I have this firm belief that Bessler has used a basic scheme that is remotely similar to this. Hypothesis: he was able to find the way to move the weights with the principle of roberval, and with very little energy could always move the COM to the same part of the wheel while rotating. Imagine to invert the weight space every 180 ° by the energy provided by a small weight that goes down and acts on a roberval principle to move weights. Certainly this small weight will negatively affect the global COM, but if the influence were less than the imbalance that cause the weights present in the design ?
For ONE complete mec the weights must be only four, plus the one that allows moving at the right time. I do not know why I put six of them ... the middle weights do not move at all LOL :-0 ahahaha. Sorry for the mistake.
I add that I personally do not believe that B. has used a movement of the weights towards the center of the wheel and towards the edge of the wheel. For me that statement is just a misdirection. The only weight that should move towards the center and towards the edge is the "prime mover" that moves the four weights with the principle I wrote. Is this logical ?
Ahh.. and from this scheme would also be correct his phrase "one lift four"
If you see an obvious inability to operate, please say it to me, thank you.
Attachments
My Belief
Last edited by unstable on Tue Aug 28, 2018 9:16 pm, edited 7 times in total.
FWIW I think that in MT17 we have lever-weights (lws), so arranged to suggest CoM imbalance as its means of producing torque and turning.
Then B re-introduces an inner 'in series connectedness principle', with the use of cords or ropes (imo these are not springs) between them.
It is pretty clear that the rope lengths vary in the diagram and the tensioning of the ropes and placement of lws is not even close to an accurate representation of what might occur in reality were one to build this.
The extra pic of the simple lw with a tapered shaft is the spring element (mentioned by B) IMO. A leaf type spring as has been suggested. It must have some extra importance (above the obvious) in Bessler's back narrative for it to be included and highlighted, because its inclusion at face value appears to be frivolous and redundant, if not entirely unnecessary given that he says there are springs and it is such a simple drawing.
..................
FWIW previous translators have said crayfish (some crab) moves sideways etc etc. I think the important part is that for me it conjures thoughts of some articulated mech able to move along the x axis and back whether that be forward and back or sideways, rather than up and down.
Continuing what I was writing before ... The mechanism that I had presented before lends itself very well to this type of movement. Two mechanisms of that type are needed but with the variant of sharing the central weight between the two diametrically opposed mechanisms (for a total of 5 weights). When the central (light) weight (common to the two mechanisms) moves, on one side the weights on the edge are approached, on the other side the weights on the opposite edge move away. In my opinion this is probably what Bessler had done.
If the imbalance caused by the movement of the action weight (prime mover) is less than the imbalance caused by the movement of the four weights on the circumference, the system will work.
Edit:
No, it can not even work by translating the central weight movement by 90° sigh :°°°(
If you don't use a positive Feedback Loop in your design then your construction never will produce energy.
A key feature of positive feedback is thus that small disturbances get bigger. When a change occurs in a system, positive feedback causes further change, in the same direction.
Hi Georg, I do not know if you remember one of the first idea I had posted on this forum. I attach an image ... this was a system with (in a sense) a positive fedback. I have never tried to build it, but according to the opinions of many it would not have worked anyway. It was a pendulum that moved a heavy mass that leaned against a small plane placed on a wedge. I had copied the idea of an heavy mass from the site of Jan Rutkowski's.
In mechanics, getting positive feedback with passive systems is not at all simple. At the moment I have no ideas about it.
when i look it right, then you have here indeed a feedback loop.
Not in a circle but a feedback loop in that way that it will fall over after some swings. Great.
So you have found Besslers
it will get force with it's own swinging
.
Next step is to set an border, so that it can only swing in a specific range/wide to limit the oscillation.
I do not know if anyone from this forum has ever tried to build it. The idea is still interesting for me too. Intuitively it would seem that it could also work but there is a big problem: it is possible that at the first lateral movement of the pendulum the heavy weight, with his feedback, tends to block the pendulum and prevent its return. It should be built with all the possible adjustments. As you rightly wrote, it would be better to provide two springs with the function of limiting the lateral excursion of the pendulum, the springs should intervene only at the predetermined excursion limit. The spring would certainly be better than a rigid edge, it would also have a very useful rebound action in this case. Maybe it would be better to use a spring also to connect the "feedback" rod ... it's all to try. The first change, as I was suggested here on the forum, is to remove one feedback line, only one is enough, the second one is redundant.
But to think a little better about it, there is always the usual problem: what is of advantage on the one hand, is of disadvantage just after: The large weight would amplify the lateral excursion of the pendulum but then it would require energy to bring the big weight back to the central position and ready for the swing on the other side. It's all to try. I could try to simulate it with WM2D (maybe someone had already tried) but for my limited knowledge of that program and for the extreme uncomfortable interface (I hate WM2D) it would take time and desire ;-)
I think about it.
Unstable, if I am looking at it correctly, the base lever arm rests on the fulcrum and the base weight doesn't touch it. Anyway, it looks like it will either tip over or rock depending on tbe weights and their postions. If it rocks like a cradle, then as soon as it moves (rotates/leans - requires a push start), its returns will diminish until it stops.
I designed it long ago with a program to draw printed circuit boards. It is just a design to visualize a concept, it is not a precise mechanical design. You need to use a little imagination to visualize it as it should really be. As for operation, it is likely to behave as you say. As I wrote above, the return to the central position of the heavy weight requires energy and would be subtracted from the pendulum. Maybe there is a gain in the side excursion but then during the return to the center the energy gained is lost (the big weight has to go up a little and this require energy). Maybe one day I'll try to simulate it. Thank you for expressing your prediction of the probable operation.
try it, you have created an overweight and overweight condition.
When the upper weight is swinging,
it lifts the center of the half heavy shaped weight on the bottom.
When it is swinging back it accelerates the upper weight. Like a trebuchet.
Because the upper weight is allowed to swing further it is an additional force to lift the center of the bottom weight more.
This will be repeated until the pendulum construction will fall over.
Last edited by Georg Künstler on Wed Aug 29, 2018 6:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Hi Georg, I did not understand your description very well. I see it this way: when the pendulum moves sideways, by means of the slide guide, it also moves the arm of the big curved weight that moves (rolls) a little towards the part of the swing. When it moves, its weight is transferred beyond the center of the fulcrum (because of the arc shape it roll on the plane below like a wheel), and, the small plane between the two tends to tilt. This inclination pulls the arm which, through a lever, pulls the pendulum from the same side. It generates a sort of "mechanical reaction" :-) The problem is the return to the center. My opinion is that springs are needed for the connections. With rigid connections it will not work.
maybe you see it now, it is like a Stehaufmännchen with an additional Pendulum on top.
So the heavy weight on the bottom will take the Pendulum up and swing.
but the pendulum is breaking to late, it is swinging far more as if it is only a top heavy weight. Swinging !!
