Besslers prime mover and its enabler.

[Fletcher]

One thing you haven’t discussed Fletcher is the non-use of the “pawl" in MT15. That is the easiest word for me as it is sort of using a ratchet backwards.

A fast history around MT11 to MT16 in my deductions; edit as people see fit:

11 duo system; 12 ramp, 13 pawl, 14 ganging, 15 overweight, 16 gang + ramp

Hi dax .. well picked up in MT15 - there it is, the same as in MT13 - presumably, at face value, to stop the lw at right angles to the rim for maximum effect ..

.. You will possibly remember that I more than occasionally bang on and on about the over-engineered, and taking up way too much of the page and focus, oscillating pendulum with one-way ratchet control ( pawls ) of MT51 .. that is the link back to MT's 13 and 15 in my mind .. that, and the DT engravings where dual opposing pendulums feature heavily, even tho completely unnecessary to regulate the speed of his wheel, whether under load or not !

These are pointers imo to the dual system of a runner where one of the system is the Prime Mover ( the pendulum in this case ) ..

I'll take a quick coffee break as a visitor/mate has arrived, and maybe add to the story another way ..

[Fletcher]

I often talk about "passive" verses "active" overbalanced wheel systems - by "passive" I mean your ordinary non-runners like MT9, 13, 15 etc etc - in fact all of MT are "passive" non-runners - i.e. by my definition of "passive" we can see that once released or given a push from their torque balanced position ( i.e. zero torque ) there is no further input of energy - they will rotate and die down quickly as all non-runners do ..

By "active" I mean augmented-overbalancing wheel systems that are in part the same as above and have the one-shot energy input from either a push start or positioned so that they have torque and begin to rotate ( albeit temporarily ) under the influence of gravity - but once underway they have additional repeating energy injections which cause the PM weights to restore GPE and develop torque imbalance again and again, so that it accelerates and self-sustains its own rotation .. this would require the addition of a second part to the overbalanced wheel which introduces a repeating impulse ( f x t ) - this is a similar concept to what thx4 has just been talking about when he said 2 different systems having different tempo's - in my case I describe it as an oscillating positive feedback loop is established between the 2 interfaced systems that make up a runner, imo - thus it is now an "active" overbalancing wheel system ..

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

In essence I believe that what we want to achieve in designing a functional runner is to break the Physics Laws of Symmetry ( re. Emmy Noether ) - I accept that at the vast scale that the Classical Laws of Physics do have symmetry - symmetry is why momentum can be compared to Energy, and visa versa etc - but at the local scale ( earths surface and an attached wheel ) the local symmetry could be broken, or more correctly sidestepped ( a workaround found ) - that for me means 2 systems working in tandem ( oscillating ) in a positive feedback relationship, so that an ordinary "passive" overbalancing non-runner can become an "active" runner with the addition of the Prime Mover to add that periodic impulse ..

As an example of potentially breaking the local symmetry here is a thought experiment I designed - say we had an ordinary swinging pendulum made of a shaft and bob ( assume no losses to frictions etc ) - we set it to 20 degrees off center ( from vertical / no torque position / position of least GPE ) so it has been given GPE ( preloaded ), and we let it go - we all would agree that it would swing downwards under gravity and lose GPE and gain KE/momentum at bdc in an equal amount, before climbing back up and changing the KE/momentum back to GPE again - but let's imagine that we have a nearby "passive" overbalanced wheel a little like MT 9, 13 or 15 for example, to which the pendulum Prime Mover is coupled - except that when the pendulum swings it gives an impulse to the secondary wheel - such that the short lws are swung from their orientation upwards gaining GPE - BUT .. they swing upwards greater than 20 degrees ( lets for imagination sake say 40 degrees ) - therefore they would gain GPE and have have a renewed positive torque to contribute - since they gained more than 20 degrees rotation their induced torque should "drive" the wheel around and give some of that momentum back to the still swinging Prime Mover pendulum to re-energize its swing upwards for its return etc ( oscillating positive feedback system ) - potentially there is a local symmetry break and the reason a runner accelerates and gains in momentum / RKE i.e. a mechanical workaround that does not involve Law of Levers ..

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

[daxwc]

Well one thing about putting MT13 and MT15 together is it would stall in the position of the image if the counter weight was big enough.
Personally I think the pendulum would be a different form.

[Fletcher]

Well one thing about putting MT13 and MT15 together is it would stall in the position of the image if the counter weight was big enough.

Hey, thanks for putting the overlay pics of 13 and 15 together - I agree - two non-runners do not make a right-runner imo ..

Personally I think the pendulum would be a different form.

Also agree - imo the MT13 'hint' was the 'barely able to oscillate heavy AH to do the lifting' very loosely representing a traditional pendulum structure that also would do the lifting of lever-weights, via a method quite different from an internal ramp effect method - MT15 pawls reinforcing that levers are lifted imo .. the real pendulum form suggested to me in the DT engraving diagrams of his Merseburg and Kassel wheels etc with the dual pendulums which he said were for regulating speed ( not ) - except that because everything must go around together ( EMGAT ) then the oscillating pendulum Prime Mover I am suggesting was for his first prototype and was swapped out for a more efficient MOI changing device based on C & D Toy's Page activities and the bent-arm A all thru MT ..

I'll probably start a new topic next week with some very basic and simple sims for conceptual demonstrative purposes, and introduce some impulse to energy math where I feel the potential for a localized symmetry break may lie - this should get some head scratching going and give some substance to my arguments to debate ..

[thx4]

@ Fletcher,
L'idée du balancier implique une réinitialisation, c'est déjà une erreur. il n'y a pas de réinitialisation.
Tu peux envisager un balancier rotatif, ou une roue avec un balourd c'est déjà beaucoup plus efficace...
Je pars quelques jours.

The idea of a balance implies a reset, which is already a mistake. There is no reset.
You can consider a rotating pendulum, or a wheel with an out-of-balance that's already much more efficient...
I'm going away for a few days.

Faire une simulation avec les deux systèmes séparés. Le gros handicap c'est de trouver le rapport poids des différents systèmes et un simulateur peut enfin être utile lol
Make a simulation with the two systems separated. The big handicap is to find the weight ratio of the different systems and a simulator can finally be useful lol

[johannesbender]

Well one thing about putting MT13 and MT15 together is it would stall in the position of the image if the counter weight was big enough.

Hey, thanks for putting the overlay pics of 13 and 15 together - I agree - two non-runners do not make a right-runner imo ..

Personally I think the pendulum would be a different form.

Also agree - imo the MT13 'hint' was the 'barely able to oscillate heavy AH to do the lifting' very loosely representing a traditional pendulum structure that also would do the lifting of lever-weights, via a method quite different from an internal ramp effect method - MT15 pawls reinforcing that levers are lifted imo .. the real pendulum form suggested to me in the DT engraving diagrams of his Merseburg and Kassel wheels etc with the dual pendulums which he said were for regulating speed ( not ) - except that because everything must go around together ( EMGAT ) then the oscillating pendulum Prime Mover I am suggesting was for his first prototype and was swapped out for a more efficient MOI changing device based on C & D Toy's Page activities and the bent-arm A all thru MT ..

I'll probably start a new topic next week with some very basic and simple sims for conceptual demonstrative purposes, and introduce some impulse to energy math where I feel the potential for a localized symmetry break may lie - this should get some head scratching going and give some substance to my arguments to debate ..

agreed it would serve your theory's explanations better if accompanied by visual demonstrations or such.
Interesting that bessler had to draw the TP too .

[Roxaway59]

Hi Fletcher, I have been having some migraine attacks just recently and some other issues to deal with so I haven't been able to give some of the recent posts a lot of thought but I have tried to keep up.

Some times I have clarity in my thinking but I realise that because we all have our own way of thinking about things trying to get that across to others does not always work well and that’s why I rely heavily on pictures and simulations to try and get my point across.

So I will just spend a bit of time thinking out loud and see if what I write resonates with you and others.

We have wrote many times about the basic nature of what Besslers wheel does. We know it has a positive feedback loop that forms mechanical hysteresis that quickly stabilizes itself. This can be seen as symmetry breaking.

When a system undergoes symmetry breaking, it can result in multiple stable states, and the transition between these states can exhibit hysteresis

I have said and still believe that this actually makes things easier because we are on the lookout for specific qualities that the mechanism must have in order to do this.

If I was to picture Besslers one way wheel from a block diagram descriptive point of view I would probably say this. The wheel as a whole is unbalanced. As the wheel keels and tries to correct the imbalance the centre of gravity continually oscillates up and down on the falling side due to weights continually shifting their position which is governed by the prime mover special principal. So the wheel reaches its equilibrium and that is a permanent state of imbalance.

If this description is wrong then anyone who thinks so should point out what’s wrong about it because having an image of the basic way Besslers wheel operated is important and we can build from that.

I will be posting some simulations in due course once I have got some tasks I have to do out of the way.

Graham

[Fletcher]

Hi Fletcher, ...

... We have wrote many times about the basic nature of what Besslers wheel does. We know it has a positive feedback loop that forms mechanical hysteresis that quickly stabilizes itself. This can be seen as symmetry breaking.

When a system undergoes symmetry breaking, it can result in multiple stable states, and the transition between these states can exhibit hysteresis

I have said and still believe that this actually makes things easier because we are on the lookout for specific qualities that the mechanism must have in order to do this.

If I was to picture Besslers one way wheel from a block diagram descriptive point of view I would probably say this. The wheel as a whole is unbalanced. As the wheel keels and tries to correct the imbalance the centre of gravity continually oscillates up and down on the falling side due to weights continually shifting their position which is governed by the prime mover special principal.

So the wheel reaches its equilibrium and that is a permanent state of imbalance.

If this description is wrong then anyone who thinks so should point out what’s wrong about it because having an image of the basic way Besslers wheel operated is important and we can build from that.

I pretty much agree with you analysis Graham - and you do pretty much what I attempt to do - work out the basic logic steps and requirements to bring together a runner - then try to flesh out those steps with the mechanics fit for purpose - it might just be the way my mind works but in this quest if you fail to plan you plan to fail imo .. that doesn't mean everyone gets all the steps and logic right first time - that is the value of a discussion forum - to test those ideas and logic so that they can replace "assumptions" with solid foundations and hopefully end up cemented into the subconscious and memory ..

My only slight deviation from your "flow chart model" is this statement .. "So the wheel reaches its equilibrium and that is a permanent state of imbalance." I might be being pedantic but I have always thought of it as when the runner has reached and is holding its working RPM then it is NOT in a state of permanent imbalance ( else it would accelerate ) - because for it hold a stable RPM ALL forces must be balanced ( that would be equilibrium reached ) - the upshot being that all forces are balanced at stable RPM by the continual ingress of an energy supply to the runner for it to maintain that stable RPM against frictional energy losses and Work Done etc ..

[Roxaway59]

Hi Fletcher, I don’t think you are being pedantic in fact this raises an important issue over the description of Besslers wheel.

If this was a patent application we could not word the description just any way we like. When the description is too basic it is said to be narrow and this limits the effectiveness of the patent.

The Bessler wheel description should be as accurate as possible especially because the mechanisms that enabled it to do what it did are unknown at this time. Describing its behaviour helps us to focus on its actions and mechanisms that may be able to perform those actions.

I am probably not the best person to be writing a detailed description but the last part of what I wrote should have probably been worded more like this.

The wheel reaches a stable state where it is in constant motion oscillating continuously between balance and imbalance. If it speeds up it becomes more balanced and if it slows down there is an increasing imbalance.

I think you can word a detailed description better than I can Fletcher so maybe you could write one as though its a patent application.

Graham

[Fletcher]

Hi Fletcher, I don’t think you are being pedantic in fact this raises an important issue over the description of Besslers wheel.

If this was a patent application we could not word the description just any way we like. When the description is too basic it is said to be narrow and this limits the effectiveness of the patent.

The Bessler wheel description should be as accurate as possible especially because the mechanisms that enabled it to do what it did are unknown at this time. Describing its behaviour helps us to focus on its actions and mechanisms that may be able to perform those actions.

I am probably not the best person to be writing a detailed description but the last part of what I wrote should have probably been worded more like this.

The wheel reaches a stable state where it is in constant motion oscillating continuously between balance and imbalance. If it speeds up it becomes more balanced and if it slows down there is an increasing imbalance.

I think you do pretty well Graham .. I think that is an improvement .. in many ways that's how I approach the Bessler "problem" in my mind ..

Not exactly as though I'm a hired lawyer writing a patent application and making sure all the legal t's and i's are crossed and dotted - more like his teenage pimple-faced physics nerd son helping him by keep the description on point, cogently covering all the bases for the different stages and actions of the runner, and above all else keeping the description within the known Laws of Classical Physics and the Conservation Laws i.e. the runners feet stay firmly on the ground and in the land of reality where all other machines on earth dwell ..

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

Have a chuckle at these when we need a break and some perspective ..

[johannesbender]

I would like to hear the opinion of others here , ignore the exact value of measurements shown they dont represent a given scale.

The distance the weight moves outwards from the red radius to the orange radius at A (on the left), is the same as the distance the weight moves inwards from the orange radius to the red radius at A (at the right).

The distance the weight moves outwards from the blue radius to the green radius at B (on the left), is the same as the distance the weight moves inwards from the green radius to the blue radius at B (at the right).

The distance the weight moves outwards from the black radius to the pink radius at C (on the left), is the same as the distance the weight moves inwards from the pink radius to the black radius at C (at the right).

What is improved or affected by the additional sets of weights instead of using one set of weights ?

[Fletcher]

What is improved or affected by the additional sets of weights instead of using one set of weights ?

Nothing as far as I can tell - all 3 overbalancing sets could be replaced by just the short lws ( blue to green radius and back ) made considerably heavier and have the same torque as the 3 sets system of overbalancing ..

** As long as the lws are lifted near the top to give them GPE - because they pull the other 2 sets up so are the dominant system ..

** Good points of using 3 systems ?

Less volume per weight, spread out over the radius of the wheel ( potentially a thinner wheel- for ganging wheels side-by-side on one axle [ higher energy density ?! ] ) - looks more like the half is full and the other half empty quip - we know that Cf's have no advantage here because Fc = mv^2/r and when one is pulled up the opposite is also pulled in against Cf's in equal measure .. also Cf's doesn't explain the very rapid self-acceleration because Cf's are a function of inertia and tangential velocity ..

n.b. 1. as dax mentioned earlier the short lws are not in-series interconnected so act independently of one another ..

n.b. 2. both MT13 and MT15 have the right angle "pawls" and we know B. said MT13 lws should be lifted by someone/something ..

n.b. 3. both MT13 and MT15 are CCW rotating wheels when all the rest of MT are CW rotating except for the image rotated 180 degrees MT113 which is also CCW when turned the right way up ( noting that 113 - 100 = 13 )

n.b. 4. MT11 also advocates for introducing more overbalance systems inside the other, suggesting to me potential for greater energy density as I mentioned, when ganged on a single axle ( volume restrictions ) ..

.. open to other ideas ..

[johannesbender]

That's about the same as i thought , it has no real advantage to torque because as much is added is also countered , the only change i can imagine is a weight increase along different radiuses which would be moment of inertia related and well perhaps velocity per radius too , even though that does not make a runner i was just wondering what's the upside.

[Roxaway59]

Hi JB this post is related to your recent one.

Some of the last posts have been echoing some of the things I have been thinking about just recently.

I’ve been thinking about what happens when two or more mechanisms are put together in an attempt to make the wheel turn further under its own steam.

This is not the first time I have thought of this of course but just lately I have been giving it a lot more thought.

The way that I used to think of this is that it was pointless putting two or more non working ideas together because it was like the saying two wrongs don’t make a right.

However I’m not at all sure that is the case and I realised that actually skirting around this issue and just brushing it off with an assumption would just not do.

Also it raises important questions that need an answer and I don’t ignore important questions. In all honesty I feel that this issue needs to be debated and understood properly.

If anyone on the forum feels that they do understand this issue properly then congratulations because I certainly don’t and I need your help to gain the correct way of looking at it.

If we conclude that Besslers wheel had just one great overbalancing idea to it that just worked in isolation from other contributing factors and any contributing factors just improved the strength of it then I could easily ask this question to you all.

How many of you believe that?

You see I don’t think that I believe it myself. Not really. Even though it makes logical sense that just one main idea is at work its hard to imagine it without feeling there would be a possibility of splitting the idea into separate parts that themselves could serve as non runners.

The feeling that I have is that you could categorize the ideas that either complement one another, work against one another or even have no effect what so ever.

I wonder what you and others think about this?

Graham

[Roxaway59]

As an example of what I am saying look at the simple simulation of something I meant to show days ago.

I will do my best to describe its actions.