Buzzsaw Topic

[tony75]

I'm interested in buzzSaw
I started to build it

[zoelra]

Good luck tony75. The Buzzsaw may be hidden in MT. I have posted this pic a few times in the past.

[tony75]

The Roti replica made is wrong.

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ozcd12QTNrw>

The depth of the splits is too large compared to the original. This reduces the force arm automatically decreases the force

[Robinhood46]

I can easily picture this wheel vibrating away picking up speed by transfering the unidirectional force of gravity into rotational force very progressively to turn a flywheel (maybe) which, when sufficient energy is stored will be easily capable of cutting wood. I do not think it was powerfull enough to cut wood continually but needed pauses of, who knows? how long to regain the force needed for each cut.
Bessler did say something about everyone making the same mistake.
Someone (supposidly) said that he was told by the builder that to understand how it worked you must not look at a circle as 360 degrees.
I think this is the reason the two wheels worked.
When you look at ALL other attempts this is exactly what is being done and none of them work. Leonardo da vinci did have a try at avoiding this problem, although still not successfully, because it was only half avoided.
I think the 42 teeth on the sprocket is a very important clue.
6 x 7 = 42. This will allow one wheel to rotate 1/6 more than the other or 1/7 less, if you prefer. It is as clear as a bell that the weights cannot go pass each other but they can "step forward" from one notch to the next without the need to pass.
I think that what has always been missed is the need for continual evolution and not coming back to starting point.
Coming back to starting point cannot work, it goes against fundamental laws, if you step forward you can create movement. We must evolve and stop trying to go around in circles.

[Georg Künstler]

Robinhood46 wrote:

We must evolve and stop trying to go around in circles.

indeed, therefore I said many many times we need an egg-ing shape.

That is including every shape which is not round.

The masses must not follow the circle path ,then you get differrences and additional torque, not nice forces, i Know, but the way to go.

[Robinhood46]

You miss understand what i mean.
Going around in a circle cannot work. A circle is 360° don't do it because it can't be done, it's against the law.
Go around in 432° instead of 360°. This is evolving/evolution and not going around in a circle.
I hope you can get what i mean.

[tony75]

take things step by step and you may have surprises.
leave the wheel with 12 weights.
For the beginning we reduce the whole to three weights (for the theoretical study)
G4-G5 and G13

weight 3 generates force 3
To be able to function we have.
F3 + F4> F13 + (loss, friction)
F = Gxb
G-weight
b-arm force (distance from center of wheels to center of weight)

The arm at F3 and F4 must be as large as it is to approach the axis 0 (axis of rotation between the two wheels)
The arm at F13 should be as small as possible.
That is, from the construction the splits should be as small as possible

[Robinhood46]

For those trying to build this.
The inner wheel is the only one of the two that can hold the 12 weights.(if we accept that 12 weights were made because 12 weights needed).
If you place the 12 weights 3 a space 3 a space 3 etc. You have a cross.
3 weights opposite 3 weights twice at 90° to each set.
The sprocket of 42 teeth allows us to find a ratio of 7/6.
By moving the furthest forward of each set of 3 one space (of the inner wheel) by transferring it to the outer wheel with the ratio 7/6 you would have 1 weight every 90° being further from the centre.
Each weight would do 2 turns without moving and one turn providing force.
We know the weights cannot pass each other and we know the weights were transferred from one wheel to the other.
We think the thing vibrated the building, we think it turned a sawmill,we think it was pm, there are many things we think and very few we know.
We also know the sprocket with 42 teeth was intentionally built.
We think it was for this machine.
It was said that we should not think of a circle as 360°
Should we use all the 12 weights? i think yes.
Is the 42 teeth important? I think yes.
What we know we all agree on, what we think is very different.

[tony75]

I'm sure the weights are set as I drew.
transfer is made from one wheel to another. And you are right with the vibrate (this is the reason why he mounted the circle with springs caught by weight to reduce vibration)

mandatory outer wheel must have double inner wheel speeds (exact)
so that you can start the wheel all the weights of the tool placed in the right position (from the drawing) and then give it a boost

[Robinhood46]

I cannot see it being possible that the wheel turns twice as fast.
Can you picture the speed at which one notch would cross the other?
I know there were springs and maybe a club hammer to knock it from one to t'other but i can't see that being likely. From what i understand of your drawing , i think you are still thinking in 360°.

[tony75]

The rotation speed between the wheels is obtained from the gear wheels. Yes I think in 360 is the simplest way.
For starters I only think in pairs of 3 weights.
The first condition is to make the notches smaller, because the inner wheel (red) the leading one increases the maximum force acting down F3 and F4, and the outer wheel (yellow) decreases to the minimum force opposing F13
This is one of the mistakes of the original wheel (look at the pictures). Another mistake is the weight (every 12 weights) in part. This must be large enough at times that model (wood or metal) to be able to cancel - friction, transmission losses -
The weights must be set from the beginning on the good positions (as in my drawing)
I made the wheels but still did not realize the weights.
The wheel I executed on a simple plywood. I may have problems with balancing, but for tests I hope it works

[Robinhood46]

Tony,
"The rotation speed between the wheels is obtained from the gear wheels. Yes I think in 360 is the simplest way.
How the rotational speed between the wheels is obtained does not really give us any information.
It's the ratio that we need to know so that we can deduct at what points the weights were shifted from one wheel to the other. How many degrees do they spend in one wheel and how many degrees in the other?
The information we have is;
A sprocket with 42 teeth.
12 weights.
A wheel with 8 notches.
A wheel with 16 notches.
The weights cannot pass each other.
The weights were shifted from one wheel to the other and then from the other back.
How many ratios can you find that will allow the notches to aline up using a sprocket with 42 teeth?
Thinking in 360° is exactly what a witness (nephew i think but don't quote me) said is what we are doing wrong and that is why we don't understand it.

[tony75]

The connection between the wheels was obtained with the help of the bicycle sprockets, so that I have the double speed of the outer wheels. at this point I think in 360 (it is possible to make a mistake I do not exclude this possibility) but divided the scheme into groups of 3 forces (at least after my thinking) I think it is a chance to work. One thing I haven't yet figured out is centrifugal force
First of all, we must remove the mistakes that I observed, and to which we found a logical explanation

[Robinhood46]

I wouldn't have thought CF would be a problem to establish you have the solution, more of a problem to get real energy out. Obviously i could be totally wrong.
What i think is meant by not thinking in 360° is that each and every weight does (at least) one complete turn of the wheel without moving from a fixed point.
I think Besslers wheel was one turn and the Buzzsaw 2 turns.
The buzzsaw could have been more but this would imply increasing the ratio between the two wheels which would increase the difficulty to do the transfers
4 lots of 3 leaves 4 spaces, one between each set.
3 lots of 4 leaves 4, one between each set + 1 ? i think this a no.
2 lots of 6 leaves 4 , 2 between each set.
I can't see the point in moving 2 notches every 1/2 turn when you can move one notch every 1/4 of a turn. Hence 2 full turns stationary and one turn on the outer wheel on the descending side and then back onto the inner wheel in the notch just before (or just after) for the ascending side.

Edit; in the "notch" before or after the notch it came from and not just before or after the BDC.

[tony75]

I'm sorry but I don't understand what you meant