Besslers prime mover and its enabler.

[Robinhood46]

I have always thought that he just used the circle as a template to make all the drawings the same size, for presentation.

[Roxaway59]

Well these were woodcuts that he used to print so I agree that he probably had an ideal size in mind and a standard way of going about what must have been a job that was difficult to do and one that he couldn't afford to mess up.

Graham

[Roxaway59]

I believe that part of Besslers wheel used the ideas shown in No9, 10 and 11.

So let me lay out the reasons why I think this is the case.

Firstly Besslers MT book was about revealing how his wheel worked. It wouldn’t make any sense to place initial designs in a positive light only to show that its a red herring at the end of the book. There would be no reason to do that.

So here once again are the things he wrote with the important parts highlighted.

No. 9. Because experience shows us that the ball-driven wheels like those seen in the present figures and diagrams were of no avail, people speculated on another principle, namely: on weights. To be sure, in all the weight drawings that I have found, these weights appear simple and are not connected together with belts or chains, even in Leupold, but nothing is to be accomplished with any device unless my principle of movement is activated; but here I neither wish to show nor discuss the figure for the time being.

No. 10. This is just the same as the previous model, except that the weighted rods are more curved and longer. The principle is good, but the figure is not yet complete until I illustrate it very differently at the appropriate place and grasp the correct construction.

No. 11 This figure is doubled, as one can see, and the design does not look too complicated, 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.

The thing is I don’t believe for a second that he would write this way about nothing. If you take away the belts and the additional mechanism near the axle in No 11 what do you have? You have the typical unattached weighted rod design that was first thought of about a thousand years ago.

Notice something odd that is missing from MT. Bessler moves straight from the rolling ball designs to the weighted rod with belts designs. This is not an oversight in my opinion. This was well thought out by Bessler. He knew that if he included the weighted rod design without the belts that he would not be able to say anything positive about them and that people would easily be able to realise that the belted designs were important but only because of the belts and he would have been giving too much of a clue away as to what he was heading towards at the end of the book.

Notice also that the belted designs have a link to the Toy Page.

The one toy design that uses belts to function as it should is the Jacobs Ladder.

Think in terms of positive feedback. With positive feedback there has to be some kind of definite connection between the input and the output. Whilst we can argue about what constitutes a positive feedback loop there is no argument that to stand a chance of having one connections have to be made. So if for example I cut the cords on the Jacobs Ladder nothing happens.

I will leave it there for now.

Graham

[SHADOW]

Bonjour Graham,
J'ai fais une esquisse de se que pourait être un ensemble de roues avec une boucle retroactive positive.
La rétroaction positive est donnée par la chute de la masse dans le logement extérieur!
La réalisation serait plus optimale en utilisant la 3éme dimension.
Je ne suis pas convaincu de son potentiel! malgres les ecrits de Gravesande.

Good morning, Graham,
I have made a sketch of what could be a set of wheels with a positive feedback loop.
Positive feedback is given by the fall of mass in the outer housing!
The realization would be more optimal using the 3rd dimension.
I am not convinced of its potential! The writings of Gravesande are lacking.

[Roxaway59]

Hi Shadow, from what I can tell this is a different way of laying out the Buzzsaw.

Now this is really strange because over the past two days I have been looking at this exact same thing and thinking this is a great example of mechanical positive feedback! This is only in theory of course because in order for it to be positive feedback it would have to work.

I'm working at the moment on something I want to post later that is referring to this.

All the best.

Graham

[SHADOW]

Effectivement C'est un principe à distribution comme dans les MT serie 40 avec une chute pour intégrer un impact sur la roue motrice!
Le nombre de logement extérieur serra à déterminé par la synchronisation de la roue intérieure et de la roue extérieure.
La 3eme dimension et nécessaire pour les transferts afin d'éviter la collision encerclée

Quant à la roue Buzzsaw, elle n'est pas fonctionnelle dans l'état ou l'on a retrouvé les morceaux, la seule amélioration que l'on puisse lui apporter est d'utiliser des poids sur villebrequin de sorte à repprocher les masses du centre sur la roue extérieure et de les éloigné du centre sur la roue intérieure.
Le tout doit se faire sans appuis fixe extérieur à la roue car ces appuis dissiperaient le gain apporté est bloqueraient la roue.


Indeed It is a distribution principle as in the MT series 40 with a drop to integrate an impact on the drive wheel!
The number of external housing will be determined by the synchronization of the inner wheel and the outer wheel.
The 3rd dimension and necessary for transfers to avoid collision surrounded

As for the Buzzsaw wheel, it is not functional in the state in which the pieces were found, the only improvement that can be made to it is to use weights on the crankshaft so as to bring the masses closer to the center on the outer wheel and move them away from the center on the inner wheel.
All this must be done without fixed supports outside the wheel because these supports would dissipate the gain provided and block the wheel.

[Roxaway59]

Hi Shadow, sorry for taking so long to reply I've had other problems to deal with.

I was thinking about the buzzsaw in a different way but I haven't had time to properly assess it and make a picture of it.

I just want to post some things that have been on my mind before moving on to that picture.

I will be doing this later today.

Graham

[Roxaway59]

A few days I decided to put in a search on the forum and I just typed in Positive Feedback.

I was surprised at what came up because I was expecting to see a lot of pages.

What came up was just 19 pages so I decided to have a look at some of these discussions to see what they were saying. That’s when I got my second surprise because most of the positive feedback talked about was just verbal positive feedback. Three of the pages were ones that came up because of me talking about it.

I decided to sift through some of them to see if I could find anything useful and I stumbled across this from pstroud on June 05 2008.

After reading JC’s books numerous times and documenting the clues that I could find, I have come to the personal conclusion that IMOP, Bessler is providing us with strong hints to 2 components of the solution.

Within the MT drawings and Bessler’s comments, there is a pattern where Bessler makes a positive comment towards the drawing and each of these drawings have something in common.

------- Evidence below to the “SHIFTER� Mechanism --------------------------

The following drawings have the same basic component with arms on an outside ring that flip out on the descending and folding in on the ascending while there is a positive statement in their description:

MT 9 – “but nothing is to be accomplished with this thing unless one acts out of my connectedness principle; but here I do not yet wish to show or discuss the figure for the time being.�

MT 10 – “The principle is good, but the figure is not yet complete until I delineate it much differently at the appropriate place and indicate the correct handle-construction�

MT 11 – “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�

MT 14 – “What is objectionable about this model, what to learn from it and how it can and may be used, will all be treated later.�

MT15 – “and have an additional special weight at the external ends. From this drawing alone, however, nothing of the prime mover’s source can be seen or deduced although the figure shows the superior weight�

MT 37 – “This invention belongs among Nos. 14,15 and 16 above and is inserted here, having been accidentally omitted.�

MT 38 – “This is based on the previous principle but instead of oval springs it has a stork’s bills� – “There is more to this invention than there is to the previous one, but here the correct application of the stork’s bills is not shown.�

MT 138-141 – The famous toy may drawing – The Jacobs ladder resembles the Shifter functionality in the above drawings.

 Observations on Bessler’s “SHIFTERâ€� Mechanism --------------------

• Unlike many other drawings, these all have a common basic shifter functionality.
• All drawings have a positive comment from Bessler towards the functionality.
• The “basic� shifter functionality has the ability to go bi-directional. With the basics, the wheel can be manually turned in the opposite direction, realign itself and then start functioning in the opposite direction. This is additional support that it could be the basic foundation for the wheel and can easily go CW or CCW.
• The shifting functionality is similar to Bessler’s black wheel with the 3 white pie shapes. They support the 3 phases of the basic shifter functioning.
• MT 15 is somewhat special because it is the only one of these that is drawn CCW.
• MT 37 and 38 are somewhat special too because it may be NO ACCIDENT that they are out of sequence as Bessler states. This could be fully intentional as another clue – especially to MT 38 which has the storks bills.
• If utilized appropriately, all of the falling weights on the descending side can apply all of their weight as a shifter to lift a drive weight.

These remarks are similar to the ones I recently posted.

I then decided to have a look at some of pstroud’s other posts and I came across two main things that I can’t help thinking are connected in some way. One was the Buzzsaw which which turned out to be a very large thread and the other was about the force amplifier by Fernando Sixto Ramos.

One thing that struck me about both these ideas is that I believe they have something in common and that they are both fairly good examples of mechanical positive feedback.

This has actually been quite time consuming going through some of these things especially the Buzzsaw which I am doing a drawing on at the moment with a view to making a change to.

Graham

[Roxaway59]

In the this post I want to share an idea I had about the Buzzsaw after looking at the posts on the forum going back to around 2006.

I was aware of the Buzzsaw but I didn’t know what to make of it and it always struck me as being rather clunky so I didn’t get involved in it.

After reading more about it and seeing how it was debated for years I started to see that it could be a great example of positive feedback and I had an idea that I would like to share.

The idea is based on the Double Buzzsaw and I first should state that I am in two minds about the idea. I simply cannot make my mind up without doing a physical build if this is good or bad. It wouldn’t surprise me if someone shot me down in flames over it but if they do then so be it.

I’m not able to simulate it at the moment so I have done an Algodoo picture.

The idea is based on balancing the outer wheel so that it behaves more like a fly wheel. That way the centre wheel is free to turn as long as it has energy to spare.

To achieve this I have placed a beam with cogs attached across the wheel so that the cogs rest on both inner and outer wheels via two racks. The beam is only held in place with a horizontal force coming from a bracket that is attached to an artificial horizon so the cogs rest on the racks attached to each wheel. Just enough weight is used to balance the outer wheel then that same weight is applied to the other side of the beam to balance the beam itself. The bracket on the artificial horizon acts as a guide but does not give lift to the beam.

I should also add that certain things have been left off the picture for clarity and that in order to build this idea properly a lot more work would have to go into solving certain problems.

I am hoping that my Algodoo picture makes it clear what I am thinking of. As I said I really can’t make my mind up about it at the moment and obviously it would be fairly tricky to build so its important to get some useful feedback on the idea.

Graham

[Robinhood46]

I have always found the Buzzsaw interesting, and there is speculation, or belief that it is somehow related to Bessler. I honestly don't know how much credence to give to it but it certainly could be true.

I obviously don't fully understand your theory, because something doesn't make sense.
You say the outer wheel stays balanced, which is an interesting approach that i like, yet you show an outer wheel that doesn't appear to be balanced.

For the outer wheel to be balanced, it would need evenly distributed weights, which isn't what i am seeing. Before we share any more thoughts, i think it would be helpful if you explain what i am getting wrong.

[Roxaway59]

This is actually an idea that I thought about a long time ago but it was only ever theory I never tried building it.

When I thought about the problems with the Buzzsaw I thought maybe it would work on that.

Basically both wheels would normally be connected together by cogs and chains with the outer wheel geared to go twice as fast and obviously if they were free to turn they would both overbalance in opposite directions.

So the beam that goes across them attaches to both wheels via a rack and pinion type system for each wheel. The outer wheel would rotate anti-clockwise if it was free so the beam has a weight attached to the right that balances it.

Because the beam itself also needs to balance out the same weight is put on the left of the beam. This does not stop the centre wheel from turning so it should still turn and treat the outer wheel like a flywheel.

Graham

[Roxaway59]

The more I think about it the more doubts I have Robinhood that it could do what I'm thinking because it can only behave like a counter weight when everything is static. Time for a rethink.

Graham

[Roxaway59]

Basically my thinking was that the beam with its weights on both ends has to fall slightly BUT it can only fall so far before locking up. When it locks it has to put its weight onto the wheels because there is no where else. Once on the wheels the outer wheel is balanced.

Graham

[Robinhood46]

You didn't answer my question Graham. What am i not understanding when you say the outer wheel is balanced?
I find it unlikely that the two wheels were rotating at 50% or 200%, depending on which way you look at it.
I have always found curious the need to make, a one off cog, with 42 teeth, if the wheels need a 1;2 ratio, which could have been achieved with a variety of ready made standard cogs. There was a reason for the cog to have 42 teeth.
I also think for the weights to shift, from one wheel to the other, the rotational speed of the two wheels needs to be fairly similar, or the speed at which the change must take place becomes unrealistic. Another option is a non constant variation between rotational speeds, as in, a step forward after x degrees of rotation, rotate together, to allow the shifting of the weight, and then another step. But i find that even more unlikely than the wheels rotating at a 2;1 ratio.

I see you have answered my question, i still don't fully understand your thinking, sorry. Maybe when you get a bit further and have sim it will be clearer.

[Roxaway59]

The thing is I can't make my mind up if the idea is just plain daft or if there is something to it. Its like its connected but not connected. When its connected the weight applies and when its not properly connected the weight doesn't apply. I know I have come across this kind of thing in the past and it has driven me nuts lol.