Lazy tongs question

[agor95]

When I've been doing online research about off-center rotation and angular momentum, there is a surprising void - it's like people steer clear of it.

I agree the online material moves onto more stable movements.
This is also seen in electrical systems in online references.

One has to build the maths from first principles.

However you have to learn how to do the maths first like partial differentials.
Also know how you differentiate trig functions etc.

Cheers

[Georg Künstler]

Agor95 wrote:

However you have to learn how to do the maths first like partial differentials.
Also know how you differentiate trig functions etc.

If it were so easy I had done it already.

The function in the wheel includes jumps, and unsteady movement.
Jump with a flash upwards, to remember.

However, Bessler managed it without the partial differentials, because this, the differential calculation, was invented from Leibniz as far as I know, after Bessler has run his first wheel.

What you need is a good understanding of mechanic as Bessler has, because he was able to repair clocks.

Their are some lessons I have learned step by step building one model after the other. The conception was right since years, but the relative dimensions does not fit.

But you have to see the movement to recognize and adapt again, learn, and adapt again, and of course, you need time and money, because you cannot do all the things alone, we are not in the position that we get money for our own learning.

And not forget, defend this concept against the rest of the world.

[agor95]

Georg Künstler

I know how you feel on the maths. It's hard and some system configurations to complex for maths or simulations.

You are also correct all this maths and simulations are here now and not then.

There may have been small scale prototypes and partial test devices.

However we are in the modern world where a mix of developing methods are available.

Also we have issues of ownership etc.

Having a strong portfolio of proof can only help to combat a doubting world.

Cheers

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Silent,
I think someone has mentioned that Bessler has used a special spring form.

I had to think this over and over again and I think I know now, which type of spring it is.

It is a tape steel spring, which are used from clock makers.

Normally this tape steel springs are used to drive the clocks, wind up --release.

Now my idea to this oval spring. It is simply a ring of tape steel.
When you press it, then you will get this oval spring.
We can staple this rings, then you will have your lazy tong, which can be extended and compressed.

With different ring sizes you will get a non linear spring characteristic curve
Look at Besslers lazy Tongs, they are not linear.

[gravitationallychallenged]

The purpose of the storks bils & lazy tongs are, of course, to obtain the greatest distance of travel in relation to the distance of input travel.

To reduce complexity, a pulley and cable mechanism can be designed on the same principle. It can be designed in the same configuration as the MT 138 Jacob's ladder / snake toy only with 3 cords. Two cords on the outside ends of the weight would provide stability. The cord in the middle would be used to provide movement & would be countered by spring tension. The weight would look similar to the weight pictured in the video filmed in the town of Bad Karlshafen. It's obviously designed to have cords, ropes or cables tied to it at 3 or more points on the weight.

I would post a photo of the weight but I don't have an online photo sharing account. You can see a photo of the weight in Neo's 'Report On Bessler's Wheel' thread in the Community Buzz forum.

[Robinhood46]

Silent, I too like your thinking and would like to share my latest thoughts. Collectively we have more chance of finding the solution than everyone in their own corner keeping secrets.
Explaining thoughts is not always easy, so you may need to make an effort to understand me.
8 weights on a wheel going around is PM, this is impossible.
Each weight (x 8) going around a fixed point (or coming back to a starting point) is PM x 8, this is impossible.
PM is thought to be impossible because at the scale of the wheel it has never been found (except Bessler,Buzzsaw etc.).
I think the problem is we are trying to find PM at the scale of the wheel by trying to create PM at the scale of the 8 weights. This cannot happen because it contradicts the laws that are so strongly defended.
The secret is to find the balance, or more like the out of balance by using the swinging of the 8 weights which cannot be PM at their scale to make PM at the scale of the wheel.
To understand what i mean, draw a circle with 5 points.
N° 1 2 3 4 5 clocwise from the top.
At N° 2 3 4 5 put a wieght at the circumference.
Place a connecting rod between 2 and 3 and another between 5 and 4.
At the centre of these rods ( probably in a short slot) fix a connecting rod between the two rods which pull the weights at N°3 and N°4 toward each other (away from the circumference).
This will give you the toy shown in MT (the axe men).
This is only half the wieghts but it allows you to see the mechanism.
Each and every weight (in turn) will take a different path than it's previous path.
The path of each wieght is
12 hrs Clockface.
Wieght swings from centre to perimeter at 4.30 - 5 takes a full turn fixed at the perimeter through 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 01 02 03 04 05 06 and then is lifted from the perimeter by the connecting rod and the swinging of the weight that is connected via the rod.
The weight at point N°1 swings to point N°3 and then the weight at point N° 2 swings to N°4.
This creates an evolution for the swinging wieghts, the PM that cannot be achieved at the scale of the weights themselves is created at the scale of the wheel.
From the frame of reference of the swinging weights the outer wheel will be going backwards. PM is not possible at one scale but can be created at another.
PM cannot be created at our scale but at a cosmic scale it can.
Gravity is a force at a cosmic scale, transforming it into a rotational force at a cosmic scale is not creating anything whatsoever.
The wheel has its place in the universe and it must respect cosmic laws.
Bessler made it very clear that we are all making the same mistake. The mistake is not thinking at the right scale.
I hope this is understandable.
Once you have understood this you can then add the other 4 weights 2 rods and connecting rod.
A wieght at N°1 with another hanging vertically from it,
1 at N° 3 and 1 at N° 4 with a connecting rod between them fixed at the centre with the rod hanging from N°1.
I hope someone will be able to do a simulation of this and share it.
I am in the process of building this and it is the most promising try i have ever made. ( loads). The only thing near to this to my knowledge is one of Leonardo da vinci's efforts where he allowed the balls to roll forwrd with regard their position to the outer wheel although it was every turn and not every other. The Buzzsaw works if you don't think of a circle as 360°.

[silent]

I'm due back at work soon so I'll have to go back and read your message again, but I'm pretty sure I follow what you're saying.

The overlap in the cycles in something that can be really hard to envision and no doubt if the solution is found there, it's no wonder why it hasn't been discovered in such a long time. It a LOT to think about because you're not completing the task in 360 degrees. Suddenly when you involved 720 degrees, you've got some weight pairs that are in the fixed part of the cycle where they act like flywheels and yet others are doing the shifting to help power the rotation. It's only a theory that I have based totally on research that I've discovered online. circle said, "The weights change what they are to the wheel" and that Bessler did it so elegantly it ended up being really simple.

I've also looked at the dodecagram and wondered if that wasn't some kind of a schematic of sorts - playing on the idea of every other weight moving so that half are stationary and half are moving or perhaps where the moving of 2 weights affects 1 and so forth.

It's still up in the air, but playing with 720 degrees might open some doors for us. That is one thing everyone has been focused on - completing the task within one rotation and for sure that is where everyone failed. It's interesting what one can come up with when you view one complete rotation of the wheel as half of the cycle. In fact, 4 stroke engines are exactly the same way - they have a "power" stroke and then have to coast through the exhaust, intake, and compression stroke before they "hit" again. It's 720 degrees to complete all 4 cycles and when dealing with multiple cylinders, they are all somewhere in between 0 degrees and 720 degrees.

Using an odd number of weights, I've thought of trying to have #1 hooked to #3, #3 connected to #5, #5 hooked to #2, #2 connected to #4, and then #4 hooked to #1 (hooked and connected used for variety purposes) all for having the weights influence each other in an over-lapping arrangement of sorts. All this in hopes that you could use 2 weights to influence one or one weight to influence 2 to kind of keep an overlapping out of balance wheel where it could just never keep up. Maybe a crafty use of cords interwoven through pulleys could use the weights to exert their pull in a way to effect movement.

I dunno though - I still think the fundamentals are the same in that you can't really lift a weight with a weight and have a net gain. It's why I'm starting to like using spring energy, with gravity, and with CF to cause a releasing of energy and then a recompressing of a spring so that you can bank the energy - gaining it from a precise point in wheel rotation and then releasing it when needed so as to effect rotation. Trying to create rotation that gains speeds just from one predominant force in one direction (gravity) I think is impossible without the use of springs to help make deposits and withdrawals from the energy bank.

silent

[Robinhood46]

We are both on the same path.
When the weight at N°2 swings it's partner into N°3 a spring at N°2 would be easily compressed from the leverage of rod and other weight and close proximity to axe.
The weight at N°3 then becomes the axe to swing and lift weight at N°2 assisted by the compressed spring which will give back more force because direct on the weight. It only needs to be lifted slightly to get a nette gain and then the rotation of wheel will bring it in.
The weight at N°3 would then take a full turn to be lifted at 6 oclock (ish) by spring compressed from swinging weight N°2 to N+4 which was obviously weight N° 1 before previous swinging.

Edit, correction it would have been weight N°5 not N°1.
It's pretty hard to get your head around but once you've done the drawing or started making a model it all comes into perspective and i have a job to see how it can't go round.
Positive force and neutral force equals rotation.

[Georg Künstler]

Robinhood46 wrote:

8 weights on a wheel going around is PM, this is impossible.

Here I strongly disagree, you can achieve it with 8 weights.

The error what all made is the central axle !!

I remind Besslers words, nothing is hanging from the axle.

An octagon, Standing in a hamster Cage fulfill the above condition, because it is Standing on a moveable ground. It is well balanced.
When you turn the outer Wheel, the octagon will fall.

[Robinhood46]

Georg, i can fully agree that the sentence itself is nonsense.
I would like to point out that this is what i said.
"Explaining thoughts is not always easy, so you may need to make an effort to understand me.
8 weights on a wheel going around is PM, this is impossible."
If you make the effort, you will be able to understand what i am saying and not what you think i am saying, if you don't make the effort you will not.
SCALE is very important.
"8 weights on a wheel going around" each weight is going around, forget the wheel, the wheel is not the same SCALE.
Each weight is, at a given point, at a given moment, it then moves, ( wherever you wish) it must return to that given point at a later moment. It is "going around" and all 8 weights are also "going around". Going around is impossible. This is because of the conservation of energy. You cannot get more out than what is being put in.
At the SCALE of each weight pm is impossible, at the SCALE of the wheel pm is not impossible. I think understanding the difference between the 2 scales is very difficult to grasp, when you can see the implications of separating the 2 scales you will see clearly that this is what everyone has always missed and why we have believed that pm is impossible.
The application of universal laws is not specific to each and every scale, universal laws apply to ALL scales, each and every scale is governed by the same laws and no net gain can be achieved by the addition and substraction of the total forces of each and every different SCALE.
The total of all the sub totals must equal 0. What you take from one scale can be added to another this does not change the absolute total, it is still 0. There is no creation of energy, it cannot be.
On the scale of the wheel you can have a net gain by taking some at the scale of the weights. This does not change the total at the scale of the universe
I hope this helps.