I've been doing a bunch of reading and thinking over the past few weeks and revisited the lazy tongs. I wrote them off because the ones I built were so floppy and rife with friction as to be unusable. Even so, Bessler did indicate they were important.
I've always assumed that lazy tongs would be evenly balanced if a heavy weight dropped and caused a small weight to go up. (see the picture)
This would be a variable length lever and even though there is more weight below the axle than above, would you have enough leverage from the extended smaller weight to cause a levered lifting of the large weight up and over the axle?
While researching lazy tongs, I did find that they are used in rivet tools: https://cdn10.bigcommerce.com/s-u7z9kpr ... 80.jpg?c=2 where they take a range of motion and impart it to a massive force at the end to pop a rivet in place. So with this massive leverage, I wonder if the ability to use a 2 stage lever arrangement of sorts could take a falling weight and use it to generate a massive force on the end required to "lightly" lift a weight?
Since many people seem to get it in their heads that the upper weight HAS to be physically as big as the lower weight, here we could have a "pseudo" weight above the axle that doesn't weigh anywhere as close to the heavy weight below, but using the bary centre principle can function as a center of mass instead of focusing on just the weight. Maybe that is why the wheel needs pulleys and weights to function as well to help operate the lazy tongs?
All my opinions of course.
silent
Lazy tongs question
Moderator: scott
re: Lazy tongs question
It definitely can move like you propose silent.
The Lazy Tongs (LT's) as you've drawn them can be split into 2 portions for analysis purposes.
1. the portion below the pivot ( Mass 1 + <> ) with an average CoM1 distance from pivot.
2. the portion above the pivot ( Mass 2 +<xx> ) with an average CoM2 distance from pivot.
Mass 2 (and its sections of the LT's) can definitely 'shoot' upwards 'lightly' IF Mass 1 (and it's LT sections) are way more massive.
The proviso is that the CoM1 one side of the pivot must lose more GPE than CoM2 gains.
The speed that raises Mass 2 is directly proportional to the Net System mgh (GPE) lost, without considering friction loses. This is because mgh = m 1/2 v^2 therefore v = sqrt(2gh) which is shared between the two masses. Unless you say spring assist it or somesuch.
Therefore bigger variation between CoM's = faster lift. Less variation = slower lift.
And the moment of inertia for the device changes with deployment, but this does not change things in a rotating environment for energy purposes because it is given back on the reset.
The Lazy Tongs (LT's) as you've drawn them can be split into 2 portions for analysis purposes.
1. the portion below the pivot ( Mass 1 + <> ) with an average CoM1 distance from pivot.
2. the portion above the pivot ( Mass 2 +<xx> ) with an average CoM2 distance from pivot.
Mass 2 (and its sections of the LT's) can definitely 'shoot' upwards 'lightly' IF Mass 1 (and it's LT sections) are way more massive.
The proviso is that the CoM1 one side of the pivot must lose more GPE than CoM2 gains.
The speed that raises Mass 2 is directly proportional to the Net System mgh (GPE) lost, without considering friction loses. This is because mgh = m 1/2 v^2 therefore v = sqrt(2gh) which is shared between the two masses. Unless you say spring assist it or somesuch.
Therefore bigger variation between CoM's = faster lift. Less variation = slower lift.
And the moment of inertia for the device changes with deployment, but this does not change things in a rotating environment for energy purposes because it is given back on the reset.
Thanks Fletch. I have my doubts that it could run and still, the damned lazy tongs are a mechanism I'm not impressed with simply because they take so much force to operate. It still a lever though and I loathe having to build a set to test my hypothesis. Plus they don't operate fast enough to create the speeds that Bessler's wheels ran at.
With Bessler's wheels running that fast, it leads me to believe that there is some secret primary movement of weights that we largely don't grasp or have never seen in operation to know how it could be used to propel a wheel. I've been scanning the net and found where a guy had a bunch of very informative posts claiming to have solved the wheel, however he could have been all talk. Some of the points he brought out however included the use of a lever that was reminiscent of the cotton scales his dad used in the 1930s that looked like a Nike check. He said the weights much change position and he also said they function like a mobius - jacob's ladder where they continually flip and flop and never can find a point of rest. Other clues he gave was if you turn the number 8 on its side, look at the path, down up down up with 4 points of transition - the solution to Bessler's device is anti-climactic. The solution has one design affecting the ascending and another affecting the decending.
At any rate, the username of the guy is 'circle' and his posts are here: https://overunity.com/profile/circle.21 ... s/start/0/
I don't know if he was a bullshitting dreamer or if he was for real, but one of his posts led me to imagine the bary centre principle which is something I had thought of before, but couldn't figure out an application for it. I drew a wheel tonight that on the periphery had 4 pendulums evenly spaced, but I drew them with the pivot point fairly close to the heavy weight, then with a longer arm and smaller weight on the other end so the large weights were always up and the small weights on the bottom. As you would spin this, the heavy weights would take a path that always put their weight above the center of rotation. Basically a cluster of bary center pendulums hanging upside down. What to do with it?
I have no idea, but you can move the large weights around by yanking around on the small weight that hangs down.
Merely my opinions of course.
silent
With Bessler's wheels running that fast, it leads me to believe that there is some secret primary movement of weights that we largely don't grasp or have never seen in operation to know how it could be used to propel a wheel. I've been scanning the net and found where a guy had a bunch of very informative posts claiming to have solved the wheel, however he could have been all talk. Some of the points he brought out however included the use of a lever that was reminiscent of the cotton scales his dad used in the 1930s that looked like a Nike check. He said the weights much change position and he also said they function like a mobius - jacob's ladder where they continually flip and flop and never can find a point of rest. Other clues he gave was if you turn the number 8 on its side, look at the path, down up down up with 4 points of transition - the solution to Bessler's device is anti-climactic. The solution has one design affecting the ascending and another affecting the decending.
At any rate, the username of the guy is 'circle' and his posts are here: https://overunity.com/profile/circle.21 ... s/start/0/
I don't know if he was a bullshitting dreamer or if he was for real, but one of his posts led me to imagine the bary centre principle which is something I had thought of before, but couldn't figure out an application for it. I drew a wheel tonight that on the periphery had 4 pendulums evenly spaced, but I drew them with the pivot point fairly close to the heavy weight, then with a longer arm and smaller weight on the other end so the large weights were always up and the small weights on the bottom. As you would spin this, the heavy weights would take a path that always put their weight above the center of rotation. Basically a cluster of bary center pendulums hanging upside down. What to do with it?
I have no idea, but you can move the large weights around by yanking around on the small weight that hangs down.
Merely my opinions of course.
silent
- Attachments
-
-
Georg Künstler
- Devotee
- Posts: 1747
- Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2003 12:22 pm
- Location: Speyer, Germany
- Contact:
re: Lazy tongs question
Hi Silent,
I have send You an E-mail about a Centrifugal governor. Change it in that way that the weights are on Top, then gravity Force and Centrifugal forces are added.
then you have the function ,and when One Pound is dropping you Can shoot 4 Pounds up.
I have send You an E-mail about a Centrifugal governor. Change it in that way that the weights are on Top, then gravity Force and Centrifugal forces are added.
then you have the function ,and when One Pound is dropping you Can shoot 4 Pounds up.
Best regards
Georg
Georg
re: Lazy tongs question
@silent,
I remember a "circle" user, either here or on JC's site. When I get home from work tonight I will check my notes. If I remember correctly, he used to post about the existence of other buzzsaw wheels around the country and how they all disappeared, and he had working knowledge of them as well.
Regarding the scissor jacks, this is more of a general question for everyone to think about. Is there any difference between the two scissors I have attached?
I remember a "circle" user, either here or on JC's site. When I get home from work tonight I will check my notes. If I remember correctly, he used to post about the existence of other buzzsaw wheels around the country and how they all disappeared, and he had working knowledge of them as well.
Regarding the scissor jacks, this is more of a general question for everyone to think about. Is there any difference between the two scissors I have attached?
- Attachments
-
Last edited by zoelra on Tue Nov 26, 2019 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Yeah that's the guy zoelra. He mentioned the gravity powered buzz saws. I don't know whether I trust him or not. He said something about the solution being a sort of mobius - jacob's ladder and well - I found what he said a bit confusing so I've relegated him to the rabbit hole for now.
I'm glad you brought up this lazy tong question. In my research, I found in an old post on here where someone said Bessler's clue of the shotgun shoots was a bit of a mistranslation and that the word jack was a closer match. So the jack shoots. Regardless, the fact remains that I really, really hate lazy tongs. I've built them and they suck, but I'm forced to revisit them.
One thing I was thinking about today is that the lazy tongs are shown at 90 degrees to the hammer toys and so I started wondering if the firing of the lazy tongs actually activated a movement from it's side and not from the ends. A quick firing of the lazy tongs would make a quick retraction if something was hooked on the side, so maybe the shifting of the weights comes from the side of the mechanism and not from the end...which makes sense because there is nothing to be gained by trying to lift with lazy tongs - they are fraught with friction.
Now the question remains, how were they cocked? Maybe they reset with the weight on top pushing down, then at some point, they are released inverted. The falling weight would cause a sudden retraction on the side perhaps drawing a weight or something towards the lazy tongs. Maybe the lazy tongs is the horse pulling the cart along? This could be the jack shoots and the bow twangs reference if cords were hooked to the side of the lazy tongs. Certainly another way to think about using them and this would be using them to effect a strong movement at 90 degrees to the direction of their travel.
I don't have an answer to your lazy tongs question that you present, but I'm hoping someone will come forth with an answer as I'm interested in it too.
silent
I'm glad you brought up this lazy tong question. In my research, I found in an old post on here where someone said Bessler's clue of the shotgun shoots was a bit of a mistranslation and that the word jack was a closer match. So the jack shoots. Regardless, the fact remains that I really, really hate lazy tongs. I've built them and they suck, but I'm forced to revisit them.
One thing I was thinking about today is that the lazy tongs are shown at 90 degrees to the hammer toys and so I started wondering if the firing of the lazy tongs actually activated a movement from it's side and not from the ends. A quick firing of the lazy tongs would make a quick retraction if something was hooked on the side, so maybe the shifting of the weights comes from the side of the mechanism and not from the end...which makes sense because there is nothing to be gained by trying to lift with lazy tongs - they are fraught with friction.
Now the question remains, how were they cocked? Maybe they reset with the weight on top pushing down, then at some point, they are released inverted. The falling weight would cause a sudden retraction on the side perhaps drawing a weight or something towards the lazy tongs. Maybe the lazy tongs is the horse pulling the cart along? This could be the jack shoots and the bow twangs reference if cords were hooked to the side of the lazy tongs. Certainly another way to think about using them and this would be using them to effect a strong movement at 90 degrees to the direction of their travel.
I don't have an answer to your lazy tongs question that you present, but I'm hoping someone will come forth with an answer as I'm interested in it too.
silent
-
gravityman52
- Enthusiast
- Posts: 30
- Joined: Sat Oct 28, 2017 1:49 am
re: Lazy tongs question
The only place that weight can disappear from the wheel is if it finds its way tot he center of the axle....... then is will disappear from the weight inventory of the wheel
a Romantic seeking to find the link to powering the planet
re: Lazy tongs question
FWIW the inertia of the two tongs setup is slightly different so velocities etc are also slightly different (a few percent only).
Functionally they do the same job, imo.
And if you don't require symmetry of the LT's themselves then half of them can disappear altogether and not effect function, imo.
Functionally they do the same job, imo.
And if you don't require symmetry of the LT's themselves then half of them can disappear altogether and not effect function, imo.
You know the more I think about this whole Bessler wheel thing, I just keep on simplifying over and over. The more complex it becomes, then the more apt you are to have penalties paid in friction and so forth.
So I've stopped and analyzed what must happen in order for a wheel to rotate and it's pretty simple - more weight on one side than the other. Now I almost said more weight on one side of the center of rotation, but that's not totally correct because of the bary center principle. You can have more weight on one side of the wheel than the other, but if it's countered with a smaller weight farther out, then you can still have balance.
Bessler said in his clues (and I'm paraphrasing here) that people supposed that movement could be affected by shifting one weight farther from the hub than the other but that he discovered by bitter experience that's not the way to do it. Then he later goes on and says one weight is nearer the center than the other then later they change places - on and on they go.
So by looking at the toys page, we see the drummer toys bringing a weight in to the center while another weight goes out. It appears the superior weight is on top and the lesser down below, but for the sake of trying to solve this 300 year old puzzle, it would really help if we knew what we were supposed to do. For several months, I've leaned toward a basic idea of weight pairs - one shifting in and one shifting out and using a spring to reset it. The problem with that is how in the heck do you use the weights in a wheel to compress a spring and then release it?
One thought I've had is with the falling weight scenario - imagine a standard ratchet like for spinning sockets to work on cars. Imagine a coil spring used as a torsion spring like on residential garage doors. You let a weight fall on it and you hear the sound of the ratchet, but now it can't release. If you release that energy slowly and methodically, then you could perhaps have rotation.
We used to have these little toy cars we played with in the 1980s where you pulled them backwards and a gear set would mesh and wind up a spring very quick. Then when you let go, the spring would release it's tension slowly and off the car would go - it would travel much farther than the distance it traveled to wing up the spring. Of course I start thinking about using a balanced wheel with weights on arms that could swing down and keep hammering a ratchet arm to wind a clock spring quickly and then slowly release the tension, however there is no spring in his clues on the toys page unless he purposefully left out that little detail. Or unless the lazy tongs is supposed to be the spring?
If all we are looking for is weight pairs triggered with springs, then it would become a focused exercise of developing an efficient way to bank up spring energy and releasing it at the right time. We could be concentrating on those little aspects instead of being all over the place with other ideas. As simple as it may seem with springs moving weights, isn't that a simple arrangement of weights and levers that hardly makes it seem worth it?
I find it suspect that there is never any mention of springs from Bessler other than issued as a refute to his detractors. So is his avoidance of talking about springs cause for suspicion or is it merely that they weren't
used?
One final point I've thought of is that when compressing a spring, you need to often use mechanical advantage to do it. The problem then is if you need to quickly release that spring pressure, you won't be able to gain anything with it's release if the point of pressure is the same. However if you had a setup where a spring compresses with mechanical advantage and then the point at which the spring is compressed is shifted so that the spring has the advantage, then you won't get as much travel, but a more direct release of the energy - capable of moving a heavier item a shorter distance - if that makes any sense.
silent
So I've stopped and analyzed what must happen in order for a wheel to rotate and it's pretty simple - more weight on one side than the other. Now I almost said more weight on one side of the center of rotation, but that's not totally correct because of the bary center principle. You can have more weight on one side of the wheel than the other, but if it's countered with a smaller weight farther out, then you can still have balance.
Bessler said in his clues (and I'm paraphrasing here) that people supposed that movement could be affected by shifting one weight farther from the hub than the other but that he discovered by bitter experience that's not the way to do it. Then he later goes on and says one weight is nearer the center than the other then later they change places - on and on they go.
So by looking at the toys page, we see the drummer toys bringing a weight in to the center while another weight goes out. It appears the superior weight is on top and the lesser down below, but for the sake of trying to solve this 300 year old puzzle, it would really help if we knew what we were supposed to do. For several months, I've leaned toward a basic idea of weight pairs - one shifting in and one shifting out and using a spring to reset it. The problem with that is how in the heck do you use the weights in a wheel to compress a spring and then release it?
One thought I've had is with the falling weight scenario - imagine a standard ratchet like for spinning sockets to work on cars. Imagine a coil spring used as a torsion spring like on residential garage doors. You let a weight fall on it and you hear the sound of the ratchet, but now it can't release. If you release that energy slowly and methodically, then you could perhaps have rotation.
We used to have these little toy cars we played with in the 1980s where you pulled them backwards and a gear set would mesh and wind up a spring very quick. Then when you let go, the spring would release it's tension slowly and off the car would go - it would travel much farther than the distance it traveled to wing up the spring. Of course I start thinking about using a balanced wheel with weights on arms that could swing down and keep hammering a ratchet arm to wind a clock spring quickly and then slowly release the tension, however there is no spring in his clues on the toys page unless he purposefully left out that little detail. Or unless the lazy tongs is supposed to be the spring?
If all we are looking for is weight pairs triggered with springs, then it would become a focused exercise of developing an efficient way to bank up spring energy and releasing it at the right time. We could be concentrating on those little aspects instead of being all over the place with other ideas. As simple as it may seem with springs moving weights, isn't that a simple arrangement of weights and levers that hardly makes it seem worth it?
I find it suspect that there is never any mention of springs from Bessler other than issued as a refute to his detractors. So is his avoidance of talking about springs cause for suspicion or is it merely that they weren't
used?
One final point I've thought of is that when compressing a spring, you need to often use mechanical advantage to do it. The problem then is if you need to quickly release that spring pressure, you won't be able to gain anything with it's release if the point of pressure is the same. However if you had a setup where a spring compresses with mechanical advantage and then the point at which the spring is compressed is shifted so that the spring has the advantage, then you won't get as much travel, but a more direct release of the energy - capable of moving a heavier item a shorter distance - if that makes any sense.
silent
Re: re: Lazy tongs question
Hi zoelra .. here is a sim I whipped up this morning to test for differences between your scissors actions.zoelra wrote:@silent,
Regarding the scissor jacks, this is more of a general question for everyone to think about. Is there any difference between the two scissors I have attached?
No discernible difference imo, unless longitudinal symmetry of the SB itself is important for some reason.
- Attachments
-
- Silent_LTs1-End
-
- Silent_LTs1-Start
re: Lazy tongs question
https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/down ... er=user_id
I mentioned in this previous post how I thought a variation of the storks bills could be used to create overbalance - not by shifting the weights radially in and out, but by shifting the weights along the circumference of the wheel. In this manner, the forces due to the conservation of angular momentum (ice skater affects) are eliminated entirely. This might be something Bessler thought was worth hiding.
@silent, I don't mean to take your post off course, I just wanted to mention this again.
I mentioned in this previous post how I thought a variation of the storks bills could be used to create overbalance - not by shifting the weights radially in and out, but by shifting the weights along the circumference of the wheel. In this manner, the forces due to the conservation of angular momentum (ice skater affects) are eliminated entirely. This might be something Bessler thought was worth hiding.
@silent, I don't mean to take your post off course, I just wanted to mention this again.
- Attachments
-
Last edited by zoelra on Wed Nov 27, 2019 12:31 am, edited 1 time in total.
As I've thought more and more about this, the same problems keep coming up - how do you move something without using a weight to do it? The same old problems come up time and time again so obviously we all must be approaching the problem in the wrong way.
Things I've started researching more is how the jacob's ladder toy works, but hitting nothing but dead ends there.
I also researched old toys and found the jumping jack toy where you pull on the string and the arms and legs are thrust out. I started wondering if instead of focusing on moving weights over to the side, if one were to view the hands and feet of the jumping jack toy as weights, then with one tug of the string, all 4 weights would be thrust upwards. You would have 2 pairs of 2 weights with 2 of them closer to the center than the other and then over it goes. But how to pull on the string and lift the weights?
I've though that in order for the wheel to rotate, we need the weights on one side - an asymmetry yes - but we largely seem to rely on movements that are symmetrical in nature. Not always, but trying to think of different things.
The MT134 weight distribution method is certainly neat to think about, but we don't have 2 weights changing places...
Then I've started thinking about opposite effects as in - we are so focused on moving weights - how about keep the weights still and move everything around them? Or then I've thought how to take an entire wheel and just move everything on it off-center from the axle just a little bit. It's all you would need to start things moving. Imagine a hammer swinging down on the descending side and swinging into the axle so hard it knocks it back and thrusts the entire wheel assembly ahead slightly. As it rotates down, the next hammer comes over and whacks the axle back again. There are problems with this though in that you can smack the hub once, but as the mass falls, you can't smack the axle back again - at least how I've been thinking about it.
I started thinking about a weird toy I remember seeing in the 1980s. It was made from latex material much like a balloon and it was formed as a tube within a tube. The ends of each of the tubes were fastened to each other and it was painted to look like a snake and filled with water. When you grabbed it the center tube would start to fall and peel the outer one down with it so it was impossible to grab a hold of. You could slip it over your finger or thumb and hold it that way, but grabbing it on the outside caused it to fall out of your hands. I was thinking again if there was a weight inside that tube, as the rest of it fell down, the weight inside would stay put and in the end it would be at the top but it never climbed up there. The rest of the tube fell down and left the weight at the top. So I try to think of anomalies like this where maybe the weight doesn't climb but rather everything else falls away from it and leaves it at the top - if that makes any sense.
Then I've thought about levers, but there are no free lunches to be had there although the bary center principle is something I've been considering. We have a chain binder at work that when you hold it up by one of the hooks, it's stays pretty well balanced like an old beam scale from way back when. Now with something a bit more scientific being balanced at its bary center, I've begun to wonder how it behaves when it is spun around in a wheel and if that has any bearing on things. Wouldn't it be great if it started to spin and make power? LOL! I suppose if they were all chained together and made to spin a certain way, maybe something would happen because even though the entire thing is balanced, you still have different masses on either end of the balance point. I'm just curious to see how CoM and CoG can interact with other and perhaps find something that way? On top of it all, a bary center functions just like how the earth and moon interact. The bary center between the earth and moon is actually located deep within the earth but l not at the center of the earth. Bessler kind of hints at this when he talks about the lead sphere and wax sphere having a "material difference" but still called spheres. So maybe when Bessler talks about a "weight," is it possible that "weight" is actually comprised of 2 weights of different masses or at least 2 different sizes/weights and affixed to the wheel at their bary center?
There are no free lunches when it comes to physics.
In the end, I think about the Waenga wheel where it's just weights on levers and springs tugging the wheel along - something nice and simple that would have been an amazing feat even back in Bessler's time, but the clues Bessler left behind don't fit.
Whatever the secret principle is, it had better be a damn good one because even if the solution is found, a lot of bruised egos will be pissed they didn't think of it first.
silent
Things I've started researching more is how the jacob's ladder toy works, but hitting nothing but dead ends there.
I also researched old toys and found the jumping jack toy where you pull on the string and the arms and legs are thrust out. I started wondering if instead of focusing on moving weights over to the side, if one were to view the hands and feet of the jumping jack toy as weights, then with one tug of the string, all 4 weights would be thrust upwards. You would have 2 pairs of 2 weights with 2 of them closer to the center than the other and then over it goes. But how to pull on the string and lift the weights?
I've though that in order for the wheel to rotate, we need the weights on one side - an asymmetry yes - but we largely seem to rely on movements that are symmetrical in nature. Not always, but trying to think of different things.
The MT134 weight distribution method is certainly neat to think about, but we don't have 2 weights changing places...
Then I've started thinking about opposite effects as in - we are so focused on moving weights - how about keep the weights still and move everything around them? Or then I've thought how to take an entire wheel and just move everything on it off-center from the axle just a little bit. It's all you would need to start things moving. Imagine a hammer swinging down on the descending side and swinging into the axle so hard it knocks it back and thrusts the entire wheel assembly ahead slightly. As it rotates down, the next hammer comes over and whacks the axle back again. There are problems with this though in that you can smack the hub once, but as the mass falls, you can't smack the axle back again - at least how I've been thinking about it.
I started thinking about a weird toy I remember seeing in the 1980s. It was made from latex material much like a balloon and it was formed as a tube within a tube. The ends of each of the tubes were fastened to each other and it was painted to look like a snake and filled with water. When you grabbed it the center tube would start to fall and peel the outer one down with it so it was impossible to grab a hold of. You could slip it over your finger or thumb and hold it that way, but grabbing it on the outside caused it to fall out of your hands. I was thinking again if there was a weight inside that tube, as the rest of it fell down, the weight inside would stay put and in the end it would be at the top but it never climbed up there. The rest of the tube fell down and left the weight at the top. So I try to think of anomalies like this where maybe the weight doesn't climb but rather everything else falls away from it and leaves it at the top - if that makes any sense.
Then I've thought about levers, but there are no free lunches to be had there although the bary center principle is something I've been considering. We have a chain binder at work that when you hold it up by one of the hooks, it's stays pretty well balanced like an old beam scale from way back when. Now with something a bit more scientific being balanced at its bary center, I've begun to wonder how it behaves when it is spun around in a wheel and if that has any bearing on things. Wouldn't it be great if it started to spin and make power? LOL! I suppose if they were all chained together and made to spin a certain way, maybe something would happen because even though the entire thing is balanced, you still have different masses on either end of the balance point. I'm just curious to see how CoM and CoG can interact with other and perhaps find something that way? On top of it all, a bary center functions just like how the earth and moon interact. The bary center between the earth and moon is actually located deep within the earth but l not at the center of the earth. Bessler kind of hints at this when he talks about the lead sphere and wax sphere having a "material difference" but still called spheres. So maybe when Bessler talks about a "weight," is it possible that "weight" is actually comprised of 2 weights of different masses or at least 2 different sizes/weights and affixed to the wheel at their bary center?
There are no free lunches when it comes to physics.
In the end, I think about the Waenga wheel where it's just weights on levers and springs tugging the wheel along - something nice and simple that would have been an amazing feat even back in Bessler's time, but the clues Bessler left behind don't fit.
Whatever the secret principle is, it had better be a damn good one because even if the solution is found, a lot of bruised egos will be pissed they didn't think of it first.
silent
While trying to figure this out and going into what I call my "funk" where I'm foggy all day in thought because I'm literally lost so deep in it, I had a thought come to mind early this morning during my twilighting REM sleep.
For the past 300 years, nobody that we know of has been able to figure this out and the common theme has been rotation around a center point with evenly distributed weights.
I think maybe it's high time we start playing with wheels with an off-set center of rotation.
With this train of thought, perhaps we can start pumping wheels around the axis. Half the work has been done for us already. It's in effect like a giant pendulum at this point.
With Mr. Vibrating all of his in-depth studies involving angular momentum - I'd like to see the effect of his studies on wheels with an offset center of rotation.
Perhaps that is where the secret to the Bessler wheel lies? It sounds goofy I know, but once you start diving into weird things like this, it's often where you find hidden things. People tend to avoid that which they do not know or can't visualize.
At any rate, I'm going to start looking into it.
silent
For the past 300 years, nobody that we know of has been able to figure this out and the common theme has been rotation around a center point with evenly distributed weights.
I think maybe it's high time we start playing with wheels with an off-set center of rotation.
With this train of thought, perhaps we can start pumping wheels around the axis. Half the work has been done for us already. It's in effect like a giant pendulum at this point.
With Mr. Vibrating all of his in-depth studies involving angular momentum - I'd like to see the effect of his studies on wheels with an offset center of rotation.
Perhaps that is where the secret to the Bessler wheel lies? It sounds goofy I know, but once you start diving into weird things like this, it's often where you find hidden things. People tend to avoid that which they do not know or can't visualize.
At any rate, I'm going to start looking into it.
silent
-
rasselasss
- Aficionado
- Posts: 919
- Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 7:19 pm
- Location: northern ireland
re: Lazy tongs question
There is nothing "goofy", Silent about your line of thought (an eccentric wheel inside a round wheel giving a flywheel effect alternating to sustain motion)...I believe that "only"by looking and bouncing ideas round will this puzzle be solved...nobody knows for sure what was hidden inside the drawings of his round wheel.....Good Luck..
Rasselas busied himself so intensely in visionary bustle he forgot his solitude