Besslers prime mover and its enabler.

[JUBAT]

Thank you for the reminder about Bessler and his organ craft. It prompted me to search for and subsequently purchase a first edition book from 1913 by William Horatio Cooke called Standard Organ Building.

There is a specific term mentioned in that book that I've not seen in other organ building books and I'm curious to see what the accompanying illustration is. I couldn't find a complete pdf online, but even if there exists one, I love having first editions of oddball books to add to the collection.

A reprint of the same book in leather is available on ebay at the moment for between 30 and 40 bucks. I don't trust reprints because modifications can be made that affects the muse of the original read or edits that serve the whim and fancy of the editor.

I'm in full agreement that Bessler's time spent at organ craft helped him build the wheel. I don't think it would have given him any ideas on how the wheel was built, but once he knew what mechanism was required he then instantly would have known how to build it.

[gravitationallychallenged]

[/quote] Wouldn’t he have included? in his wheel one or more pneumatic blowing systems to lighten the lifting weights?or to accelerate the fall.
I know it’s a twisted idea, but I have to share it.
[/quote]

I've also thought of using pneumatics but came to the conclusion that air compresses and there are frictional losses. Hydraulics have even greater frictional losses. Chains or cables are the most efficient. I'm a motorcycle enthusiast and the fastest sportbikes use drive chains to obtain the most efficiency. Cogged polymer drive belts are also used but are a little less efficient. Bessler said he used pulleys, pulls and crossbars. He didn't say whether he used chains or ropes. He didn't mention bellows or other air actuated devices.

[Roxaway59]

Hi Shadow, I think it is good to speculate about these other possibilities and I do the same thing myself from time to time. Some of my ideas are best left unmentioned -). I've tried to find information about organ building and components used from that era but the internet seems to be getting worse as a source of information these days.

I think its fair to say that if any kind of pressurized air was used it would have been audible to onlookers and it would add to the complexity of the machine to a large degree.

I sometimes think about the wheel in terms of wave forms. The sine wave being the most common. In a full wave bridge rectifier the the sine wave is altered so that the negative half becomes positive usually and you have a series of positive pulses. Imagine the weight distribution on the wheel like a sign wave with the negative half on the left and the positive half on the right. The positive half is higher in amplitude than the left half. In terms of leverage forces I think each weight on the wheel would make this kind of wave form as it went round.
Graham

[Roxaway59]

If we think of Besslers last wheels being like his first ones but modified to only have the overbalance structure come into play when the wheel is moving then maybe we can think of them like this.
Graham

[Roxaway59]

So we simulate a 12 foot wheel like this in WM2D along with the correct weights and the load the wheel had. Here the wheel would have less power.
Graham

[Roxaway59]

Something like this should give it more.
Graham

[Roxaway59]

I realise that there will be people who think that trying to get an impression of where the weights were situated on Besslers wheel is a pointless exercise. I don’t think it is pointless but I do think its in danger of telling us very little. Even a little is better than nothing in my book though.

For what its worth I think it has helped me personally because I have often wondered if it possible to glean little bits of information from the known facts. So for anyone interested here is a picture of where I think the weights may have been positioned. The simulation is just a simple over balancing arrangement and if you look closely at the axle you will see a red dot which is a 50kg load representing the rope. The weights are about 1.8kg.

I’m thinking of a number of things here. I am thinking that the wheel was driven by gravity and so however the weights are moved they end up in a position where they lever the wheel constantly and also I am thinking is in terms of extremes.

If the weights on the left are very close to the axle then of course it has a lot more leverage to lift the weights. If it has more leverage to lift the weights then I believe Bessler would have demonstrated that by having it lift a heavier load, after all he was trying to impress people with what his machine could do. Having the weights closer to the axle tells us a lot about what his mechanism would have to do because this is not a small movement.

If on the other hand the weights on the left were closer to the rim giving the wheel less leverage then it would not have had the ability to lift the load it was said to have lifted without gearing down to the point of the machine being very slow at lifting which wouldn’t have been very impressive to onlookers. The mechanism for this could potentially be a lot simpler only moving the weights a small distance.

If you go in between these two you end up with something like the picture shown. There’s about a 50cm difference to where the opposing weights are situated. The mechanism that moves them doesn’t have to do anything too drastic. As the saying goes, everything in moderation. In nature the middle well balanced place is usually best.

Of course Bessler did not have to over balance his wheel in this way but I have picked this one because it raises some important questions about the things that Bessler said that keep on bugging me. Bessler said he could control the power to a fine degree and that he could give a smaller wheel more power. As far as I can tell that is not possible when looking at this simple lever arrangement.

I think some of you may have known where I was going with this right from the outset but I will state it here just to be clear. I am trying to show that its more likely that Besslers wheel worked on the idea I have been showing on this thread. The weights don’t have to move a great deal and it gives more options for increasing or decreasing the power.

Anyway I know that this kind of reasoning may seem pointless to some of you but I think it does have its uses.
Graham

[Roxaway59]

Here is another different approach to the mechanism on my wheel. This time the yellow main weight is not fixed to the lever so it moves in a less linear way. The weights are laid out differently on the wheel but it still creates an inverted pendulum. You can try the mechanisms and the wheel out by removing the red fixates on them. To me it seems to work better but it needs to be checked out properly and I cant build this in WM2D because its difficult to build the round parts in my version.
Graham

[preoccupied]

Roxaway59 I feel like I inspired you. Do you agree? We all take a little inspiration from the ideas we read on the forum. I think you're version is a better version of my ramp potentially. It's a better ramp. I like it!

https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/view ... 93#p205693

EDIT maybe I spot too soon I don't know if your version would swing when it's over the top like mine does. I thought by looking at it at first that it would. I guess not.

[Roxaway59]

Hi preoccupied I am always inspired by others on the forum and I always have a think about ideas that people present to see if I can use it. The ramp idea that I put on my mechanism is an old idea that I was trying to use on another wheel that I put on the back burner. I was using them in an attempt to keep the levering weights close to the axle. It seemed to work pretty good but there were other issues.
Graham

[Tarsier79]

Hi R.

Please take the following in the spirit of my intentions: A purely logical

I realise that there will be people who think that trying to get an impression of where the weights were situated on Besslers wheel is a pointless exercise. I don’t think it is pointless but I do think its in danger of telling us very little. Even a little is better than nothing in my book though.

That would be good if it even gave you one molecule of information. I have followed this train of thought before. There are clues in Besslers words and demonstrations, but they still tell us nothing as an absolute, and even may lead us down the garden path. I feel the weight distribution in B's wheels may or may not be as you have described, just as they may or may not be in any other part of the wheel, or not rotating directly with the wheel.

Without a start point, the options are infinite and I have not seen anything to absolutely narrow anything down at all.

If you go in between these two you end up with something like the picture shown. There’s about a 50cm difference to where the opposing weights are situated. The mechanism that moves them doesn’t have to do anything too drastic. As the saying goes, everything in moderation. In nature the middle well balanced place is usually best.

I do understand what logic leads you to your thoughts on this...
I am sure you know that without a "prime mover" weights arranged like this will lift no weight a distance of nothing (unless like you have simmed, you let them "keel". (There's an term for the old guard).

Of course Bessler did not have to over balance his wheel in this way but I have picked this one because it raises some important questions...

Agreed, and yes it does. However, he could have overbalanced his wheel exactly like this, with the addition of his prime mover.... Again we glean nothing except that there are more questions.

There are a few different trains of thought on how Besslers wheel worked. My belief (and I know this is not fact) is that Bessler used gravity only as a power converter, not as an "energy source"....GTG

Cheers

Kaine.

[Roxaway59]

Hi Tarsier79, I do take what you have said in the spirit it is intended. We are all just after answers at the end of the day. My post was partly intended to encourage debate and stir things up a little. That being said there are some things that I feel and very often I trust my feelings when there is nothing else to go on.

One thing I think a great deal about is the nature of the prime mover. The feeling that I have is that it must do in part what we want the entire wheel to do. For example if I could find a way of lifting the main weight on my mechanism without having the lever weight too large or hanging too far down then my wheel would work because the inverted pendulum would be there. The inverted pendulum on the wheel though does not in itself exist however. It only exists in the mechanism and then is transferred onto the wheel as a consequence of the two mechanisms working together.

So what special quality is it that we need from a mechanism that has the ability to play with gravity? I would suggest we look for it in ordinary things. Its right there in front of us in things we see and do on a daily basis.

Lets take this business of balance. If I take an axe and begin chopping a tree down and I do it by chopping all around it I really have no idea which way its going to fall. It reaches a point where very little is needed to make it fall one way or the other. A slight wind here might make it fall one way and a bug crawling out on one of the branches might make it fall in another direction. It takes very little energy to decide which way this potential energy is going to go.

Imagine now that most of the weight is at the bottom of the tree. At the top of the tree is a lot of crows all evenly spread out. Every time the tree begins to fall in one direction the crows on that side move 90 degrees further round levering the tree and the weight more in that direction. So the tree with its heavy potential energy is continually moving in a circle never falling but with the potential energy constantly seeking rest down an endless incline that is being created by very little effort.

In effect what those birds are doing is playing with gravity. If you get the balance and leverage energy just right then you can keep the motion going.

No doubt though if you crunch the numbers there is no point in feeding part of that kinetic energy back up to the top of the tree to help lever itself.

This type of approach has not only been done twice before by inventors that will be know to the forum but the same idea is used by people in their day to day lives. A lot of people when moving a flag stone will not try to lift it directly but will balance it on its edge then they shift the weight to one corner at a time and walk it to where it needs to go. When we walk we balance on one foot then use gravity to fall slightly forward and then place the other foot down and then balance on that foot.

Nature is telling us something. It is saying balance is important, falling / shifting in a controlled manner is important. Part of that control is to do with the natural frequency of the machine and the weights involved will affect that natural frequency as will the size of the structure.

Besslers machine definitely seemed to have some kind of natural frequency that was disrupted slightly by being loaded.

I think its good to ask the right questions in pursuit of Besslers special principal. So is it possible to take this idea of a weight that is permanently moving down a slope or circular path and attach it to a wheel where it constantly helps to overbalance the wheel which in turn ensures that it can never reach equilibrium?
Graham

[agor95]

If you reduce the clues Bessler left then you end up with a simple path.

Have the mass of the right further out than the left. Thus lifting the left mass up.
As the right mass reach the bottom move it into the inner position.
While the top inner position mass moves out towards the outer position.

These movements use the power of their swing.

Regards

[Tarsier79]

But, your simple path doesn't lead to PM. What you thought were clues were put there to confuse anyone who reads it. Your logic fools you, like it has done to centuries of PM enthusiasts.

A weight doesn't necessarily need to be further out one side to fall, because if that side falls, we all know it won't lift the other weight up far enough. In fact, to have leftover energy, it would be best to lift the weight that is further out.

[preoccupied]

But, your simple path doesn't lead to PM. What you thought were clues were put there to confuse anyone who reads it. Your logic fools you, like it has done to centuries of PM enthusiasts.

A weight doesn't necessarily need to be further out one side to fall, because if that side falls, we all know it won't lift the other weight up far enough. In fact, to have leftover energy, it would be best to lift the weight that is further out.

You said to lift the weight that is further out. I think what you have always suggested is to lift the weight that is further up like I did in my design with the circle ramp and the top left corner holding the weight to be lifted CCW and do a full 180 swing. 180 swing is a full turn because the other weight rolls in a circle so no counter torque to reload point. You realize that I solved Bessler's wheel publicly here and that I have other designs that are more dangerous that obviously apply to something else than harnessing gravity. I also made a lemon battery that can basically power a city before, an enhanced DC Battery, but I gave it to a girl in 2004 that became a country music singer and I was later assaulted by my older brother and forgot the details of it.

I want my credentials back then I wouldn't look like such a fool with brain damage. I think that I got doctorate degrees from Columbia University when I was kindergarten age but in genetics and medicine and law and not math or physics, but my adopting mother insists she is my real mother and apparently doesn't know about it because she came into my life more around 3rd or 4th grade. That is my predicament on that. I'm also out of contact with my savings a large bank that just holds my own savings only and investments.