bolt to restrict rpm

[Fletcher]

.. doubling for more power density ?

From John Collins MT ..

No. 11 This figure is doubled, as one can see, and the form does not involve much, but there is more in it than meets the eye, as will be seen when I pull back the curtain and disclose the correct principle at the appropriate place, as mentioned previously.

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

[gravitationallychallenged]

.. doubling for more power density ?

A pair of weights balanced against each other is how Bessler described his mechanism. MT 11 could be arranged so that each inside weight would balance against its corresponding outside weight.

A heavy prime mover weight, located closer to the axle, can lift a lighter slave weight, located closer to the rim, very quickly. An inside circle of weights, arranged similar to MT 11 would occupy less space and would be closer to the axle if the levers were arranged to swing parallel with the axle. The heavier levers would have to be short enough to fit inside the width of the wheel and could be made of lead. They would hinge on brackets positioned radially around the axle and could have bolts securing them. Each inside lead lever would be connected, by a cable or a rod to an outside weighted lever so that they would work in pairs. Perhaps that's why Bessler wouldn't let anyone touch the end of his weights, because one end had a hole in it. It might also explain the knocking noise as each prime mover weight fell against the side on the bottom side of the wheel.

The inside weights would move the outside weights upwards towards the axle on the bottom side of the wheel and upwards towards the rim on the top side of the wheel. Bessler said that his wheel avoided lower tendencies. This arrangement would create a perpetual overbalance. The question is, would the overbalance have enough of a mechanical advantage to rotate the wheel and cause the inside levers to continually rise and fall near the axle? If so, the larger the diameter of the wheel would be the larger the mechanical advantage would be.

I can draw up a diagram of the arrangement, scan and post it if anyone would be interested.

[SHADOW]

Bonjour Gravitationallychallenged,
Nous sommes preneur de votre croquis définissant votre idée!

Hello Gravitationallychallenged,
We are grabber of your sketch defining your idea!

[gravitationallychallenged]

Bonjour Shadow, Ce serait un plaisir de créer un diagramme de mon concept et de le poster ici. J'espère que ce sera d'une certaine utilité.

Hello Shadow, It would be a pleasure to create a diagram of my concept and post it here. I hope it will be of some use.

[andyblues]

Hi all , my point in the bolt to restrict rpm is how can it do it ?in my mind at this moment in time says if a bolt is tightened to control rpm not instantly stop it but control it as is stated then that would mean that a bolt touches another face and slows and controls it now the problem is as said that systems get in the way however if the wheel worked by two opposite moving faces then one side will have a fixed system that the bolt can protrude through and create pressure to control rpm ,another clue which has this in its favour is the weights constantly exchanged positions this my design does as well exchanging at 1 and 7 as bessler said at the end of his clues to questions 1717 these weights can be caused to exchange there positions but do gain a keel after being lifted 22.5 degrees falling what has been lifted with quite some force ,know to gain the remaining 22,5 there needs to be another system that creates that lift in my mind that is the 1/4 lifting a lb falling on the out side of the wheel and interacting between the two faces causing the 1/4 to leaver between the two faces taking one up and the other down , this is kind of earthing the system ,now i don't claim i have it all solved but that bolt to control rpm has led me on this path and even if the bolt was placed in the axle and the bushing around the axle was to hold this opposite plate in place the bolt would still be controlling rpm by creating friction between the two faces , now i am realizing that grabbing hold of a bolt to do this job will be well tricky if it is a bolt mounted vertically into the axis very tricky in deed placing it in the front face is equally tricky placing it in to the axis and tension will give the pressure that is needed to slow it and control it .
So my point is if bessler had a control bolt which he did then the design has to go in opposite directions in order for that to work making this clue critically important to understand all the best ladies and gentlemen please give your feed back

[Robinhood46]

then that would mean that a bolt touches another face and slows and controls

Why would it "mean" that Andyblues?
Why wouldn't it be regulating, controlling slowing the wheel by doing something else?
What about;
The bolt reduces the swing of a pendulum?
The bolt modifies the displacement of the weights?
The bolt adjusts the position of the pivot point of a weighted arm?
The bolt modifies the angle of the weight's housing?
The bolt adjust the timing of the releasing of the weights?
I think with a bit of imagination, and a bit more than thirty seconds, we could find a lot more possibilities as to how adjusting bolts could have a governing effect.

I certainly wouldn't consider the bolts scratching rubbing or however you imagine they "touch" the other surface, as a serious candidate. This doesn't rule out categorically that option, just, in my opinion, very unlikely.

[MrTim]

I'd just ignore the bolt issue entirely, because, besides the confusion, what use is it? As regards to it's relationship to the interior mechanism(s), it's irrelevant. And if/when you get something running, there are other, more efficient speed governors that can be used... ;-)

[Tarsier79]

Mr Tim. I think the whole point, is that he believed it was a clue to the PM Mechanism... I dont see it. Ialways thought it was a bolt on the mounting frame that created friction against the axle.

[andyblues]

Yes you are right mr tim the bolt could do all these things but if the wheel was a two directional machine that did not rely on being out of balance which my system does then this bolt would be the simple solution to rpm control, what i have done is found a system that is controllable with a bolt which might narrow down our approach to solving the problem ? Tarcier you may very well be right and the bolt did mount from the frame to axle in which case i am barking down the wrong street as they say , time will tell, what i have is very simple and relies on exchange of weights to drive nothing else comes any where near the amount of force that can be created by working the wheel this way but as with every positive the comes a negative ,which i think i can account for, but as with every attempt you never really know until you have built it , thanks for your thoughts they do help keep em coming if any one has another reason why it is not the case tar Andy ps Tarcier i keep thinking i have to go to the library for you i have not forgotten

[Robinhood46]

Are we really contemplating the idea that a bolt was rubbing against something, for over fifty days, non stop 24 hours every day?
If you put the handbrake of a car on a tiny fraction, so as to cause a little resistance to "regulate the movement of the car", stop it from rolling down the hill at astronomical speeds, due to the effect gravity has on it's mass, you will notice that the car will not be slowed down (regulated) for over fifty days. The two surfaces, one of which is a material designed specifically for this purpose, will rapidly need more pressure to continue having the desired effect of slowing the car.
The bolt(s) being used to hold the wheel stationary, is perfectly plausible, but the idea that the winding in and out of the bolts, to regulate the rotational speed, by this method sounds pretty preposterous to me.
Obviously this is only my opinion, and as many of us often point out, we will not know what he did or didn't do, until we manage to have a runner. Even if we do manage to find the solution to PM, it doesn't mean we have found exactly the method he used to achieved it. We certainly wont be able to know all the specific details of every part of the mechanisms involved, but i find it extremely unlikely that a bolt rubbing against something was the method he used for regulating the wheel.

[andyblues]

Thanks Robinhood just to answer your point a hand brake when not in contact is not in contact as you know it creates friction to stop so what if besslers bolt did just that and when in contact regulated the machine and when unscrewed enough allowed both systems to run freely its only a couple of mm and its free it makes sense, and there are many clues that fit my approach that other designs come now where near the best clue match is when a 1/4 can lift a lb but hey it does not matter what anyone says i believe i am right which you have to do even if your wrong other wise finishing a design is hell ,thinking a little more bessler said or some one that the bolt stopped the machine so may be because it was his first working wheel that he wanted to stop it with a bolt to impress every one i dont know and no one else does because the clue is to vauge but needless to say the bolt fully turned in would stop the machine if it worked as i have said ,thanks for your response robinhood andy

[Robinhood46]

so what if besslers bolt did just that and when in contact regulated the machine

It's the regulating where i have difficulty.
I think something would wear during the 54 day test and it would have been no longer, or less effectively, regulating the wheel after so many revolutions.
I don't really see the concern for slowing down the wheels we are building for the time being. We need to have one that actually works, before we need to worry about how to stop it. Poking a stick in it is my plan.
I don't think you should worry about what i, or anyone thinks, about whether it will work or not, because even if the part about the bolt not regulating the wheel, by touching another moving part, in relation to itself, is right, it doesn't mean your wheel wont run, it just means it wont be regulated by that method.
As always, good luck building and fingers crossed.

[agor95]

Hello andyblues

I know this may appear like a Bolt from the blue.

Naturally we can work with the written records that have been collected.

The other route is to look at this from a practical path.

My current position is the rotating device had swinging components.
The rotation increased their swing only in one direction.

If the wheel was rotated in the other direction the components would not swing.

If you placed two such devices together then one would swing and the other not.

The swinging actions present in both devices were designed so they could fit in a narrow
cylindrical drum.

The other notion is the size of the device exploited the different of a mass rotation at two radial lengths.

I am not thinking from a gravity/torque perspective but from one of acceleration.

Grimer pointed this out some time ago with the falling chimney stack video.

Regards

[andyblues]

Hi Robinhood its my fault for not being as clear as i should be , i think the bolt which as far as i know was only on his first prototype and its my thought that the bolt was put in place to watch the reaction at slow speed so he could truly see what was happening i know that he knew but studying a system and truly getting every little detail demands that it slows down in order to truly understand how it works and how to better the system, all us inventors get obsessed with our work and from my mind it makes sense , hi Agor my approach does use swinging arms but the bulk of the power comes from the exchange of force from the lifted exchange at 1and 7 positions and as you say it would only work in one direction ,as does mine,the thing with my design as with every design i have ever made is they keel and getting past that keel requires more force from some where ,the arm falling out swinging as it does on its own only creates a proportion of its weight to move the wheel then keels by causing the weight to react between two systems means that falling force can now be transferred in to two systems potentially allowing a 1/4 to lift a lb 1/2 a lb on either side going up wards to there release point , now i could be wrong and have been many times but another clue that fits is a simple push and pull system to which this is ,with out causing a interaction between two systems that 1/4 could never lift a lb , your thoughts are most welcome ,bless you all Andy