Symmetrically Balanced Systems – are they able to develop useable torque ?

[Fletcher]

i.e. is it hypothetically possible to create sufficient linear torque from tension & compression forces, whilst losing only minimal system potential, & converting that into useable rotational torque to drive a wheel ?

This is a somewhat related subject to jim_mich’s ‘Center of Gyration’ thread but probably dosen't belong in there. It’s a compilation of previous investigations that I pulled together about trying to achieve the same thing though i.e. using a symmetrically CoG balanced system to morph itself into a preferred or alternate position. Some would call it a simply a self shifting mechanism. I wanted to see what new things I could learn from the experience & try to use more of Bessler’s clues. I still believe this is a thinly disguised H4W arrangement but it may offer new directions to look & think about.

Proposed Operation : See attachments below. When the massive tensioner weights are vertically aligned their weight will always act vertically downwards .... however because of ever so slightly over sized pivot hole connections between the compositional levers of the storksbill & a slightly sloppy connection to the tensioner weights themselves, the topmost tensioner weight will rest & apply all its weight onto & thru the storksbill levers associated with it. It however will not loose any appreciable height in doing so but will possibly create a usable tension or compression force in its associated storksbill.

N.B. Just like the lifting tongs in the attachment except we are attempting to use the previously unusable stored tension & compression forces.

One mechanism is in a vertical orientation (12 & 6 o'cl - blue tensioner weights) & the other rotated clockwise 1/4 turn (9 & 3 o'cl). The mechanism is designed (theoretically) to reset itself every 1/4 turn (90 degrees) & flip flops every 1/2 turn or 180 degrees of rotation.

In essence the tensioning weights (blue) are connected to storksbills (red) which are connected to a single central 'control' parallelogram (light green). Although it may not be obvious everything runs on sliding pivots (or wheels in grooves etc) to maintain symmetry & hold its form & timing. The system is nearly always in balance due to its symmetry & tensioner weights remain at a near constant radius. All the essential mechanism is contained within a cage arrangement.

There is a light gauge 'persuader' reset spring (turquoise) located in the center of the parallelogram that stretches it vertically when the mech is rotated 90 degrees & the tension of the prime weights is no longer acting thru the storksbill. They are now leaning on the sides of the cage (which is bearing their weight) & therefore not creating any tension, compression or usable linear torque. Accordingly the reset spring is potentially able to pull everything into its starting position because of the designs symmetry & inherent counter balancing features.

i.e. one storksbill moves upwards while the other moves downwards etc so there is very little force required resetting the mech when tension is not applied (at 9 & 3 o'cl position).

As the ' V ' shaped (brown) main levers open or close the storksbill also opens or closes effectively maintaining the original height of its tensioner weight ((due ratios) so that it does not effectively change its radius relative to the wheel).

Like water finds its own level, tension or compression forces must try to equalise within a system, so the storksbill levers must move in an attempt to equalise the angles & forces (this depends on their starting configuration obviously) & take up a preferred position whilst under tension.

Meantime the lowermost tensioner weight cannot apply any reciprocal tensional forces to its storksbill because its weight is supported by direct contact with the floor of the cage surrounding it (the book on table example) & therefore cannot create nor contribute any opposing tension into the system (it's missing in action). i.e. there is no opposing or equal & opposite linear tension created in the system from the lowermost tensioner weight.

N.B. the tensioner weights move the storksbill levers & NOT the other way around.

Anecdotal evidence from Bessler's writings (very loosely paraphrased) :

He said 'a crab moves sideways because it was designed so'.

He talked about 'acrobats (tumbling), light as a feather' & 'shadow boxers'.

He said 'an Out of Balance wheel doesn't work (he learnt the hard way)'.

He talked about 'the bow twangs' (tension or compression of the prime weights ?) & 'the shotgun shoots'.

He said the 'weights work in pairs, one moves further from the axle than the other'. NB. not one moves in while the other moves out.

Re : Apologia drawing (do you still not understand) - mirror image at the rim the borders of the segments top & bottom & you get the 2 shapes of the control parallelogram. The center weight stays fixed indicating no movement of the weights.

The Toy Page : use of storksbills & parallelograms. He says that he who knows how to use them will be on the right track & that storksbills should not be sniffed at. Jacob's Ladder turns 180 degrees to fall again. 2 parallelograms to indicate there are 2 possible positions.

[Michael]

Hi Fletcher. One thing I'll add for now;

He said 'an Out of Balance wheel doesn't work (he learnt the hard way)

He also said his machine ended up working on the same basic idea that everone else looked at, but failed to find. All of this possibly means he just found the correct way to make an over balanced wheel. I think John might agree, John?

[Fletcher]

I think he said he found it where everyone else was looking. I don't think that is quite the same thing as you describe.

If a symmetrically balanced system is able to "shape shift" & still keep its symmetry then it is an easy matter to connect it thru ropes & pulley's & use the torque to turn to a rachet drive. This would have the same outward appearance to the observer as an OOB wheel.

[Patrick]

Hi Fletcher;
This looks like a very interesting concept. Have you ever tried to make a model of it?

[SeaWasp]

Fletcher.. Nice to see somebody actually throwing the idea of shifting COG out the window! As Michael stated, Bessler learned the hard way in trying to achieve success with this approach.. So it wonders me, why still so much importance is placed on it!

The concept you present is very interesting and should also be explored in more depth! I am also pursuing mechanisms that do not soley operate on shifting the COG of the wheel. In fact, my current design is also balanced! And that is keeping with Besslers eye witness accounts on push starting his wheel with 2 fingers either way! Your design certainly has some merits though, and I am wondering whether you could also harness the falling mechanism to do rotational work on the wheel. I love the idea of using a falling mass at the top to transfer it's forces back up to the top where it is needed! This is a perfect example of "redirecting" the forces of a falling mass to a position which will influence the wheels rotation.. Even though the COG has dropped considerably, the forces on the actual wheel may be enough to make it turn!

Good Luck with this new approach!

Also...

I have gone through and tried to some of my own translation on Besslers Poem. It would be a good idea for all interested concerns, to re-read the Apologia Topic and see how many of the meanings have changed from the original translation.. eg.. When you quoted, "The Bow Twangs", My translation said, "The Bow Shoots Up".. Big difference in meaning etc. Also the Crab part is quite different, and could have meant a "crayfish" moving front and back.. (As opposed to a crab moving side to side).

[jim_mich]

I'll need some time to comprehend this one. So don't think that I'm ignoring it. (It's been a long day for me and I'm exhausted.)

[ken_behrendt]

Fletcher...

A very interesting design you have there...I may be getting into "stork bill" mechanism myself shortly.

I'm not 100% sure I understand exactly how it is supposed to work, so please correct me if I am wrong.

Apparently, when the two weights are horizontally orientated, that is at the 9 and 3 o'clock positions, the central spring retracts them so that they are the same distance from the center axle of the frame containing them and the CG of the opposed pair is at the frame's pivot.

Then, when the two weights are vertically orientated, at the 12 and 6 o'clock positions, somehow the weight of the upper weight spreads its associated stork bill so that this then results in that weight being lifted so that the pair is now "top heavy". In other words, the pair's CG is now above the frame's axle and this causes the frame to quickly rotate so that the two weights will again be vertically orientated but inverted. Is that correct?

If so, then this design would remind of a variation in the many "flip over" panel type devices that are shown in MT.

The question that occurs to me is whether the lifting action of the weight at the 12 o'clock position will, in fact, take place as you suggest it will.

Did you build a WM2D model of this? Did it work?

Anyway, it is interesting, but it would immediately seem to violate something Bessler said about his wheels. They are not supposed to have any part of the mechanism near or attached to the axle.


ken

[Michael]

Ken says,

Anyway, it is interesting, but it would immediately seem to violate something Bessler said about his wheels. They are not supposed to have any part of the mechanism near or attached to the axle.

Ken I have never seen Bessler say anything like this and he shows things occuring with the axel in pictures and words. Can you say where he says this?

[Fletcher]

This looks like a very interesting concept. Have you ever tried to make a model of it?

Hi Guys, you took me by surprise. I wasn't expecting any feedback until I checked in tomorrow. Sorry for the long winded write up, I didn't have enough time to make it concise.

Seawasp, not sure if I follow you. The blue tensioner weights stay put & apply their weight to the storksbills. Tension finds its lowest possible potential so the idea is the internal stored tension causes the storksbills to change shape i.e. elongate or otherwise.

Patrick, to set the record straight it was a historical 'thought' experiment only. I have various parallelograms & small storksbills littering my shed though :)

Firstly I don't believe there is any "normal" leverage mechanism to achieve a self sustaining wheel, unless it uses environmental forces to develop a usable gradient & this is transferred thru normal leverage to turn a wheel. That's a possibility.

That leaves imo a balanced system that can somehow generate torque to turn a wheel. This is the area I have been looking in almost exclusively for a year or more.

There are some self evident weaknesses I saw with this particular approach which at the time caused me to look for alternative ways of achieving rotational torque from symmetry.

It doesn't have a 'hard' connection like normal leverage, but has a 'soft' connection which is somewhat unpredictable.

My math skills aren't up to analysing the forces here. The question is can a very slight drop in CoG (almost to be negligible) of the topmost tensioner create enough tension to pull the wheel around the fixed axle connection via a rachet drive (you could use an artificial gravity like a counter weight for example). No additional weights would be required.

Even a very small drop in CoG to just below the axle would cause keeling unless the torque generated from compression & tension were able to overcome this. The more massive the weight the more tension in the system but is this enough ?

[ken_behrendt]

Michael...

I am fairly sure that I saw this in a Bessler quote that was given in another thread. Supposedly, it was from AP, but, then again, maybe it was DT. Unfortunately, I still have not read either work in its entirety and rely on the bits and pieces that show up on this board. I just did a search through PM:AAMS? and could find the quote there.


ken

[Fletcher]

Hi Ken, I was looking at possible ways to use stored compression & tensional forces in a system. The 'Lifting Tongs' are a good example & have been around since Adam was in shorts.

Two same dimensioned & volume weights can be held at the same vertical height but imagine one is way more massive than the other (e.g. wood & steel). Lifting tongs have an unusual ability in that providing there is positive leverage they will supply just enough force to hold their own weight.

In other words they are a self supporting arrangement & the heavier it is the harder it grips itself. Imo that's because of friction between the block & the tension the weight of the whole arrangement exerts on the tongs leverage.

I was looking for very novel ways to achieve a self shifting mechanism, sound familiar :)

[SeaWasp]

Fletcher.. I should have taken more time to digest the concept! It's a fair bit to take in!! But the sliding brown levers at the top, would most probably take out a lot of the tension that you need.

[ken_behrendt]

Michael...

I have a reference for you from page 361 of AP:

Wagner is quoted by Bessler as saying "...there is no 'fixed point' such as one would necessarily expect to exist where the power is applied..."

To which Bessler replies " You're still comparing my wheel with yours? In a true Perpetuum Mobile everything must, necessarily, go around together. There can be nothing involved in it which remains stationary on the axle."

Bessler seems to be saying here that his working wheels had nothing that hung from the concealed section of the axle such as a weighted rope or chain as might be found in a pendulum clock. Of course, this would not seem to preclude something passing through the axle or nearby it just so long as whatever that was also rotated around with the axle. However, Bessler's reference to people having stuck their hands inside of his wheels to feel the axle would, to me, seem to preclude any part of the mechanism passing directly through or even near the axle.

I am of the opinion that the "works" that made Bessler's wheels run were entirely self-contained and mechanically isolated from neighboring and opposed mechanisms. It is for this reason that I have now embraced the use of self-shifting mechanisms and am slowly learning their characteristics.

When you said:

He also said his machine ended up working on the same basic idea that everone else looked at, but failed to find. All of this possibly means he just found the correct way to make an over balanced wheel.

I think you were exactly right. Bessler's wheels were just overbalanced wheels that would have worked much like any other inventor's device IF those devices were workable. The exception...Bessler found that elusive self-shifting mechanism that would extend a weight on the wheel's descending side and also be able to retract it near the bottom of the wheel!


ken

[Michael]

Hi Fletcher. I didn't want to start a new thread for this so I hope this is okay here since it covers exploring different concepts.

An opinion.

The reason people's exploration into perpetual motion ends in failure, specifically Bessler related ideas, is because they are captivated by the illusion of the outer surface of the machine, namely that it is a wheel. Who says that the inner device works as a wheel? When people construct on the template of a wheel, they only usually consider the typical wheel structure, basically that a point one one side bears a connective relationship to a point on the other side, instead of considering a connective relationship some of the time, and at others none at all.

[rlortie]

Ken,

Your statement:

EDIT

In a true Perpetuum Mobile everything must, necessarily, go around together. There can be nothing involved in it which remains stationary on the axle."

Bessler seems to be saying here that his working wheels had nothing that hung from the concealed section of the axle such as a weighted rope or chain as might be found in a pendulum clock.

Nothing remaining stationary on the axle would indicate anything that turns with it. I do not find this to include that there could not be something hanging from the axle that was stationary in reality but not with the axis. Such as an internal pendulum or counter weight.

Therefore I believe the statement that his working wheels had nothing that hung is/ may be incorrect. I believe that you are stating this on an assumption and not with tangible evidence.

Ralph