Zeroing in on Bessler's wheel

[johannesbender]

I solved my second problem too , now a third is left over which i think i could solve by making the weight become apart of the mechanical function of the concept and not just a mass.

I am glad you have found solutions to first and second problems.

Treating weight as an acceleration of a mass takes you into an alternative perception.
Starting with accelerations can be negative.

If you are going along this path? It is one lonely road.

weight is the result of a mass decelerating. So the mass of a coffee cup is decelerating as it sits on the table.

No i meant i would likely have to make the weights become functional parts , not weight as in measurement of forces.

[agor95]

[No i meant i would likely have to make the weights become functional parts , not weight as in measurement of forces.

There is a lot of people on that road.

[johannesbender]

[No i meant i would likely have to make the weights become functional parts , not weight as in measurement of forces.

There is a lot of people on that road.

Really , mind pointing them out and show me what i am busy with ? 🤔

[agor95]

Really , mind pointing them out and show me what i am busy with ? 🤔

I suppose it depends on the term 'weights become functional parts'.

Bessler might have used the same concept when he indicated the position seeking movements of the weights.

One could consider the weights were functional parts rather than objects to be mechanically moved around by the frame.

The lonely road is to imagine the masses are stationary and it's the frame that moves around the masses. The frame also includes the Earth!

Regards

[johannesbender]

I wouldnt really know much about such things , i gave up trying to imagine what Bessler did , although i share an opinion on hom now and then , i feel much more at home doing my own thing investigating my own ideas , where i know exactly what im doing instead of guessing what someone else meant or did like Bessler.

If Bessler asked us " and what is your opinion of the matter , how should it work or how do you think i did it " , just imagine how wrong or right we could be , we could be on the money or sound like lunatics to Bessler , you never what his reply would have been on our opinions haha.

But i do know some things are what they are , what is fun about mechanics/physics is the rules dont change and by knowing some or most of the rules one can create something to perform a certain function , and predict a certain outcome , the very laws and principles some deny are also the same they apply :/

So what i think might be doable is pretty much limited , for example when i mention i might have to design weights as functional instead of just being mass , i dont really mean anything complicated .

I have nothing special to show though.

[JUBAT]

Good points across the board. Bessler's toys page seems to indicate shifting of weights, but do we even know for sure if the wheel was moved by weights alone causing the imbalance or is it the moving of the weights that caused the imbalance? We have bessler talking about the wonderful swinging of the weights. Does that mean the swinging was the cause of the imbalance or were they swinging into an off balance position?

I think the moving/swinging of the weights was the reason based on the rpm of the wheels and with my experience because gravity is slow to act and there is no way gravity alone could cause these wheels to accelerate like they did. Swinging of weights would explain the pull those weights had...cf being used to pull the wheel around and maybe weights swinging in and out to induce a little bit of imbalance to keep the whole thing solvent.

Can't prove it, but it seems plausible.

[Fletcher]

Good points across the board. Bessler's toys page seems to indicate shifting of weights, but do we even know for sure if the wheel was moved by weights alone causing the imbalance or is it the moving of the weights that caused the imbalance?

We have bessler talking about the wonderful swinging of the weights. Does that mean the swinging was the cause of the imbalance or were they swinging into an off balance position?

I think the moving/swinging of the weights was the reason based on the rpm of the wheels and with my experience because gravity is slow to act and there is no way gravity alone could cause these wheels to accelerate like they did. Swinging of weights would explain the pull those weights had...cf being used to pull the wheel around and maybe weights swinging in and out to induce a little bit of imbalance to keep the whole thing solvent.

Can't prove it, but it seems plausible.

Maybe I can help ..

Here are the two competing translations often talked about - from pg 190 JCollins DT (pg 26 for German and Latin)

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

“The internal structure of the machine is of a nature according to the laws of mechanical perpetual motion, so arranged that certain disposed weights, once in rotation, gain force from their own swinging, and must continue this movement as long as their structure does not lose its position and arrangement. R Gould “Oddities” & PMAAMS?

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

"The internal structure of the wheel is designed in such a way that weights applied in accordance with the laws of Perpetual Motion, work, once a small impressed force has caused the commencement of movement, to perpetuate the said movement and cause the rotation to continue indefinitely" ...

... “Unlike all other automata, such as clocks or springs, or other hanging weights which require winding up, or whose duration depends on the chain which attaches them, these weights, on the contrary, are the essential parts, and constitute the perpetual motion itself; since from them is received the universal movement which they must exercise so long as they remain out of the centre of gravity; and when they come to be placed together, and so arranged one against another that they can never obtain equilibrium, or the function quietus which they unceasingly seek in their wonderfully speedy flight, one or other of them must apply its weight at right angles to the axis, which in its turn must also move.”

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

IMO .. A small impressed force (impetus/swing) is given AND the internal weights is set in motion/rotation - once in rotation their movement in and out from the center of rotation 'feeds back' and causes a sustainable motion/rotation condition in the wheel ..

Of 2 Parts ..

1. Any temporary OOB mechanism and design that has weights trading places in and out in the usual manner .. i.e. the cart .. of which there are many to choose from ..

2. The above action of trading places generates and sustains a small impetus/swing then given to the temporary OOB wheel format to transform it into a runner, or no longer remain a temporary OOB wheel .. the horse .. of which their is only one design ..

My Summary .. 2 parts to a runner - a swing/impetus generator, and an OOB arrangement, which when working together in a coordinated fashion perpetuate rotation i.e. make a self-sustaining runner which outputs Work ..

[preoccupied]

Fletcher would would your perception of the concept behind Bessler's clues look anything like this? I think that because the peacocks tails is long enough to neutralize the weight by the same length as the distance from the levers axle to the wheels axle plus the distance the weight is on lever from its axle that because the orange distances add up more than the blue distances that it would be overbalanced as long as the pendulum switches gears and stays in sync with the overbalanced wheel. So the pendulum is literally geared to the overbalanced wheel and switches gears when it changes direction to continue working with the wheel. I don't know how heavy I made the weights and obviously the pendulum doesn't need to be super heavy to flip the weight. I mean I guess the pendulum weight could be the same as the weights on the wheel. This is a rough draft.

[Sam Peppiatt]

preoccupied,
It's a good Idea! I know what will happen. If the pendulum kept swinging, the wheel would keep turning. However, as you must know, a pendulum will gradually slow down and stop swinging; then the wheel will stop---------------Sam

[preoccupied]

Thank you Sam Peppiatt

The impetus comes from the pendulum and it should lose the blue line and gain the orange line when it slows down. So it moves the same speed as the overbalanced wheel always. It moves the same angle but might go a little faster than the wheel at first as an impetus. I haven't seen a pendulum work in a long time so I am uncertain by the speeds. But guessing I think that because it has a shallow drop and is a longer pendulum that It will pendulum faster. Oh my what if it's the opposite? It is in fact the opposite i know now. While the pendulum might be slower than the overbalanced wheel I think it might still provide impetus and just lose the blue line and gain the orange line when it loses impetus. So it will always reach its point it dropped from if that's true, if the orange input energy which is going faster (I guess) restores its impetus. I mean i have this where the peacocks tail geared to the pendulum in an amount in the picture that should probably pull the weight into position half way through the pendulums swing so it has the remainder of its swing to regain impetus if it works that way. On the way down the pendulum adds power and on the way up it gains power maybe.

[WaltzCee]

. .. .. .
My Summary .. 2 parts to a runner - a swing/impetus generator, and an OOB arrangement, which when working together in a coordinated fashion perpetuate rotation i.e. make a self-sustaining runner which outputs Work ..

What do you make of the clue

• Which is the driver, which is the driven?

Isn't that a clue, Fletcher?

[Fletcher]

Fletcher would your perception of the concept behind Bessler's clues look anything like this?

Unfortunately not Jon .. but as always that is just my opinion ..

** The litmus test as I see it is that 'everything must go around together, and nothing hangs from the axle' (paraphrased) ..

Not an easy thing to visualize or solve ..

However it's a good start imo to realize that the temporary OOB subsystem is not unique, or just one design - and hence why the likes of MT's 44 and 48 can also be made into runners .. because the OOB components, or numbers of mechs, are just not that important or critical .. it is just an OOB subsystem to initiate further movement, part of a feedback loop ..

The real 'challenge' is to identify and find the mechanical method of "excitement" that does not use any familiar fuel or energy input, which is then outputted to maintain wheel rpm whilst meeting system frictional losses (including air drag) with enough energy "banked" and then replenished to do external Work, imo ..

We're all very good at building carts (Wagoners) - we don't need to further demonstrate or improve those skills imo ..

[Fletcher]

. .. .. .
My Summary .. 2 parts to a runner - a swing/impetus generator, and an OOB arrangement, which when working together in a coordinated fashion perpetuate rotation i.e. make a self-sustaining runner which outputs Work ..

What do you make of the clue

• Which is the driver, which is the driven?

Isn't that a clue, Fletcher?

The quote I believe is "the driver drives" ..

It comes from the AP Poem, in part reproduced below ..

"Let a Gartner be no breaker of fences, even if a Wagner leaves ruts in the road. For greed is an evil plant. An anvil receives many blows. A driver drives. A runner runs. The seer sees. The buyer buys. The rain drips down. Snow falls. The shotgun shoots. The bow twangs. A great fat herd of fat, lazy, plump horses wanders aimlessly. The flail would rather be with the thresher than with the scholar." etc etc etc etc yada yada yada ..

Bear-in-mind that imo most of what B. talks about in that passage is 'a' temporary OOB subsystem i.e. horseless carriages, of many and varied sorts .. iows, this is an avalanche of words and mental images designed to deflect and distract the probing inquiry .. see below ..

Those who are keen to ask questions should ask them of this little book. My work will not be revealed prematurely. Should anyone wish to speculate about the truth, let him just ponder on the rich pageantry of words which I now cause to shower down upon him!

[JUBAT]

If the weights trade places, then the driven becomes the driver and the driver becomes the driven, correct?

[WaltzCee]

.
.
maybe that circular (spherical?) parametric oscillation, Jubat.
.

.
you might have a point.