What MT 138 Really IS!

[TheVisitorV]

Pipe Organ construction, parts, inner workings

Made a separate topic to be discussed in:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 847#163847

Very basic:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfFWiWbXGuY

DIY stuff:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8tapLtesIw

Very detailed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2jxgvcGjfo

Windchest building:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7R5dpjfvhCs

Windchest more explanations:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EWMqGb1P_Sg

Crank organ inside view, can see wind blowers and cranks in action, pulleys and other parts:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rS5pn_x1Dbs

Crank organ can see 180 degrees out of phase movement of the crank:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zafTAi_AMsI

A Tour Inside the 1885 Kilgen Pipe Organ:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XikBanZJwP8

[ME]

Just remember one thing ! Bessler's one-way wheels self started from any position i.e. they had positive torque in ALL positions.

Is there any statement from any eyewitness that says this?

No. However, Bessler said he made his later two-direction wheel in response to accusations that his one-direction wheels were wound up with a hidden clock spring ie: his one-direction wheels exhibited a constant torque in any position.

Yes, but how would his later two-way wheels prove that the one-way wheels started from any position? I think there is a possibility they only started from a single position.

He didn't say he made the two -way wheels in response to accusations that the one-way wheels started in any position. If they weren't driven by a wound up clock spring, as he alleged, then isn't it more likely that they didn't start from any position?

They had to be tied off, I know. But they could have been tied off at the right place in rotation, and no one wondered about it.

1.
When a single mechanism is able to produce some positive torque, then it can only perform rotation when it was already kicked to have enough kinetic-energy or speed to overcome the negative part.
This negative part is where such mechanism still has to be lifted in order to repeat its action, hence it has dead spots for that half.
Anyway, when this mechanism goes around it produces some sort of torque-signature. It still wobbles like a pendulum, but on average should produce some positive number to make it perpetual.
Torque Frequency = 1 per rotation

2.
Two mechanisms may balance this lifting issue, but then it depends on the torque-signature if it is capable of an always-positive-torque. That's likely not the case, because a mechanism needs to "become aware" of a certain sweet-spot before it is able to perform its action.
It is very likely that two mechanisms (perhaps that "one cross-bar", a Bessler likes to say) still has at least two dead spots, yet needs a slight push to overcome these and make it go.
Torque Frequency = 2 per rotation

3.
Three mechanisms, separating 120 degrees, should be the first arrangement able to perform a constant torque. Likely not a constant torque, but still positive all around. (of course totally depending of the torque-signature)
Torque Frequency = 6 per rotation

4.
Four mechanisms, separating 90 degrees, is likely making things worse while it should have no dead spots. The worse part is that two opposite mechanisms are in synchronization, and smooth the torque signature less then with 3 mechanisms.
Torque Frequency = 4 per rotation

5.
Five mechanisms, separating 72 degrees, is likely this first arrangement where the torque-wobble gets smoothened out significantly so it may look a constant all-around torque.
Torque Frequency = 10 per rotation

etc.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi eccentrically1,
Bessler had build many versions-

I write you my opinion:
1. the selfstarting device was always out of balance and can start from any pistion.
It has an internal start energy.
This internal start energy you have always when you set a system under stress. A system under stress can created in much ways.
known things are a spring, high pressure, fire etc.
New, what Bessler did, he has set the mechanism under stress by gravity.
This can be achieved with an double T-Pendulum.
This wheel type has constant speed, depending on the frequence as the pendulums are swinging.

2. the second, bi-directional wheel, was started with a finger push.
so here you see from the description, that an external force was necessary, until the mechanism internally fail over, with this 8 impacts heard.
The system can not recover from the first Fail and fail over and over again.
A mechanical positive feedback loop.
Normally a self destroying mechanism.
This system is self accelerating as described from the eye witnesses.
The knowledge of Bessler was awesome, he was able to manipulate the feedback loop in that way, that his wheel was running on his natural frequency.
He has build a mechanical oscillator with a positive feedback loop.
Not more not less.

[TheVisitorV]

K, here is the video about springs and what i discovered:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h5oSo5xs-eI

[TheVisitorV]

So basically you can use the same weight 2 double charge springs, let's say you have one spring on the crossbar and when the crossbar falls you load its weight against itself and you can load one more spring with that weight by using a piston inside the rim.

So you get almost double the power from the same weight while sacrificing just a little bit of height.

This process can actually be used in multiple places in various ways to kind of make a multi stage charge that if captured correctly and released at the optimum time might be able to lunch a heavy weight into the air at an angle.

got a few more ideas on how things like this could be used and improved upon...

Also i did some research on pogo sticks, found some conflictual information about the origin of the invention. But it might be possible that this invention was invented around 1700 and present in Germany and in the surrounding countries.

Maybe this is the word that would give it all away....not pogo stick but the word they used for this toy back then.

I also realized that gravity is compression, but it's not equal on all angles of the wheel, obviously the strongest compression is from 12 to 6 and the least is from 3 to 9 but anywhere in between varies.

So maybe by getting strong compression on 6 then release it all at once maybe at 4 could do the trick.

[WaltzCee]

3.
Three mechanisms, separating 120 degrees, should be the first arrangement able to perform a constant torque. Likely not a constant torque, but still positive all around. (of course totally depending of the torque-signature)
Torque Frequency = 6 per rotation

I think this might be a good combination, or 6, as the Apologia wheel suggests.

"And now for Gill Simo's ideas. They involve a Jacob's Ladder
device in the form of a circle. His ideas are based
on certain enigmatic drawings in Bessler's published
works, in particular this one: The engraving comes
from Bessler's Apologia, and is accompanied by
the text:
.. and do you still not understand?"

[WaltzCee]

This means the system CoM will be restored to its highest position at least once per full wheel rotation and simultaneously overcome normal system frictional losses to achieve that full restoration.

At least once. I think twice, but I also think a gravity powered
gravity driven wheel is possible. This sim I did self started without
any energy input. Purely gravity driven and gravity powered.



Of course it wasn't real, only a sim.

frockity, frock frock frock.

[Fletcher]

Hi Waltz .. you wrote .. ['snip' .. I also think a gravity powered gravity driven wheel is possible.]

You (and others) are probably going to think I'm unbalanced (slight pun) because it may seem like I am contradicting myself more than once in my various postings. But that is a perception and not necessarily a truth.

I also think a 'true' gravity powered PM wheel is possible. One that restores its GPE/CoM periodically, and can overcome system energy losses, and do work. The OOB wheel in the classical sense of what it means to have imbalance, but not of classical design (failures).

At the same time I point out an unusually cruel and harsh reality.

No gravity wheel ever did, ever could, or ever will create asymmetric torque by the nature of its requirement for full GPE restitution. This is a fact.

So we are left with a bit of a quandary.

And this is where the Horse and Cart metaphor and order of events comes in, or if you prefer, What or Which was the OOB system and the Prime Mover talked about. Because it obviously takes two systems to make a working 'true' PM wheel. If in doubt about that look to MT's 44 and 48 for inspiration. They are both ball/sphere conveying systems. One exchanging between two wheels and the other an elevator design. There is zero possibility they can work on their own. They need the bolt-on addition that Bessler alludes to in his MT 44 & 48 notes. But the question is does the original OOB system become the passive but now asymmetric portion of the 'working' wheel, or is it actually the active Prime Mover to a passive addition ?

I am both a skeptic and a realist I hope. I may often state things perhaps too bluntly or with seemingly little empathy for those looking at singular OOB systems. That's because I believe we often stray from, don't take heed of, or forget what Bessler tells us in our rush to try something out.

..................


For ECC1 .. additional to what Bill has said. Just consider the case of the two-way wheels. It is documented that they could be moved, and moved forward again, and would not take off. They came to rest. When they did accelerate after a push they went to full speed in 2 or 3 turns. Amazing. So they IMO had two OOB systems and two supporting systems (two plus two). One dual system was passive in retrograde motion i.e. no OOB from it, while the other was active, and via versa.

Note that the DT drawings show clasps or bolts and locks. These are drawn in one position. Yet they are not required for a wheel that needs a push start to accelerate. The lock is required while inactive for long periods tho I guess. The one-way wheels were released when a bolt was thrown over. And as Bill said Wagner tried to emulate the torque, power and longevity of Bessler's wheels. He had no choice but to use spring power as the closest performance approximation available to him and known by him, but it fell well short in all departments.

The fact is the one-way wheels had constant positive torque, just like a spring wound wheel would appear to do (hence the criticisms), but were not wheels that required elastic potential energy to be converted to other types of internal energy.


I would add one other comment: If you can grasp and hold onto the concept of a perpetual torque machine then mechanical doors just might open for you. There's a chance at a way forward.

Chase the rainbow of standalone temporary imbalance and asymmetric torque machines and there's zero chance of moving forward, like all before you except Bessler, IMO.

[TheVisitorV]

Found something realllllly strange, told you i wanted to show you something, 1 thing was about springs and i showed you in the last video, this one is even stranger...it's about that angle in those linkages....

is it real, is it a bug????

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EoEneA_tuRM


could it be this?

[TheVisitorV]

If this is real, i think we've just won....found a way for the weights to climb higher under their own pressure ....

i really don't know what to make of this...

PS: did the sim in 10000hz, same thing, the entire weight of the bar with all parts is lifted........

[Fletcher]

Hi Denver .. take one mech and work out where the mechs combined CoM is located. For a weight to appear to rise the combined or Net CoM must fall (lose height and GPE), regardless of scissor angles, IINM.

Hope you can prove me wrong here.

[TheVisitorV]

Hey Fletcher, hmmm, what is IINM?

i will have to break this down in some way, either way, this is really strange. The whole weight is on that rod and to see all getting lifted is really strange. I should say that on that linkage at the bottom there is also the spring from the linkage above it pressing down, but there is no spring on the bottom one, it just reacts to what is above it.

So to explain a bit better, the bottom linkage is locked on the bar where the bar starts, the first link is double Ls then Xs.

Normally, if there would be nothing above it, to push against it, the Xs would go upwards and the bottom would flatten out ... don't know what to say, i'm doing a bigger simulation right now, it takes forever...

there is also something strange, it kind of gets stiff from what i'm seeing now....i'll upload soon a video so you can see more.

[TheVisitorV]

here it is: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XY4u1DQwyow

doing one more shortly

[TheVisitorV]

here is another one:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Fim0vGpiOU

[TheVisitorV]

more tests:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jLiLi73qTk