Besslers prime mover and its enabler.

[daxwc]

So, in the case of the 12-foot wheel (with a diameter of 12 feet) and a 0.5-foot axle (with a diameter of 0.5 feet), the ratio of their diameters is 24 to 1, which exceeds the desired 4 to 1 ratio.

Wolff is surrounded by mechanics and the court mechanic he isn’t going to get this wrong.

[Robinhood46]

You are right.
If the figures you use, are the dimensions of the wheel and the axle/pulley with the rope wrapped around it, there is no way anyone would confuse that with a 5 to 1 ratio.
Therefore, there must have been something additional that was responsible for giving the 5 to 1 ratio. That not only isn't in the drawing, it isn't in the writings either.
If we add the 5 to 1 ratio to the 24 to 1 ratio of the wheel to pulley, we end up with 0.5 lb of force needed to raise the 60 lb box of bricks, if I'm not mistaken.
Did we not have a rough indication of the time it took to raise the box, and the height it was raised, or are we only speculating about these factors?

[daxwc]

Robinhood46 : Therefore, there must have been something additional that was responsible for giving the 5 to 1 ratio. That not only isn't in the drawing, it isn't in the writings either.

It is in the writings. Wolf clearly states 4 to 1 and a reduction pulley which could be translated slightly wrong but was meant block and tackle; "Flaschenzug" or "Takelage." We would have to find the letter.

Bessler doesn’t want it in his drawings for obvious reasons.

Wagner never writes about it because he never seen any of the tests.

[Robinhood46]

Do you have the original text in German?

[preoccupied]

https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/view ... 21#p207421

If you think about it like I have, a spring does not have to participate at the same boundaries as a lever or pulley system but a lever or pulley system can grind into itself at a MA from manipulating different gear sizes which would prevent the expansion of a lever that could be used for torque but because it is a spring it doesn't need the lever to have power, the spring can use the MA in its unique shape and the spring is used to help in movement in the same direction everything is moving making it stronger. So in my an analysis if the second pulley's gear has a small gear attached to it is a quarter of its size (I will work on a picture later, I think, of it) then it will have 4x MA and then that MA is reduced by half when it connects to the wheel at 2:1 gear ratio. This will reduce the effort of a fixed impulse force at full efficiency with the spring by half because the spring will add the same amount of force as the impulse force. Or you could say at full impulse force it doubles the torque by use of the spring. Or maybe I have the exact math wrong. I guess it depends on the spring type. It should at least apply force equal to the wheel's input force at a shorter lever against the wheel by the spring. What is happening essentially you are dividing the springs lever that it applies to and the input force of the levers causing a spring to exist at a smaller gear range further out in position than the wheel equal to the input force allowing the spring to pull the wheel more than it normally would. So it wouldn't double the torque of the wheel it would double the input force torque at the position on the wheel that the spring can touch which would be 1/8th times 2 is 1/4th bonus to input force by the spring. 1/8th comes from the wheel size going a quarter of itself on the second pulley and then doing a 2:1 ratio to make the spring faster than the wheel. It's times 2 because it quarters which is 4x and then doubles speed which is /2, for x2. Anybody following my logic? At maximum efficiency the torque of the wheel can be 1.25x input force with the help of a spring like this.

[preoccupied]

Same calculation that I mentioned. First pulley unravels into second pulley. Second pulley gear gear ratios into first pulley gear which would grind into it at the gear ratio but it just pulls a spring, the spring in this calculation is 1.25x so at maximum efficiency it will be 1.25x per 1 input energy. Like I said in the previous post that it has 4x smaller gear on the second pulley to create a 4x lever, that then connects to the first pulley gear at 2:1 ratio. That halves its power to 2x. The gear size is 1/8th the pulley gear times 2x, is 1/4th power added by a spring pulled by this set up. That's the 1.25x power that I originally stated. It has 25% over unity.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Wollfe was a critic, little different than the critics that we have today. I doubt that he meant any thing too specific, it was just a way to dump on it. In other words, he was saying that the f'en thing was really slow and, the piece of "stuff" could only lift 60 pounds, (at the present time), when others claimed the box of bricks weighted 100 lbs. or a hundredth weight.

Exactly what his motives were for it, I don't know but, then I'll never understand critics. John Collins suggested that Wollfe, if he could get a hold of it, he could claim the inventing of it and then the say how great it was. Wollfe was a snake. The Russians would write to him, then he would wait a whole year before answering there letter------------Sam

ETA The King almost had him beheaded, too bad it didn't happen.

[johannesbender]

(Speaking in general) To be honest imo , what does any of it really matter , imo it could have been reduced up to 50 times and i still would not care , the important fact for me is the thing actually worked a load , whether it was a heavy load or not anything that works a load under its own power (even spring powered) should eventually run out of steam (according to science) , if it ran on its own power non stop its still a feat no one has witnessed since.

So if wolff was honest or not , i personally could not care less .

All that matters is that the thing worked imo , and thats also what would be important for me if someone creates anything close to that today .

[preoccupied]

(Speaking in general) To be honest imo , what does any of it really matter , imo it could have been reduced up to 50 times and i still would not care , the important fact for me is the thing actually worked a load , whether it was a heavy load or not anything that works a load under its own power (even spring powered) should eventually run out of steam (according to science) , if it ran on its own power non stop its still a feat no one has witnessed since.

So if wolff was honest or not , i personally could not care less .

All that matters is that the thing worked imo , and thats also what would be important for me if someone creates anything close to that today .

Did somebody say "(even spring powered)"?

In this design my gears try to compress a spring faster than the gears are moving there by allowing the springs to be used twice to lift weights.

[SHADOW]

Bonjour Préoccupé,
Orientez vous vers le système de remontage automatique des montres cela sera plus simple!

Comment fonctionne un mouvement automatique ?
Lorsque le porteur bouge, le rotor, qui est une pièce en forme de disque située à l'intérieur de la montre, se met à tourner sur lui-même grâce à l'énergie cinétique produite par les mouvements du porteur.
Le rotor est relié à un mécanisme de remontage automatique qui utilise l'énergie produite par le rotor pour remonter le mécanisme de la montre.
Le mécanisme de remontage automatique est composé d'un engrenage et d'un ressort qui s'enroule et se détend en fonction de l'énergie produite par le rotor.
Lorsque le mécanisme de remontage automatique est remonté, il libère l'énergie stockée dans le ressort, qui permet de faire avancer les aiguilles de la montre.
Le processus se répète constamment, ce qui permet de maintenir la montre à l'heure en tout temps sans avoir à remonter manuellement le mécanisme.
En résumé, le mouvement automatique utilise l'énergie produite par les mouvements du porteur pour remonter automatiquement le mécanisme de la montre et maintenir l'heure en tout temps.

Hello Concerned,
Orient yourself to the automatic winding system of the watches it will be simpler!

How does an automatic movement work?
When the wearer moves, the rotor, which is a disc-shaped part inside the watch, starts to rotate on itself thanks to the kinetic energy produced by the wearer’s movements.
The rotor is connected to an automatic winding mechanism that uses the energy produced by the rotor to reassemble the watch mechanism.
The automatic winding mechanism consists of a gear and a spring that winds and relaxes according to the energy produced by the rotor.
When the automatic winding mechanism is reassembled, it releases the energy stored in the spring, which allows the watch hands to move forward.
The process is constantly repeated, which allows the watch to be kept on time at all times without having to manually reassemble the mechanism.
In summary, the automatic movement uses the energy produced by the movements of the wearer to automatically reassemble the mechanism of the watch and maintain the time at any time.years the descent.

[agor95]

Bonjour

In summary, the automatic movement uses the energy produced by the movements of the wearer to automatically reassemble the mechanism of the watch and maintain the time at any time.years the descent.

It is good to see the internal components of a self winding pocket watch.

In a way the mass tries to stay motionless while the frame [components] actively moves resulting in the winding process.

P.S. I would be surprised to see it reassemble into it's pocket watch case.

[SHADOW]

Design

[SHADOW]

Dessin 54 : Schéma cinétique de la montre avec remontée automatique du ressort et calendrier Vostok 2416 :

1. levier de changement d'heure
2. roue de remontoir
3. cliquet
4. barillet
5. roue du barillet
6. roue de centre avec pignon
7. "secteur à inertie" (?) : machin qui tourne et remonte la montre
8. support su secteur à inertie
9. pignon de seconde au centre
10. "transmission de revers" (?) : je pense que c'est le truc qui permet de faire tourner la remontée du ressort dans le bon sens même quand le secteur à inertie tourne à l'envers (certaines montres se remontent uniquement quand le machin lourd tourne dans un sens, d'autres acceptent les 2 mouvements du bras ou de l'armoire à montre)
11. première roue de remontée
12. deuxième roue de remontée
13. roue du barillet
14. roue intermédiaire
15. roue de seconde
16. balancier
17. ancre
18. roue d'échappement
19. roue de calendrier
20. ?? visiblement ça sert à empêcher de tourner dans le mauvais sens, une sorte de cliquet, le terme russe met "petit poing"
21. ressort du "petit poing" précédent
22. roue de calendrier avec pignon
23. roue de moyenne (?), en russe roue d'heure
24. disque de calendrier
25. roue de change (?), ou c'est peut-être ça, la roue de moyenne
26. fixateur du disque de calendrier
27. ressort du fixateur
28. roue de changement d'heure
29. levier de remontée
30. transmission à poing (?)
31. pignon de remontoir
32. tige de remontoir

Drawing 54: Watch kinetic diagram with automatic spring lift and Vostok 2416 calendar:

1. time change lever
2. winder wheel
3. ratchet
4. barrel
5. barrel wheel
6. centre wheel with pinion
7. "inertial sector" (?): watch turning and winding machine
8. inertial sector support
9. center second gear
10. "backhand transmission" (?): I think this is the trick that makes it possible to turn the spring up in the right direction even when the inertia sector turns upside down (some watches only go up when the heavy thing turns in one direction, others accept the 2 movements of the arm or the watch cabinet)
11. first lift wheel
12. second lift wheel
13. barrel wheel
14. intermediate wheel
15. second wheel
16. pendulum
17. anchor
18. exhaust wheel
19. calendar wheel
20. ?? Obviously it serves to prevent turning in the wrong direction, a kind of ratchet, the Russian term puts "small fist"
21. spring of the previous "little fist"
22. calendar wheel with pinion
23. medium wheel (?), in Russian hour wheel
24. calendar disk
25. exchange wheel (?), or maybe that’s the average wheel
26. calendar disc fixer
27. fastener spring
28. time change wheel
29. lifting lever
30. hand transmission (?)
31. winder sprocket
32. winding rod

[johannesbender]

Shadow , i know i have in the "bessler fraud" thread mentioned that perhaps winding was done like automatic winding clocks with a heavy mass "pendulum" like mt13 (for purposes of trying to think of a manner of fraud) and the hanging mass "pendulum" could wind if the wheel was rolled (which i am sure did not happen because i think rolling would have been mentioned) .

The thing is such a mass should move to wind a spring .

[preoccupied]

I created a timing mechanism that allows me to split MA between two wheels moving at the same speed (I THINK). So basically I think you can cause it to try to lift the same amount of weights up and down but one wheel will always lift and the other wheel will always fall with the help of a weighted lever with like a T shape that allows the lever to tilt between two ropes in which the weight is hanging in the center of the lever. The two wheels should continue to allow one to lift and one to fall with the same amount of weights on it as long as the weighted lever continues to fall. To lengthen this process I suggested making a gear train in which the weights being lifted and falling move faster in compared to the weighted lever that allows this whole process to happen. With a long enough gear ratio the process could last a long time. And the strength of the wheels should be the difference in MA set by the gear ratio that splits them. So in this gear ratio I made it would be about 2x power but at all times the whole power input would be based on the Tilted lever as if the tilted lever is lifting everything. Or something like that. Basically a new concept. I would be basically holding gravity in place by gear ratios and forcing it to work longer. Or I can't explain why this would work except by mechanical concepts without better understanding of the physics involved to be discovered later.

Sincerely, Jon Perry