Besslers prime mover and its enabler.

[Roxaway59]

Hi Robinhood46, I'm glad that we agree on that point.

Can I ask you and other forum members if this diagram seems reasonable?

Graham

[Fletcher]

I agree with fletch. I recall von Erlach and ‘sGravesand’s inspection of the Kassel wheel, “ When I turned it but gently, it always stood still as soon as I took my hand away. But when I gave it any tolerable degree of velocity, I was always obliged to stop it again by force; for when I let it go, it acquired in two or three turns its greatest velocity, after which it revolved at twenty-five or twenty-six
times a minute.”

To me the essential point is that the one-way wheel was permanently OOB and was so in any stopped position. The same applied to the two-way wheels but being permanently OOB for each direction, meant they were perfectly balanced in total when stationary. ‘sGravesand noted that a more effective push overcame any tendency to balance, bringing into action which ever direction was able override any balancing factor.

I’m certain that two such experienced gentlemen would have noted any tendency to prefer a COM at six o’clock.

Speculation: the center of gravity is not in my opinion at 6 o'clock.

The two wheels are unidirectional is self-propelled, they are balanced by the intermediation of a system type car safety belt.

The launch at good speed gives predominance to the thrown wheel and the other stops but is ready to start again.

Thanks fella's for your inputs ..

General 2 cents .. we here are all smart guys, with experience with 'overbalancing' wheels - if we are going to try to solve the mechanical runner enigma from the ground up we will need to be logical and analytical, and attempt to 'diagnose' how a one-way wheel worked ..

.. Follow the Evidence ..

To do that we need to avoid "projecting" and keep as close as possible to the evidence and facts as they are recorded - remembering that the witnesses, including Wagner, were experienced mechanics, and mathematicians etc, many with professional careers at stake, which could be derailed with an errant word or sloppy comment, or ill discipline in their reporting and comments, once the wheel was sold and public knowledge ..

We know that the one-way wheels ALWAYS had gravity torque in ANY position stopped at - this means the wheels CoM was to the right of the axle, and that once rotating the inner weights were able to shift position such that the system CoM followed a circular pattern wholly TO THE RIGHT of the axle ( did not cross the vertical at 6 o'cl into negative torque territory where they would have positions of zero into negative torque ) - otherwise there would not be instant positive torque from ANY position ! ..

As a brief aside .. if the one-ways were always instant positive torque wheels from any position stopped at, and we put 2 side-by-side on the same axle but designed to operate in opposite directions then all forces would cancel AT ALL TIMES i.e. be balanced in ANY position - this would be like having just a fly-wheel disk on the axle - which could be turned to any position and stop there with zero tendency to rotate in either direction - it would not have any positive or negative torque to rotate it towards 6 o'cl and its position of least PE because no PE is lost by its gentle rotation .. and I don't for a moment think that B. changed out his one-way PM principle back to the unworkable "overbalanced" wheel format that chases and finds 6 o'cl for a two-way .. so 2 one-ways would be balanced in ANY position, until given a sufficiently large push to create a torque bias ..

s'Gravesande recorded this about the two-way "When I turned it but gently, it always stood still as soon as I took my hand away - as soon as he took his hand away ( i.e. immediately ) it slowed down and then stood still - with their experience etc they would have recorded that it slowed and rocked a little before stopping ( or rotated backwards ) if that had been observed - he / they did not ! - as soon as !

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

Then we have Rupert Gould's erudite observations in "Oddities", including this ..

" Consider the case of the common letter-balance; not the “bent-lever” form, but the older kind like a pair of scales. On one side is a small pan for the weights — on the other a large flat plate for the letter to be weighed. It makes no difference whereabouts on that plate you lay the letter — it may be as close as possible to the fulcrum, or almost falling off at the far-side of the plate. The same weight in the pan will counterbalance it, wherever it is.

That is because the “parallel-bar” arrangement of the links of the balance compels one scale to sink exactly as far as the other rises. It is true that the centre of gravity of the combined weights may be to one side of the fulcrum; but owing to the link-motion its position remains unaltered by any tilting of the beam. There is, therefore, no reason for the latter to tip -

So it is with the “overbalancing wheel”. Even if its mechanism does what it sets out to do — even if it keeps all the weights on one side of the wheel farther from the centre than those on the other side — the wheel has no tendency to turn. Most of such wheels, however, are as defective in design as in theory; there is not one in a hundred which really keeps the preponderance of weight on one side of the centre throughout a complete revolution. "

B. said his wheels were runners because of his principle of excess-weight, or preponderance - as Gould describes it ( aka preponderance ) keeping to the right side throughout a complete revolution - as Karl described it, must rotate thru the principle of innate momentum ..

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

Graham .. to embed images in your post ( rather than as end attachments ) upload to Postimage and copy to a slot in your post ..

johannesbender wrote a detailed post about it a few months back ..

https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/view ... 56#p204056

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

[Robinhood46]

s'Gravesande recorded this about the two-way "When I turned it but gently, it always stood still as soon as I took my hand away - as soon as he took his hand away ( i.e. immediately ) it slowed down and then stood still - with their experience etc they would have recorded that it slowed and rocked a little before stopping ( or rotated backwards ) if that had been observed - he / they did not ! - as soon as !

Fletcher,
You make some good points, but something doesn't ring right here.
It stood still as soon as , and it slowed down and then stopped, do not both say it stopped immediately the hand was removed.
One says the wheel stopped immediately, the other that the slowing down started immediately.

One of my recurring concerns, with regard the statements, is the desire to consider the lack of something being said, or written, as proof it wasn't observed, or proof it didn't happen, or wasn't present. It is all part of the mechanisms we use to justify our theories, so we can make our wheel match the one the witnesses were witnessing.

Is our difficulty to agree on the signification of the witness statements, just part of our individual biases?
Or, is there too much ambiguity, because of the witnesses not being as clear and precise as we would have liked them to be?
Or translation errors, distortions?

Another question that might be worth some thought.
If the mechanism responsible for PM is completely independent of the wheel, and simply feeding it with weights, how would this affect our reasoning, with regard the observations?

How about;
The uni-directional wheel drops weights onto the wheel at 4 o'clock and the bi-directional drops weights onto the wheel at 4.30 (4.45) o'clock?

The uni-directional wheel has the next weight at 4 o'clock land on the wheel, before the previous weight has left the wheel at 6 and the bi-directional wheel has the weight at 6 leave the wheel, before the following weight lands on the wheel at 4.30?

The uni-directional wheel will always have a weight on it, irrespective of rotational speed or position, and the bi-directional wheel will only ever have one weight on it at a time, and the weight will only land on the wheel if the momentum is sufficient to put it there.

The uni-directional is pretty simply to grasp, i think.

The bi-directional is a bit more complicated, but not rocket science.
If a hand continually turns the wheel at a speed insufficient to cause the weight to leave the mechanism, and land on the wheel of it's own accord, the hand turning the wheel needs to supply the movement for the mechanism to release the weight. Once enough speed is reached, momentum is sufficient to cause the weight to leave the mechanism and land on the wheel.
Once the wheel is stopped, the direction the hand rotates the wheel determines which side of centre the drop off ramp is orientated.

This would obviously imply Graham's remarks, which i entirely agree with, to be complete nonsense, because there aren't any weights dancing about on the wheel, with a COG at x or y distance and position in relation to the axle.
Does it explain the observations with less ambiguity?
Don't forget, it was also, more or less, the only way we could achieve the observations of the acceleration of the wheel.

[Fletcher]

Hi RH .. the key to understanding the context of that statement is the word "gently" - i.e. hand turned a small distance with a small force, gaining a little velocity, a little momentum, attaining a low speed .. for instance he does not mean he hand turned the wheel with a little force ( gently ) but for a very long time and distance until it had a lot of speed, albeit gathered very slowly ..

If, after his gentle turning the wheel is moving only very slowly then the moment his hand was removed the wheel would have some small amount of CW rotational velocity, and momentum - to get to the "stood still" position without delay the wheel must not coast-on ambiguously but immediately begin to wash-off that small speed and come to a halt and just sit there without any further movements ..

Yes, we all know we have lots of obstacles to always translating or interpreting things with 100% accuracy - language differences, translators and ours prejudices and bias - the passage of 300 years - different cultural backgrounds, etc etc etc - but while that may be an obstacle most translations are not in isolation - they have context to check against - there are other translators and translations to check against - while nothing is guaranteed 100% balance of probabilities comes into play - for instance in DT B. wrote in Latin and Old German side by side - they can be compared and mostly line up well in overall meaning, with the odd discrepancy but nothing earth shattering ..

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

Yes, you present an easy idea to understand conceptually how a wheel could accelerate so quickly in just a few turns - like an overshot water wheel just drop an endless supply of rim weights ( spheres etc ) onto rim paddles or cups etc, and then let them fall out the bottom .. but this is only a conceptual comparison for visualization purposes and is mechanically flawed if taken literally as his working PM principle ( as you and I both know ) - however, in essence that is also what a one-way wheel that ALWAYS has a positive torque from any position also suggests - its CoM/CoG is circulating always to the right of the axle which would have the same effect as a waterwheel ..

Except his internal weights are the PM itself ( he writes enough about this ) - they are constantly recirculated and put back into a position to create the always positive torque characteristics of the one-ways ..

Here's a concept from 20-odd years ago ( not mine ) which also demonstrates what needs to happen with the recirculating weight distributions imo - the method of keeping them on this track is not shown - however many have tried unsuccessfully with MA etc and been dashed to bits against the rocks of despair and Height for Width, with internal ramps/slides/levers/wheels etc to no avail ..

At the same time it is abundantly clear that to have the quick acceleration, and start from any position with only positive torque, then drive-weights must be arranged positionally in some fashion similar to this - but were not restored to recirculate via any " normal means " ..

** The first step imo is to acknowledge that his one-ways were always in positive torque from any position - then visualize what that entails with weights in circulation .. then you are free-from-all-else but to speculate on his mechanical method of reset and restoration of system PE whilst doing external work .. **

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

[Robinhood46]

Hi RH .. the key to understanding the context of that statement is the word "gently" - i.e. hand turned a small distance with a small force, gaining a little velocity, a little momentum, attaining a low speed .. for instance he does not mean he hand turned the wheel with a little force ( gently ) but for a very long time and distance until it had a lot of speed, albeit gathered very slowly ..

This is all well and good Fletcher, but does his description not imply; had he applied a gentle force to the wheel without attaining sufficient velocity, for momentum to kick in and take over, the wheel would have turned indefinitely at the slow speed with a continuous gentle push?

I don't think it can be eliminated, but it can't be affirmed either.
Even if we could establish the distinction between the need to turn the wheel "gently" a certain distance, or the need to "gently" reach a certain velocity, would it be telling us anything useful?

[Roxaway59]

Fletcher wrote

What we do know is that in order for a wheel to 'express' torque ( a turning force ) its system CoM must be able to lose some vertical height i.e. lose some system GPE - if it can't do this ( like a Roberval or Ramalli Balance ), while to the eye it may positionally look unbalanced, it has no actual torque "potential/latency" .. if it has torque and then goes on to lose some GPE, then the system CoM will follow a roughly circular or ovoid shaped track to right of axle until it is again at its starting position ( the full reset ) - this means that the system GPE loss is followed by a system GPE gain ..

I am trying to catch up on the posts Fletcher so let me start by saying I appreciate these sort of posts because I do get a bit forgetful and they act as a reminder for me not to lose focus on what is important.

The only thing that worries me slightly is what if it was this very thing that Bessler found a get out clause for? So I know it might seem daft but I do have a tendency to question everything even though I witness the very same principal all the time.

For what its worth I don't think he could have because in order to use gravity something surely has to fall.

Graham

[Tarsier79]

Correct. Something has to fall. Bessler said specifically, his mechanism raised weights... Again that could mean a lot of things, but I take it as the prime mover lifted weights into OB, which in turn rotated the wheel.

[Roxaway59]

Hi Tarsier79, just as a follow up based on Fletchers post would you say this statement is true or would you modify it in some way.

Besslers Wheel :-

A wheel that amplifies GPE by constantly and precisely keeping weights out of the centre of gravity and having the ability to regulate its torque capability by automatically increasing its amplification of GPE as greater loads are placed upon it.

Graham

[Roxaway59]

The reason I ask is because the way the wheel behaved is crucial I think to understanding the mechanism.

If the statement is true then the positive feedback loop keeping the weights out of the centre of gravity in effect latched into position.

Once there it resisted slowing down by getting stronger when a load was placed on the wheel.

Graham

[Fletcher]

Hi RH .. the key to understanding the context of that statement is the word "gently" - i.e. hand turned a small distance with a small force, gaining a little velocity, a little momentum, attaining a low speed .. for instance he does not mean he hand turned the wheel with a little force ( gently ) but for a very long time and distance until it had a lot of speed, albeit gathered very slowly ..

This is all well and good Fletcher, but does his description not imply; had he applied a gentle force to the wheel without attaining sufficient velocity, for momentum to kick in and take over, the wheel would have turned indefinitely at the slow speed with a continuous gentle push?

I don't think it can be eliminated, but it can't be affirmed either. [ Personally I think it can be eliminated ! ]

Even if we could establish the distinction between the need to turn the wheel "gently" a certain distance, or the need to "gently" reach a certain velocity, would it be telling us anything useful? [ Personally I think it does tell us something useful ! ]

Hi .. a true fly-wheel, after the hand is removed following a low speed small duration push, would have some momentum and a tendency to "coast" from that impetus - it would continue to rotate until energy losses due to frictions ( bearings, air frictions etc ) robbed it of rotational energy and it came to a complete stop at a certain position i.e. the small speed it gained would wash-off slowly and then it would stop - there probably wouldn't be any tiny back-rotation but sometimes it does happen - because if axle bearings are used they can build up some internal heat and twisting forces which are then released causing a small back-rotation ( trifling - this is what my test wheel frame used to do after any push and coast ) ..

But this is not what happened in the Merseburg two-way wheel - it didn't coast along after a small impetus was given, as a true fly-wheel - as recorded, without any perceptible delay, it washed off its small speed and momentum gained and "stood still" - this tells us a few things - whether that information is either important or useful is debatable, but it does give further context - i.e. inside his wheels parts ( I'll call them lever-weights ) moved about - the process of moving things about has consequences - there are contacts and collisions ( including latching and one-way bearings for example ) and heat losses to frictions etc - this robs the wheel system of energy ( dissipative energy losses ) - this energy lost to internal movement must come from somewhere because the wheel was not pushed hard enough to start the process of rapidly gaining in speed, strength, and momentum - therefore the small amount of wheel momentum it did gain is sacrificed and bled off as dissipative energy losses - resulting in a wheel that quickly stopped ..

The takeaway is that it is not entirely like a well balanced fly-wheel, but can never-the-less stop in any position like a true fly-wheel - and if given enough starting impetus will accelerate away gaining in speed, strength, and momentum, whilst a true fly-wheel can't, imo ..

[Robinhood46]

Hi Fletcher,
I didn't mean the wheel would turn indefinitely if it was given a push and released, like a flywheel. I meant if, for example, the wheel needs 8 rpm for the momentum to be sufficient to overcome resistance and start accelerating, if he was to continually push the wheel gently at 6 rpm, it could be pushed indefinitely and it would never start accelerating?
What i think would have robbed it of rotational energy was the effort needed to cause the movement of the weights (could be considered the resetting). It would cost more energy than is available, all the time the rpm is below 8 rpm, if we keep the same example. So the observed slowing down and stopping would be the process of trying to reset.
If this is the case then the distance travelled is not the determining factor for the acceleration and velocity is.

If distance is the determining factor, not velocity, i would have thought it would have been noticed that X degrees of rotation was needed, regardless of how gentle or forceful the push needed to be.

This is why i can't see how to determine if velocity or distance was the determining factor. I would have thought velocity, but it is pure speculation in my opinion.

The takeaway is that it is not entirely like a well balanced fly-wheel, but can never-the-less stop in any position like a true fly-wheel - and if given enough starting impetus will accelerate away gaining in speed, strength, and momentum, whilst a true fly-wheel can't, imo ..

It looks like we agree that velocity is the determining factor, you are comparing it with a flywheel, i was comparing it with the same wheel, just not letting it reach operational speed.

I think i have made my thoughts clearer, but I'm not entirely sure. Lol.

[Fletcher]

I agree with you, with some small qualifications - average velocity is displacement divided by time - to my way of thinking it is entirely due to a threshold minimum acceleration given ( v = u + at ), and not anything to do with a distance covered per se in the push ( as you say, that would have been noted ) ..

And on balance of probabilities, because it didn't coast on thru like a true fly-wheel, this initiating a x t had to be short and sharp ( rather than long and slow ) causing something to move internally and latch/catch into a positional weight imbalance i.e. to generate surplus torque instigating wheel momentum gain - and as you say anything below that initial a x t threshold and it didn't latch or catch to generate the required torque, imo ..

[Fletcher]

Gotta help eh ;7)

https://newatlas.com/materials/superlub ... -machines/

[Robinhood46]

Even if we could establish the distinction between the need to turn the wheel "gently" a certain distance, or the need to "gently" reach a certain velocity, would it be telling us anything useful?

That is the bit I'm hoping you still disagree.
What is it telling us, if we were to know for sure, that velocity is the determining factor not distance?

Is it not possible that whatever the mechanism, it just wouldn't run on it's own steam until a certain speed?

We need some lube that not only reduces friction, but manages to cause it to go negative.

[Fletcher]

He's only telling us that it 'ran on its own steam' with the opposite of gentle - i.e. stronger, more aggressive, vigorous ( witness .. a light two finger push ) - nothing about velocity or distance per se, imo ..