Sea Wasp
Thanks to you, I have the snap image download, and I can now capture screen shots.
It Would Be More Noble To Clear J. Bessler's Name, than trying to solely profit
Moderator: scott
re: It Would Be More Noble To Clear J. Bessler's Name, than
JB Wheeler
it exists I think I found it.
it exists I think I found it.
re: It Would Be More Noble To Clear J. Bessler's Name, than
Here is a .pdf of the wheel that I've been working on all winter. The straight red arrow shows where the toothpick force is supposed to be applied. This force is a "pull" which causes the spring and the bar it's attached to to fold outward causing the weighted lever to fall forward.
I'm confident this will never work. I have realized that shifting/ moving weights was not how Bessler did it. s
The red circled dot(s) are stops for the weights to rest on/ hit.
robert
I'm confident this will never work. I have realized that shifting/ moving weights was not how Bessler did it. s
The red circled dot(s) are stops for the weights to rest on/ hit.
robert
- Attachments
-
- PM3ToothpickForce.pdf
- I have learned that this will never work.
- (253.68 KiB) Downloaded 310 times
Robert (The Carpenter's Boy)
There's never time to do it right the first time, but there's always time to do it over again.
There's never time to do it right the first time, but there's always time to do it over again.
-
bluesgtr44
- Devotee
- Posts: 1970
- Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:31 pm
- Location: U.S.A.
re: It Would Be More Noble To Clear J. Bessler's Name, than
The GIF version.....
- Attachments
-
Finding the right solution...is usually a function of asking the right questions. -A. Einstein
re: It Would Be More Noble To Clear J. Bessler's Name, than
Steve,
What a difference my "epiphany" about shifting/moving weights made!! For months I was so secretive about this design, locking the doors, covering the windows, a sheet draped over the model in the shop, etc, and LOOK, here it is for all to see, MY NON-WORKing lesson in PM!!!!!!!!
I hope it helps others to avoid the same experience, but then, I think you have to do like Bessler did, by accident. That is, fail as many times as it takes to learn the ropes and program the subconscious mind to lead through the thicket.
Another experiment I tried was one of inverse proportion. Two weights operated together, one heavier than the other on a bar. They were connected by pulleys so that one end up the weights separated, the other end up, the weights closed together. This is also a dead end.
robert
What a difference my "epiphany" about shifting/moving weights made!! For months I was so secretive about this design, locking the doors, covering the windows, a sheet draped over the model in the shop, etc, and LOOK, here it is for all to see, MY NON-WORKing lesson in PM!!!!!!!!
I hope it helps others to avoid the same experience, but then, I think you have to do like Bessler did, by accident. That is, fail as many times as it takes to learn the ropes and program the subconscious mind to lead through the thicket.
Another experiment I tried was one of inverse proportion. Two weights operated together, one heavier than the other on a bar. They were connected by pulleys so that one end up the weights separated, the other end up, the weights closed together. This is also a dead end.
robert
Robert (The Carpenter's Boy)
There's never time to do it right the first time, but there's always time to do it over again.
There's never time to do it right the first time, but there's always time to do it over again.
-
bluesgtr44
- Devotee
- Posts: 1970
- Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:31 pm
- Location: U.S.A.
re: It Would Be More Noble To Clear J. Bessler's Name, than
Rob...no insult intended in any of this, I have not (that I know of) done that before. I find it beneficial for anyone looking for something that may help their quest for the nightmare this guy created....
I know what you are saying about this type of OU design. I get confused sometimes when I see where Bessler insinuates that these could maybe work...if they are connected properly. Head scratcher in and of itself...
Steve
I know what you are saying about this type of OU design. I get confused sometimes when I see where Bessler insinuates that these could maybe work...if they are connected properly. Head scratcher in and of itself...
Steve
Finding the right solution...is usually a function of asking the right questions. -A. Einstein
-
AgingYoung
- Aficionado
- Posts: 761
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 4:44 am
- Location: Houston, TX
re: It Would Be More Noble To Clear J. Bessler's Name, than
Robert,
Gene
The weights have to move. There has to be a change in the position of the weights on a wheel. If they don't move or if they're static the wheel won't move. Could you explain what you're saying? If you're saying that the weights can't be constantly moving or shifting with the movement of the wheel I would agree with that.What a difference my "epiphany" about shifting/moving weights made!
Gene
Last edited by AgingYoung on Wed Mar 22, 2006 7:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
Working Model 2D
[It is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings [is] to search out a matter.
[It is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings [is] to search out a matter.
-
ken_behrendt
- Addict
- Posts: 3487
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:45 am
- Location: new jersey, usa
- Contact:
re: It Would Be More Noble To Clear J. Bessler's Name, than
Robert...
Sorry to read that you finally gave up on your design. After all the effort you expended on a real build, that can be a disappointment. However, on the bright side, you did learn something valuable in the process. You've learned one more approach that will not work. We've all been there and it has served to sharpen our sense of what new direction to head off it. In a few days or so, you'll find your mind filling with new possibilities. Maybe the next attempt will find success.
Anyway, thanks for sharing your design. Like all of the various gravity wheels displayed on this board, the problem was that it just could not maintain the CG of its weights to one side of the axle without outside assistance.
Even Bessler has a design in MT that he said would work great if someone could be situated at the 12:00 position of the wheel to continuously raise the weights there! He had a "tootpick's worth" of force requirement too on some of his more stubborn designs.
ken
Sorry to read that you finally gave up on your design. After all the effort you expended on a real build, that can be a disappointment. However, on the bright side, you did learn something valuable in the process. You've learned one more approach that will not work. We've all been there and it has served to sharpen our sense of what new direction to head off it. In a few days or so, you'll find your mind filling with new possibilities. Maybe the next attempt will find success.
Anyway, thanks for sharing your design. Like all of the various gravity wheels displayed on this board, the problem was that it just could not maintain the CG of its weights to one side of the axle without outside assistance.
Even Bessler has a design in MT that he said would work great if someone could be situated at the 12:00 position of the wheel to continuously raise the weights there! He had a "tootpick's worth" of force requirement too on some of his more stubborn designs.
ken
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
Re: re: It Would Be More Noble To Clear J. Bessler's Name, t
Gene,AgingYoung wrote:Robert,What a difference my "epiphany" about shifting/moving weights made!
The weights have to move. There has to be a change in the position of the weights on a wheel. If they don't move or if they're static the wheel won't move. Could you explain what you're saying? If you're saying that the weights can't be constantly moving or shifting with the movement of the wheel I would agree with that.
Gene
I meant what I said. It is different now from just being told that shifting/moving weights will not make a wheel turn. I can see that that way is a total dead end, and every design that has any kind of weights that have to raise higher over the horizon,,,,,,,well, you know what I mean.
I've pounded and concentrated every day for 3 or more hours for almost a year on this problem....the wheel that the weights are attached to, will always give way in reverse from their movement. Always. That's the killer. It's "on your six", and it can't be evaded or avoided.
Ken, it is not just this design I'm ending. It is all of them with moving weights. There must be another way Bessler did it. He said the wheel, "just revolves". He said that the weights were the PM principle. These are about the only two things he said that I believe, everything else was defense and theatre.
Maybe the weights didn't move, or not much, and just the strings or chains attached to them rotated taughtness and slack. I don't know.
I have a strong feeling that the wheel ran very quietly, and that he really did rig it to make a considerable noise.
robert
Robert (The Carpenter's Boy)
There's never time to do it right the first time, but there's always time to do it over again.
There's never time to do it right the first time, but there's always time to do it over again.
-
AgingYoung
- Aficionado
- Posts: 761
- Joined: Sun Apr 03, 2005 4:44 am
- Location: Houston, TX
re: It Would Be More Noble To Clear J. Bessler's Name, than
Robert,
Thanks for sharing what you've learned by what you've seen.
Gene
A while ago I replayed a game that Paul Morphy played. The position looked pretty balanced when Morphy did a queen sacrifice. People watching the game (games in those days were attended affairs) were in shock. They couldn't see what he was up to and it looked like he blundered. Upon careful examination it was shown that any move by his opponent after that sacrifice was a downhill slide. Morphy obviously won. Position trumps material every time.
The point I'm making is that to come to a conclusion that excludes the idea of weights moving based on all that you've seen excludes the idea that you've not seen everything. I'm not too quick to exclude ideas. There could be possibilities that you've not seen. I see two methods along the idea of trading vertical for horizontal distance that make a lot of sense to me. There is also the idea that if two weights move in all likelihood they're not going to be moving precisely horizontal or vertical so there naturally is going to be some sort of exchange taking place. If weights move it could be said that one is exchanged for the other even if that's not the intent.
There is certainly a difference between vicarious and actual experience. If I could accept someone elses word for what would and wouldn't work I wouldn't be trying to make gravity turn a shaft.
Gene
ps edit:
The internet is fantastic. I found a recounting of that game:
Although Morphy's famous sixth match game against Paulson has shown to have imperfections, its still played fearlessly, powerfully, and brilliantly. In his book "The Kings of Chess," William Hartston says of the famous queen sacrifice on move 17...Qxf3! Morphy thought for twelve minutes before offering his queen with this move - the longest time he spent on any single move in the whole New York tournament. Paulson cogitated much longer before capturing it. Some of the spectators were equally baffled. Mr Stanley, one of the bystanders, remarked of Mr Morphy, on making this seemingly rash move, that he should be confinded in a lunatic asylum. A full eight moves later white can only prevent immediate mate by giving back his queen on move twenty-five. Duration of the game, four hours.
I can see that that way is a total dead end
Thanks for sharing what you've learned by what you've seen.
Gene
A while ago I replayed a game that Paul Morphy played. The position looked pretty balanced when Morphy did a queen sacrifice. People watching the game (games in those days were attended affairs) were in shock. They couldn't see what he was up to and it looked like he blundered. Upon careful examination it was shown that any move by his opponent after that sacrifice was a downhill slide. Morphy obviously won. Position trumps material every time.
The point I'm making is that to come to a conclusion that excludes the idea of weights moving based on all that you've seen excludes the idea that you've not seen everything. I'm not too quick to exclude ideas. There could be possibilities that you've not seen. I see two methods along the idea of trading vertical for horizontal distance that make a lot of sense to me. There is also the idea that if two weights move in all likelihood they're not going to be moving precisely horizontal or vertical so there naturally is going to be some sort of exchange taking place. If weights move it could be said that one is exchanged for the other even if that's not the intent.
There is certainly a difference between vicarious and actual experience. If I could accept someone elses word for what would and wouldn't work I wouldn't be trying to make gravity turn a shaft.
Gene
ps edit:
The internet is fantastic. I found a recounting of that game:
Although Morphy's famous sixth match game against Paulson has shown to have imperfections, its still played fearlessly, powerfully, and brilliantly. In his book "The Kings of Chess," William Hartston says of the famous queen sacrifice on move 17...Qxf3! Morphy thought for twelve minutes before offering his queen with this move - the longest time he spent on any single move in the whole New York tournament. Paulson cogitated much longer before capturing it. Some of the spectators were equally baffled. Mr Stanley, one of the bystanders, remarked of Mr Morphy, on making this seemingly rash move, that he should be confinded in a lunatic asylum. A full eight moves later white can only prevent immediate mate by giving back his queen on move twenty-five. Duration of the game, four hours.
Working Model 2D
[It is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings [is] to search out a matter.
[It is] the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honour of kings [is] to search out a matter.
re: It Would Be More Noble To Clear J. Bessler's Name, than
deleted
Last edited by rks1878 on Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Robert (The Carpenter's Boy)
There's never time to do it right the first time, but there's always time to do it over again.
There's never time to do it right the first time, but there's always time to do it over again.
re: It Would Be More Noble To Clear J. Bessler's Name, than
Had a new idea using one cross bar and a weight with a spring on a wheel.
Here is the velocity graph out to 29000 frames, where I intentionally stopped it. It will run out to over 34K.
Question: Why is the velocity a minus number? In the sim, the wheel is clearly turning.
Here is the velocity graph out to 29000 frames, where I intentionally stopped it. It will run out to over 34K.
Question: Why is the velocity a minus number? In the sim, the wheel is clearly turning.
- Attachments
-
Last edited by rks1878 on Wed Mar 22, 2006 8:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Robert (The Carpenter's Boy)
There's never time to do it right the first time, but there's always time to do it over again.
There's never time to do it right the first time, but there's always time to do it over again.
re: It Would Be More Noble To Clear J. Bessler's Name, than
A minus number indicates clockwise rotation.
Graham
Graham
re: It Would Be More Noble To Clear J. Bessler's Name, than
Velocity is a vector therefore it has direction. Change the plus or minus sign in the properties box otherwise it can't distinguish between CW & CCW & reports accordingly.
re: It Would Be More Noble To Clear J. Bessler's Name, than
Thanks Fletcher and Graham.
When I saw the minus sign, I thought it was indicating a non-working model, that the program was somehow supporting the rotation.
Another dead-end? I don't know.
Seem to have more than my share of working sims.
robert
When I saw the minus sign, I thought it was indicating a non-working model, that the program was somehow supporting the rotation.
Another dead-end? I don't know.
Seem to have more than my share of working sims.
robert
Robert (The Carpenter's Boy)
There's never time to do it right the first time, but there's always time to do it over again.
There's never time to do it right the first time, but there's always time to do it over again.
re: It Would Be More Noble To Clear J. Bessler's Name, than
I'd like just one, but for all the right reasons :)
The sim is a tool but it can't replace logical & creative thinking or substitute a new reality for physics.
It's strength imo is that thought modeling can get complex quickly & the brain tires of holding & considering all the interactions & relations between items you propose to test. The sim relieves the necessity to hold & focus on all that information & allows you to actually 'explore' quickly without the pressure of considering every angle b4 you physically proceed.
You will see immediately in your results if you have missed something so it allows you to make mistakes & learn from them without penalty of a major investment of time & materials & mental angst.
The sim is a tool but it can't replace logical & creative thinking or substitute a new reality for physics.
It's strength imo is that thought modeling can get complex quickly & the brain tires of holding & considering all the interactions & relations between items you propose to test. The sim relieves the necessity to hold & focus on all that information & allows you to actually 'explore' quickly without the pressure of considering every angle b4 you physically proceed.
You will see immediately in your results if you have missed something so it allows you to make mistakes & learn from them without penalty of a major investment of time & materials & mental angst.