GPE conditions, because that requires and injection or external energy to cover ordinary system losses etc.
So what are we left with ? The holy grail that Raj and others like myself aspire to .. the production of asymmetric torque.
A usual attempted PM system of a falling weight causing another to be repositioned elsewhere ALWAYS leads to exact quantums of positive and negative torque, equally but oppositely affecting the AM of the entire wheel. Zero Sum.
We need either a way to mechanically have MORE positive torque than negative torque (as mentioned repositioning two or more weights leads to equal and opposing torque contributions) or as I prefer to think about it .. we need to completely rectify all torques into one pushing direction to end up with a surplus of wheel RKE and a building of wheel AM over time.
IMO a mechanical rectification system that finds the chink in the armor of the the circular logic and nature of the Newtonian laws of motion.
JMO's.
The secret behind Bessler's wheel...
Moderator: scott
re: The secret behind Bessler's wheel...
Upon thinking about it I probably should for Raj's sake if no one else's add a clarification to my last musings.
In Raj's drawings he IS attempting to rectify torques from the dual pendulums - that is, the cranks turn the flywheel the same way.
But his arrangement doesn't seem enough to create a self sustaining motion because of the reasons outlined previously.
That's partly because seldom would a pendulum or pendulums plural act from a fixed reference pivot point (yes I know JB's drawings show an external Pendulum arrangement but they were never witnessed in action) and have surplus energy and momentum to self sustain and do work.
Bessler said everything must turn with the wheel (paraphrased) and so there can not be a fixed external reference pivot point. And any pivot point attached within a wheel must by necessity turn with it.
So the trick would seem to be to arrange and coordinate the movements of all components to add to the entire wheel torque rectification process rather than detract from it, IMO. Also Bessler's statement that rotation was caused by imbalance suggests to me that a simple repositioning of internal weights imbalance was not the cause of sustained rotation, but that at least one element must fall to create cause and effect, and the imbalance he talked about was in fact torque force imbalance.
JMO's, assuming no fraud was involved.
In Raj's drawings he IS attempting to rectify torques from the dual pendulums - that is, the cranks turn the flywheel the same way.
But his arrangement doesn't seem enough to create a self sustaining motion because of the reasons outlined previously.
That's partly because seldom would a pendulum or pendulums plural act from a fixed reference pivot point (yes I know JB's drawings show an external Pendulum arrangement but they were never witnessed in action) and have surplus energy and momentum to self sustain and do work.
Bessler said everything must turn with the wheel (paraphrased) and so there can not be a fixed external reference pivot point. And any pivot point attached within a wheel must by necessity turn with it.
So the trick would seem to be to arrange and coordinate the movements of all components to add to the entire wheel torque rectification process rather than detract from it, IMO. Also Bessler's statement that rotation was caused by imbalance suggests to me that a simple repositioning of internal weights imbalance was not the cause of sustained rotation, but that at least one element must fall to create cause and effect, and the imbalance he talked about was in fact torque force imbalance.
JMO's, assuming no fraud was involved.
re: The secret behind Bessler's wheel...
@Me.
Thank you for clarifying how the linkage must look like.
@Fletcher.
1. It's a fact nobody knows how Bessler's wheel worked.
2. Bessler has left hundreds of clues and writings that make which one to believe and which not to believe impossible.
3. The laws of thermodynamics have stood the test of time. To use them to prove any new physics or mechanical hypothesis as impossible is too easy.
Instead look at this new unknown concept at every single points with a fresh open mind and try to understand what is being proposed at each steps, in an unbiased way and fresh reasoning.
Thank you for your inputs.
Raj
Thank you for clarifying how the linkage must look like.
@Fletcher.
1. It's a fact nobody knows how Bessler's wheel worked.
2. Bessler has left hundreds of clues and writings that make which one to believe and which not to believe impossible.
3. The laws of thermodynamics have stood the test of time. To use them to prove any new physics or mechanical hypothesis as impossible is too easy.
Instead look at this new unknown concept at every single points with a fresh open mind and try to understand what is being proposed at each steps, in an unbiased way and fresh reasoning.
Thank you for your inputs.
Raj
Keep learning till the end.
re: The secret behind Bessler's wheel...
And there in lies the problem for me Raj, as I suspect it is for a great many others.
1. We have learned thru experience and/or education the physical laws of Newton expressed mathematically - we use their predictive qualities daily and they don't let us down. Their reliability and repeatability is astounding at the macro level, hence quid pro quo they are laws and axioms.
2. At the same time we strive for a deeper understanding of how those same laws are circular referenced and one built from another and intertwined, in an attempt to see behind closed veils to expose a loophole to exploit in the quest to repeat Bessler's feats, if he he was indeed genuine.
Therefore when I look at some drawings, or a sim or animation, I can't help but imagine the forces in play and use that same predictive language and those same expressions to explain to my satisfaction what I am seeing or may likely see in a mechanical kinematic outcome. I suggest most of us do this to one degree or another before attempting a sim or build.
So, as you would have it, I have closed my mind to possibilities, jaded, tired perhaps (all true probably). I would beg to differ however and say that the four ways forward are based on point 2. Find that loophole to exploit thru greater personal understanding of the laws that express the laws of nature, or build a device that demonstrates a tangible outcome advantage in the quest based on known laws, or theorise or build a device that has hitherto unpredicted outcomes according to the current laws, or rely on happenstance to stumble upon something extraordinary.
For now I read threads with interest most times, trying to decide which or the four the author has a predisposition to before taking a closer look and buy-in.
Bessler left a great many writings about his wheels and circumstances, some might be called clues if you could interpret them correctly I should imagine, possibly in 20/20 hindsight which only opposition political parties have. And you are correct that so far nobody knows exactly how his wheels worked. That's why we explore all possibilities.
Best of luck as always.
1. We have learned thru experience and/or education the physical laws of Newton expressed mathematically - we use their predictive qualities daily and they don't let us down. Their reliability and repeatability is astounding at the macro level, hence quid pro quo they are laws and axioms.
2. At the same time we strive for a deeper understanding of how those same laws are circular referenced and one built from another and intertwined, in an attempt to see behind closed veils to expose a loophole to exploit in the quest to repeat Bessler's feats, if he he was indeed genuine.
Therefore when I look at some drawings, or a sim or animation, I can't help but imagine the forces in play and use that same predictive language and those same expressions to explain to my satisfaction what I am seeing or may likely see in a mechanical kinematic outcome. I suggest most of us do this to one degree or another before attempting a sim or build.
So, as you would have it, I have closed my mind to possibilities, jaded, tired perhaps (all true probably). I would beg to differ however and say that the four ways forward are based on point 2. Find that loophole to exploit thru greater personal understanding of the laws that express the laws of nature, or build a device that demonstrates a tangible outcome advantage in the quest based on known laws, or theorise or build a device that has hitherto unpredicted outcomes according to the current laws, or rely on happenstance to stumble upon something extraordinary.
For now I read threads with interest most times, trying to decide which or the four the author has a predisposition to before taking a closer look and buy-in.
Bessler left a great many writings about his wheels and circumstances, some might be called clues if you could interpret them correctly I should imagine, possibly in 20/20 hindsight which only opposition political parties have. And you are correct that so far nobody knows exactly how his wheels worked. That's why we explore all possibilities.
Best of luck as always.
re: The secret behind Bessler's wheel...
@ Fletcher.
How true!!!
That's why we explore all possibilities.
And That's what I am trying to do here.
I cannot express how much I appreciate this ongoing debates on this thread, and I heartily thank each and everyone taking part in my wheel concept debate.
It is expected to have some of us to come to a conclusion that my wheel concept will not work. That's fair.
I am not a physics academic nor an engineering academic, but I am an academic in other discipline anyhow.
If anybody wants to show me that my wheel concept is flawed, counter my presentations and arguments with facts, and not Laws that I am not disputing.
I have reiterated since the beginning on this thread, that my current wheel concept is showing asymmetry of motion, time and torque. This can be observed in my multiple drawings.
Kindly look at the new drawing, and tell me if you do not see asymmetry of motion, time and torque in there:
1. Motion -- at some point one pendulum will move faster than the other.
2. Time --- the pendulums will be slower and take longer to move upwards and will move faster downwards, unlike normal pendulums.
3. Torque --- The positions of the two pendulums and the points where their forces are applied, are NEVER equal and opposite.
Even Marchello and Jonnynet have mentioned noticing strange behaviour of motion in their separate simulations.
I am not saying that my wheel and pendulums concept is working. What I am saying is that I cannot just ignore their strange behaviour.
So my search goes on.
@ Jonnynet.
I have these drawings below for you to understand my wheel and pendulums workings. If you are doing another simulation, these drawing may help you as a guideline.
@All.
Is there anybody who can, mathematically using physics, calculate the torque provided by each pendulum through 360 degrees, as seen from each drawing below?
If someone can, then we should know whether this concept will work or not.
If nobody can, then we cannot say for sure, it won't work.
I, for one, cannot do these torque calculations.
Raj
How true!!!
That's why we explore all possibilities.
And That's what I am trying to do here.
I cannot express how much I appreciate this ongoing debates on this thread, and I heartily thank each and everyone taking part in my wheel concept debate.
It is expected to have some of us to come to a conclusion that my wheel concept will not work. That's fair.
I am not a physics academic nor an engineering academic, but I am an academic in other discipline anyhow.
If anybody wants to show me that my wheel concept is flawed, counter my presentations and arguments with facts, and not Laws that I am not disputing.
I have reiterated since the beginning on this thread, that my current wheel concept is showing asymmetry of motion, time and torque. This can be observed in my multiple drawings.
Kindly look at the new drawing, and tell me if you do not see asymmetry of motion, time and torque in there:
1. Motion -- at some point one pendulum will move faster than the other.
2. Time --- the pendulums will be slower and take longer to move upwards and will move faster downwards, unlike normal pendulums.
3. Torque --- The positions of the two pendulums and the points where their forces are applied, are NEVER equal and opposite.
Even Marchello and Jonnynet have mentioned noticing strange behaviour of motion in their separate simulations.
I am not saying that my wheel and pendulums concept is working. What I am saying is that I cannot just ignore their strange behaviour.
So my search goes on.
@ Jonnynet.
I have these drawings below for you to understand my wheel and pendulums workings. If you are doing another simulation, these drawing may help you as a guideline.
@All.
Is there anybody who can, mathematically using physics, calculate the torque provided by each pendulum through 360 degrees, as seen from each drawing below?
If someone can, then we should know whether this concept will work or not.
If nobody can, then we cannot say for sure, it won't work.
I, for one, cannot do these torque calculations.
Raj
- Attachments
-
Keep learning till the end.
re: The secret behind Bessler's wheel...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sXvC4yI0elw
I want to hand in the simulation with the adjusted rod lengths. The behaviour of the pendulums due to the linkages shouldn't need much force to be corrected.
I want to hand in the simulation with the adjusted rod lengths. The behaviour of the pendulums due to the linkages shouldn't need much force to be corrected.
re: The secret behind Bessler's wheel...
Thank you Jonnynet.
My concept testing build is moving better than your simulation.
I just do not understand why.
Raj
My concept testing build is moving better than your simulation.
I just do not understand why.
Raj
Keep learning till the end.
re: The secret behind Bessler's wheel...
Reality:
Being a man blessed with mechanical aptitude and not building any test wheel less than 48" (121.92cm) diameter I suggest the following:
The simulation reminds me of a steam locomotive with the connecting rod between two sets of drive wheels being either to long or to short.
Replace the connecting rods as shown in the above youtube with automotive type spring loaded shock absorbers. Size it so the compression springs have very little tension on them when the pendulum bob is at it's highest amplitude. The maximum extent of a vibration or oscillation, measured from the position of equilibrium.
I will always believe that the "U" shaped crank shown in Bessler's drawings was bendable allowing for very fine minute adjusting. We also were told by a witness that he heard noise sounding like a possible spring.
Ralph
Being a man blessed with mechanical aptitude and not building any test wheel less than 48" (121.92cm) diameter I suggest the following:
The simulation reminds me of a steam locomotive with the connecting rod between two sets of drive wheels being either to long or to short.
Replace the connecting rods as shown in the above youtube with automotive type spring loaded shock absorbers. Size it so the compression springs have very little tension on them when the pendulum bob is at it's highest amplitude. The maximum extent of a vibration or oscillation, measured from the position of equilibrium.
I will always believe that the "U" shaped crank shown in Bessler's drawings was bendable allowing for very fine minute adjusting. We also were told by a witness that he heard noise sounding like a possible spring.
Ralph
re: The secret behind Bessler's wheel...
Hi jonnynet .. as I started to write this I just read Ralph's contribution. I'll continue anyway but agree with him.
If you make the linkages more elastic, by perhaps adding a small spring element in their lengths (think this was mentioned previously) to allow slight expansion and contraction of the rod lengths then that should reduce the 'binding' you are experiencing. There has to be some 'sloppiness' in the linkages as all mechanical linkages have some. e.g. even car steering systems still have some play with new bushes etc as most of us have experienced with 'wander' as we drive an old car down the road. Or allowing for thermal expansion etc.
Secondly the ratio of masses to each other has a part to play. Mass has inertia and this affects the 'smoothness' of the running because the system is in constant 'feedback' mode, one taking the baton from the other and then handing it back so to speak. You could try looking at the mass ratios of the pendulum bobs verses the flywheel to see if this helps with the binding problem and give a smoother run.
ETA: Raj .. the witness accounts have to be the most reliable and unbiased source of information about his wheels. Nowhere do they mention external pendulums at work. That is not to say that some analogue of a pendulum is not used internally but then it would have to turn with the wheel circumference and reset etc.
In Bessler's drawings they appear to not be symmetrical in action - that may well be a clue as you have deduced. But the big difference between a simple falling lever and a continuous action pendulum is that a pendulum has amplitude and frequency etc and once activated returns to its initial conditions (thereabouts) without any pause, whilst a falling lever must stop and wait for the wheel to turn to allow it to move back under gravity to its start conditions. So is it the continuous action that is important or the feedback you are exploring ?
ETA: as food for thought Bessler's wheels had a very regular clip, a natural frequency which was no doubt proportional to the internal components relationships. They sped up to full revolutions in about 3 turns and then settled there. Even under load they still had a frequency they maintained albeit a lesser rpm. A constant 20 rpm by accounts. This rpm seemed independent of the work being asked of it, below an upper limit threshold presumably. So if true it would be highly suggestive to me that there was some type of internal pendulum like action within that in part externally moderated speed as observed.
If you make the linkages more elastic, by perhaps adding a small spring element in their lengths (think this was mentioned previously) to allow slight expansion and contraction of the rod lengths then that should reduce the 'binding' you are experiencing. There has to be some 'sloppiness' in the linkages as all mechanical linkages have some. e.g. even car steering systems still have some play with new bushes etc as most of us have experienced with 'wander' as we drive an old car down the road. Or allowing for thermal expansion etc.
Secondly the ratio of masses to each other has a part to play. Mass has inertia and this affects the 'smoothness' of the running because the system is in constant 'feedback' mode, one taking the baton from the other and then handing it back so to speak. You could try looking at the mass ratios of the pendulum bobs verses the flywheel to see if this helps with the binding problem and give a smoother run.
ETA: Raj .. the witness accounts have to be the most reliable and unbiased source of information about his wheels. Nowhere do they mention external pendulums at work. That is not to say that some analogue of a pendulum is not used internally but then it would have to turn with the wheel circumference and reset etc.
In Bessler's drawings they appear to not be symmetrical in action - that may well be a clue as you have deduced. But the big difference between a simple falling lever and a continuous action pendulum is that a pendulum has amplitude and frequency etc and once activated returns to its initial conditions (thereabouts) without any pause, whilst a falling lever must stop and wait for the wheel to turn to allow it to move back under gravity to its start conditions. So is it the continuous action that is important or the feedback you are exploring ?
ETA: as food for thought Bessler's wheels had a very regular clip, a natural frequency which was no doubt proportional to the internal components relationships. They sped up to full revolutions in about 3 turns and then settled there. Even under load they still had a frequency they maintained albeit a lesser rpm. A constant 20 rpm by accounts. This rpm seemed independent of the work being asked of it, below an upper limit threshold presumably. So if true it would be highly suggestive to me that there was some type of internal pendulum like action within that in part externally moderated speed as observed.
Last edited by Fletcher on Thu Aug 03, 2017 9:59 pm, edited 1 time in total.
re: The secret behind Bessler's wheel...
I tried a different approach.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdfjtQVBwj0
Note: The small weights are turning when they hit the sides of the wheel.
The big weights are fixed and don't turn.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wdfjtQVBwj0
Note: The small weights are turning when they hit the sides of the wheel.
The big weights are fixed and don't turn.
PHJ
re: The secret behind Bessler's wheel...
This kind of linkage I am using was common in all pedal powered sewing machines in the late 1800. They were still in my childhood. It simple to get it right. The pivot points on both ends of the crank rod must be in a straight perpendicular line at the 6 o'clock position.
There are two blocking positions, as Marchello has pointed out in his simulation at 45 degrees and 225 degrees positions in the rotation when torque is zero.
These blockings are easily overcome with the help of the rotating flywheel.
These have been confirmed by my actual concept testing builds.
The idea I am presenting here is very simple. The motions of the pendulums in this arrangement are not symmetrical. They are alternately very fast and very slow, which affect their separate momentum.
The flywheel is there only as an energy storage system. The power is supplied and stored in the flywheel when the fast falling pendulums increase their momentum every 180 degrees turn and the flywheel supply the pendulums with power when the linkage force them to stop and return backwards halfway in the swinging journey.
Then inertia takes over.
Raj
There are two blocking positions, as Marchello has pointed out in his simulation at 45 degrees and 225 degrees positions in the rotation when torque is zero.
These blockings are easily overcome with the help of the rotating flywheel.
These have been confirmed by my actual concept testing builds.
The idea I am presenting here is very simple. The motions of the pendulums in this arrangement are not symmetrical. They are alternately very fast and very slow, which affect their separate momentum.
The flywheel is there only as an energy storage system. The power is supplied and stored in the flywheel when the fast falling pendulums increase their momentum every 180 degrees turn and the flywheel supply the pendulums with power when the linkage force them to stop and return backwards halfway in the swinging journey.
Then inertia takes over.
Raj
Keep learning till the end.
re: The secret behind Bessler's wheel...
phj,
Welcome, that's a nice one. I have two possibilities why this shouldn't work:
1.
Your small weights are leached of rotation velocity with every bounce. The total loss in rotational kinetic energy of the small weights should equal the increase in rotational kinetic energy of the system.
2.
That bounce reaction seems to have more energy than its impact, resulting in a coefficient of restitution larger than unity. Either some formula was added or some unnatural material was chosen. In this case the increase in system rotation is caused by this 'material'.
I go with my second scenario as the first does not explain that enhanced bounce effect, perhaps it's a simulation effect caused by the first scenario: I'm not sure yet.
Welcome, that's a nice one. I have two possibilities why this shouldn't work:
1.
Your small weights are leached of rotation velocity with every bounce. The total loss in rotational kinetic energy of the small weights should equal the increase in rotational kinetic energy of the system.
2.
That bounce reaction seems to have more energy than its impact, resulting in a coefficient of restitution larger than unity. Either some formula was added or some unnatural material was chosen. In this case the increase in system rotation is caused by this 'material'.
I go with my second scenario as the first does not explain that enhanced bounce effect, perhaps it's a simulation effect caused by the first scenario: I'm not sure yet.
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
re: The secret behind Bessler's wheel...
The other alternative ME is that the iteration steps are too course.
If you have a sim that shows a system energy gain over time phj with no external energy input then try increasing the number of frames per second e.g. doubling, quadrupling, 10x etc.
The reason is that a low frames (in WM2D anyway) where there are high velocity movements two objects can theoretically go into 'overlap error' - this means that when the sim software next computes it sees the overlap (which can't happen in real world) and the components act to rapidly expel each other from overlap. This has been previously shown to cause an increase in system energy which is otherwise unexplainable. It goes away when the iteration steps are increased to keep pace with internal velocities of collisions.
If you have a sim that shows a system energy gain over time phj with no external energy input then try increasing the number of frames per second e.g. doubling, quadrupling, 10x etc.
The reason is that a low frames (in WM2D anyway) where there are high velocity movements two objects can theoretically go into 'overlap error' - this means that when the sim software next computes it sees the overlap (which can't happen in real world) and the components act to rapidly expel each other from overlap. This has been previously shown to cause an increase in system energy which is otherwise unexplainable. It goes away when the iteration steps are increased to keep pace with internal velocities of collisions.
re: The secret behind Bessler's wheel...
Hi ME,
No unusual input was done at my side. Just wood and gold (the weights).
PHJ
No unusual input was done at my side. Just wood and gold (the weights).
PHJ
PHJ