Weights working in pairs?

[raj]

This is one of Bessler's many clues: ' weights working in pairs'.

Have forum members given due thought to this clue.

As to why, how, where and when weights should work in pairs?

While trying to refine an old concept of mine, I have, inadvertently, found an odd configuration of weights working in pairs.

At first glance, this weights working in pairs in looking good.

Raj

[johannesbender]

his clues are really very vague

[charly2]

Working in pairs will keep the mechanism balanced while is swinging; and arranged in the correct way, there is room for two instead of one which will increase by two the dynamic resultant forces.

[jim_mich]

Bessler said as one weight moves outward then another moves toward the center, then they swap. Bessler also said that now there are two and two. This has been sometimes translated as pairs (plural) meaning two pair of weights.

If you have a mechanism that uses a single weight pair, then it is unbalanced, sometimes one way and sometimes the other ways. The goal was always to be unbalanced only one way. But if gravity is the only force acting on the weights, then the unbalance one way always matches the unbalance the other way, and the wheel does not work.

So let's say Bessler discovered a method whereby the weight gained unequal force from their motions such that the motions of the weights caused more force as the weight moved one way and less force as they moved the other way. Initially this unequal force could be used to lift the weights upward so that gravity could move them back downward thus rotating the wheel. The wheel used gravity but gained its extra energy from motion.

But Bessler's enemies claimed his wheel was wound up. Since Bessler understood where the extra force was coming from he understood that it did not need to be out-of-balance to keep turning. So he added a second mechanism half a turn out-of-phase from the first mechanism. Now he had two and two weights in each mechanism of his wheel and the wheel was always balanced. He then added a second reversed mechanism so his wheel would work either way. Now he had two and two mechanisms in his wheel.

When Bessler wrote "zwei und zwie" (two and two) he never said what they were. He said there are now two and two "things". If a balanced mechanism gains force from rotating in its forward direction, it only makes sense that it would loose force when rotated in reverse. Bessler's two directional wheel made banging noises, which seemed to indicate they were rotated by weight banging against the wheel pushing it forward. If the reversed mechanisms lost force because they were rotating in reverse, then their weights, being balanced, would simply ride along with the rotating wheel and would not bang, and thus would not work contrary to the forward mechanisms.

And of course any number of mechanisms could be in the wheel. Since eight bangs were heard each rotation, and if we assume the weights banged each time a pair of weights moved in one direction, and then banged again as they moved back again, there would be two bangs per rotation per mechanism. Thus you get two bangs for ever four weight with another four weight mechanism riding silent and motionless. Doing the math, you get four forward mechanisms, each with four weights, each mechanism banging twice per rotation, thus producing eight bangs per rotation, and the same number of quiet reversed weights, for a total of 32 weights. At four pound each you have about 128 lbs of weight, more or less because the four pound weight was only one person's estimate. And of course there was the mechanism itself that carried these weight as they oscillated inward and outward.

Sorry for cluttering up your thread like this. I got started typing and didn't stop. But you did ask about "weights working in pairs" so I just thought I'd add my thoughts.

[raj]

Jim_Mitch!

Many, many thanks for your input.

It's so elucidating! Much of what you said clarify my accidentally-stumbled-upon design of weights working in pairs.

In this new design, instead of single weights moving around the axle with the wheel, they will be moving around the axle in pairs.

Your pointing Bessler's reference of ''two and two'' is now an eye-opener for me, for its the first time I have seen mention of it.

Thanks again.

Raj

[Senax]

Bessler said as one weight moves outward then another moves toward the center, then they swap. Bessler also said that now there are two and two. This has been sometimes translated as pairs (plural) meaning two pair of weights.
...

Unlike Newtonian gravity (NG) which is constant over the potential difference of the Wheel, Ersatz gravity (EG) on the other hand has a large gradient from the centre to the circumference.

Bessler's weights probably had holes through them which allow the weights to slide along ropes or spokes running from the centre (or off centre from the surface of the central drum) to the perimeter.

By coupling weights together so that one set moves in whilst the other moves out the balance of the wheel will be altered in a way which isn't possible with the uniform gradient of NG.

Compare this to a dynamic balancing of a car wheel on steroids. Or rather its inverse the dynamic unbalancing, something my local garage managed to do with one of my front wheels.
I took it in with a small unbalance and when I drove off it had a humongous unbalance.

It may be possible to arrange this coupling to change from side to side so that on side is permanently providing more torque than the other.

Here again, as in the case of the Carnot and Abeling, it is the difference which is important for generating energy.

I suppose it might be possible to arrive at a solution by brute force, i.e. by computing every possible combination in small increments and hill climbing positive changes between successive increments.

Shouldn't be difficult to write a program to do this. :-)

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Senax,

of course you can write a program coding to do it, but you need the conditions and parameters in which range it should run.

In which direction should the program iterate ?

I have a version of a wheel were the weights are acting in pairs, one of the weight is going to the rim and the other to axle.

And it is an uneven motion, so I have different accelerations. What in my opinion is absolutely necessary.
We need an oscillation like a see saw, not a Sinus.
Fast up and slow down.

Weights are lifted simultaneously.
This will result in torque.

The wheel is acting with 8 weights. So the function is repeated afer 45 degrees.

[Senax]

Sounds good. :-)

[Andyb]

Hi Raj,if my opinion is of any help, Bessler said these weights work in pairs as one takes up a position further from the center another takes up a position closer ,this feels like one at 6 oclock going up and one at 12 oclock going up both swinging upward and over to one side causing the wheel to turn 90's gaining any more than 90's seems very difficult ,other references say it is a simple push and pull system which in my mind says these two weights are pushed and pulled as for exactly how one achieves this is were the mystery is ,all the best Andyb

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Andyb,

why do you think that a position must be changed on the 6 o'clock or 12 o'clock position ?

If you make a change in the arrangement of the weights in this positions you don't get an additional torque.

A wheel will only run if it has additional torque on one side.

So I will change the arrangements on 3 o'clock or 9 o'clock. Then I will get energy + torque.

When we push a weight to the rim we get + torque.
When we pull a weight to the axle we get also + torque, when they work in pairs.
So we two times +.

[raj]

Most of my concepts have some things in common to my belief of how to get a self-rotating wheel.

"Weights working in pairs" is one.

Raj

[Andyb]

Hi George,the reason i am thinking this at the moment is because i am attempting to use a inner rim and it seems a lot easier to push and pull two weights and create the same force or there abouts at the zeniths rather than the right angles it may be that there is more net torque to be gained at the 3 and 9 oclock positions but it does not fit with my approach ,it also seems to me that no matter what you do or where you do it the wheel will keel unless all the remaining weights are in free movement ie swinging even though i intend to try and make the weights move up and outward at the right angle ie 3 oclock to create more torque in a clockwise movement ,my real reasoning is to match besslers clue of ,these weights work in pairs as one takes up a position closer to the center another takes up a position further away ,i have built many mental machinations some have moved lightly some have been tight /heavy the closest i ever came was a floating center hub appliying its weight above the point of a leaver what i never had was free movement of the remaining weights now i believe i have seen a way , in some way George your wooden prototype created a new series of crazyness ,which was just what i needed ,i hope i have answered your question all the best Andyb

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Andyb,

my cylinders are not swinging anymore as you think.
I have found a way to block the Swinging in one direction, so that the torque in one direction will stay.

So from the function it is a half swing.
I don't know who said that the weights look as cylinders and that they had a hole in the middle.

A simple string tied through the hole ensures that the cylinder can only roll in one direction. It is a self-blocking, rolling cylinder in one direction.