Long ago and far away

[graham]

Once upon a time long ago and far away there were two brothers ; the Spring Brothers.
No one remembers their first names so letÂ’s just call them Johnathan and Ken. Johnathan was the oldest and was about 12 years old , his younger brother Ken was about 10.

Johnathan was tall and athletic while Ken was stouter and more of a dreamer . Ken loved to eat tuna fish sandwiches of which he consumed far too many. Curiously they both weighed exactly the same in spite of the fact that Ken was two years younger.

Their father was concerned that Ken was not getting enough exercise and so he built the boys a treadmill . This was long ago and before the days of electric power and so this treadmill was just a very large version of a hamsters treadmill.Large indeed as it was a full 12 feet over.

The boys loved it and would run inside the wheel making it go faster and faster , when they stopped running the treadmill kept turning and they tumbled over and over , laughing merrily.

One day Ken was struck with the idea that he might be able to turn their treadmill into a giant gravity powered perpetual motion machine . Excitedly he told Jonathan of his plans but was told that he would be wasting his time .Let me show you little brother why it canÂ’t be done said Johnathan aloofly.

He ran to his fathers workshop and emerged with two large brass balls. His father had at one time experimented with static electricity and lightning and so like many other inventors never threw anything out.
These were big balls and must have weighed a good five pounds apiece. He gave one to Ken and kept the other .”You climb half way up one side of the wheel and I shall climb half way up the other side.”

Holding their balls tightly they climbed up till they were equally and oppositely opposed on the wheel.
Now watch this said Johnathan , and he raised his ball up and over his head. As he did this his side of the wheel descended a little. He then lowered his ball and his side rose back up to where it had been.
What you are seeing here is a demonstration of REACTION and because of this your attempts at perpetual motion will be futile scoffed Johnathan.

“But wait “ said Ken ,”I have an idea”.

He ran into his fathers workshop and came out carrying a box filled with rope and pulleys. “ Wait till you see this “ said Ken excitedly.

Here the story ends , sadly the last page of the book is missing and so we must write that page if we can.

Good Luck !!!

Graham

[rlortie]

Graham,

Here is an incentive to prove that the last page need not be lengthy to concluded your story. It is an example of what can be said in very few words.

Subject: The Ultimate Fairy Tale .....:)

Once upon a time, Long ago and far away. A girl asked a guy "Will you marry me?" The guy said, "No." And the girl lived happily ever after and went shopping, dancing, camping, drank martinis, always had a clean house, did not have to raise two boys with brass balls, never had to cook, and farted whenever she wanted.

The end.

[graham]

That's funny Ralph !!!

Graham

[ken_behrendt]

Graham...

For some strange reason I can identify with one of the characters in your interesting story!

Actually, I think the story makes a good point. It illustrates that the only way to a working PM gravity wheel will be by placing a set (most likely 8 in number) of independent weight shifting mechanisms into a drum. Then, each mechanism must be capable of shifting its isolated weight without relying upon contact with anything external to the shifting mechanism. Thus, each weight can not be connected to any of the other 7 weights or to any fixed surfaces external to the wheel. Each shifting mechanism must also be "orientation sensitive" so that it will "know" when to shift its weight at the right time so that the CG of all 8 weights will always remain on one side of the wheel's axle.

Newton's 3rd Law of Motion says that this is impossible...Bessler's 4th Law of Motion says it is possible!


ken

[graham]

Thankyou Ken for not being offended by my little fairy tale, I chose those names because I like what those guys do here. They make the boards more interesting.

Reaction rears its ugly head all the time and really has me wondering how the heck did JB get around it !!!

In Apologia he mentions weights and pulleys associated with a crossbar , so I thought that little Ken might help show us the way.

Graham

[/quote]

[ken_behrendt]

Graham writes:

In Apologia he mentions weights and pulleys associated with a crossbar , so I thought that little Ken might help show us the way.

Actually, I am not convinced that this reference in AP is describing anything inside of the wheel's drum! Rather, I believe it is a reference to an external pulley system that Bessler could attach to the wheel's external axle to lift weights.

Yes, CF is a major problem in practically every design I have tested. However, I'm exploring designs now in which the presence of an increasing CF during wheel rotation might actually enhance the weight shifting process...up to a certain maximum wheel rotation rate, that is.


ken

[michael_vanston]

Ken writes:

Actually, I am not convinced that this reference in AP is describing anything inside of the wheel's drum!

From Apologia Poetica pg 355 Copyright John Collins

If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in the machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself at all, but, on the contary, when I arrange several bars, pulleys and weights, the machine can revolve much faster....

This sounds like these items are in the machine not outside of it.

Michael

[graham]

I agree with Michael here, inside not outside.If JB is making an accurate statement it makes sense to explore this concept of weights and pulleys.
I don't think he mentions springs anywhere but that doesn't mean they were not used also.

For the time being I have given up on trying to design a complete wheel ,I'm playing around with pulleys, levers ,weights and springs looking for a way to tame reaction forces. So far all I can say is that it were not for the records of JB's success I would have given up long ago and possibly far away too.

Graham

[Stewart]

I'd be wary of taking that statement of Bessler's literally, as it's possibly just hypothetical.

See my post in the "Test Wheel Frame" topic where we discussed it last:

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... ght=#14662

I don't want to put you off exploring weight and pulley ideas but just to bear in mind that Bessler might not be giving anything away with that statement.

Stewart

[rlortie]

speaking of weights and springs, I just had the following link passed on to me. With Jim_mich and Ken in mind I now post it here.

I found that if you play around here, there is more to absorb than first seen on the surface.

http://www.planetenergy.com/

Ralph

[ken_behrendt]

Michael (Vanston) quotes Bessler as writing:

If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in the machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself at all, but, on the contary, when I arrange several bars, pulleys and weights, the machine can revolve much faster....

I agree that if one accepts this translation as accurate, then it certainly does sound like Bessler is describing some mechanism inside of his wheel's hollow drum part.

However, I think that there could have been a mistranslation of the German word for "in" here. In modern German, "auf" means "on" and "innen" means "in". Possibly, the German word being translated as "in" here was really intended by Bessler to mean "on".

The passage certainly indicated that the wheel speeds up when several pulleys are employed which tends to make me think that more pulleys would increase the mechanical advantage of the wheel and allow it to turn faster for a given load that it was lifting.

Even if, though, the passage is accurately translated, then there is also the possibility that it could have been a false clue that Bessler provided to make his fellow inventors look in the wrong direction in their efforts to duplicate his machine.

Also, one must ask oneself a basic question. Would a wheel filled with cross-bars, weights, pulleys, and ropes be one that was "very simple" and which a "carpenter's boy" could construct? Would it be one that would make an examiner of the wheel's interior wonder why no one else had previously thought of the idea? Would it be one that an examiner would immediately understand from a quick glance at the interior? Would such an internal mechanism make a potential buyer of the wheel feel like he had paid way too much money for its secret?

After reading the quoted passage from AP and asking myself these questions, I have come to the conclusion that this passage can not accurately describe the wheel's interior...


ken

[michael_vanston]

Stewart:

I suppose the statement of Bessler could be a hypothetical one. But if he did mean for us to take it literally we still do not have the exact arrangement so I don't believe Bessler is giving anything away by saying his device had pulleys, weights and cross-bars in it.

Ken:

If his statement was mistranslated and the pulleys are meant to be on the outside like you say. What about the additional weights and cross-bars that must also be 'outside' the wheel? How would these additional items outside the machine make the wheel go faster?

And as for the arrangement being simple and easy to duplicate, well I don't know what the exact arrangement is that Bessler is speaking of so I have no idea if a carpenter's boy can make it.

....

For me, I'm not working on a device that includes pulleys but I don't think one should exclude that possibility, especially since Bessler (the teacher) does make mention of them as being in the machine. Hypothetical or not one should really examine the possibility, even if it means going against a concept/design one is currently working on.

Michael

[ken_behrendt]

Michael (vanston)...

I guess I might be willing to go along with trying pulleys in a wheel design IF the design that used them was very simple in nature. Some of Bessler's Maschinen Tractate designs have more rigging in them then a five mast schooner!

The major problem I see with using pulleys in a design is that one then has to include ropes. The Kassel wheel ran continuously for weeks and completed millions of turns. That would be a lot of rope motion over any pulleys in the drum. I would be worried about a rope fraying and coming apart. Then the weight it controlled would be disabled and the motion of the wheel might cease.

Anyway, who knows...if my present design direction fails, then maybe I'll even be trying pulleys and ropes in the future. But, I would prefer not to have to go down that path at the moment.


ken

[jim_mich]

It is my understanding that Bessler WAS concerned somewhat about 'fraying and coming apart'. I think this is why the very long test was stopped in the middle and he checked for wear. Also he states something about how he built his machine in such a way that it could be repaired quickly.

Simplicity is relative. Compare a design to a complex machine such as a steam engine and it might seem simple. Compare a design to a very simple machine like a water wheel and it might seem complex. In looking at simplicity you should look at just one weight pair. If it has maybe five or less major components I would call is simple.

[MC]

Hiding behind wordsÂ…

It was stated somewhere that Bessler said that he was hiding behind words. I think this is true simply because he had to.

If you are answering other peopleÂ’s questions and do not want to give away any clues, then you have to stick with their terminology. You cannot correct them in their terminology without giving away clues.

Cross-bars probably meant anything but cross-barsÂ… (my guess)

MC – Just giving my best