Pair of Pairs

[John Collins]

I leave in about an hour but I couldn't leave that comment unanswered! The design certainly needs more than one crossbar and also needs more than a few days to complete. I have tried to finish it before I go away but not enough time, so it'll have to keep 'til I get back.

See you guys in a couple of weeks.

John C.

[Fletcher]

Even John is entitled to 'out of contact' holidays :)

If it were that easy my Grandmother could have designed & built it. From what John says, re Karl's likely rudimentary understanding of it, it appears the mech was simple (we've probably all hunted around the mountain), with a twist.

We'll see.

EDIT: John got in b4 me.

[ovyyus]

Hey there quercus virginiana, why don't you tell us about your designs and builds and background while John takes a break - are you a hands on person or is your research more academic?

Why do I ask? Your 4 posts to date have all been fairly blunt questions asking others for input, with no reciprocation from your end. You might find others more helpful if you would take the time to be more forthcoming - sharing is a two way street you know ;)

[quercus virginiana]

My background is academic and legal.

[ovyyus]

Facinating. So then what is your interest in Oak - are you attracted to the tree or to the wood? I'm curious, what does someone with a legal academic background find most interesting about PM research - are there any particular directions that you think are more likely to lead to a solution?

[quercus virginiana]

Actually, I came to have respect for the tree as material for the building of warships, e.g. the USS Constitution. That ship had a hull made of live oak, 24" thick. More than one British cannonball bounced off of it due to its strength and toughness. History is very interesting, and the story of Bessler is very compelling.


So, I have drawn the connection to Bessler, who incidentally I learned about from the book A.P. I bought it at an estate sale a few months ago, searched Google and here we are.


It would be a nice ending, for John Collins to have re/discovered how the wheel was made, then go on a trip, just like Bessler did.

And return to a new beginning.


Oak

[ken_behrendt]

Oak...

Yes, we are all excited by the possibility that John may, indeed, finally have made some sort of a breakthrough with regard to Bessler's secret mechanism. My fantasy has always been to be able to have a small diameter model of one of Bessler's one-directional wheels sitting on my coffee table while spinning away. I can just imagine the conversations that would lead to!

From reading AP it is obvious that Bessler was a very interesting historical character.

For example, on page 295 of AP, Bessler writes:

IÂ’d like, at this point, to give a brief description of it. So then, a work of this kind of craftsmanship has, as its basis of motion, many separate pieces of lead. These come in pairs, such that, as one of them takes up an outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axle. Later, they swap places, and so they go on and on changing places all the time. ...At present, as far as IÂ’m concerned, anyone who wants can go on about the wonderful doing of these weights, alternatively gravitating to the center and climbing back up again, for I canÂ’t put the matter more clearly.

However, there is some confusion in interpreting this passage.

For example, when he says that "they" come in pairs such that "one of them" moves out to the wheels rim on the descending side while the "other" moves toward the axle on the ascending side, does that "one of them" refer to a single weight within an opposed pair of two weights? Or, does that "one of them" refer to a pair of two weights? In other words, if one were to view the weights arranged around the wheel's rim, would one, in the case of a one-directional wheel, see 8 separate single weights around the rim. Or, would one see 8 separate pairs of 2 weights around the rim?

I'm sure that at the time Bessler was writing this description, it was crystal clear to him. But, unlike his readers, he knew what the wheel's internal mechanism looked like. In this case, I think that the ambiguity of the description may not have been intentional, but, rather, just due to his generally poor ability as an expositor of technical details.



Anyway, Oak, these are the kinds of problems the Bessler researcher has to contend with. Welcome to the Discussion Board...



ken

[quercus virginiana]

My vote from reading that passage, is that it's one crossbar connected to two weights.


Oak

[ME]

At physics class we learn that "the total work done by a conservative force is equal to zero when the path is a closed loop"
When two weights change places, there will be no closed loop (for one cycle). Perhaps that a proper design will let it "forget" that it has to make another cycle to make a closed loop, and will gain enough force to do that.

[Joel Wright]

Hi Oak Do you have any experience with copy right design laws?
I believe that the pair of weights refers to one pendulum,one weight acting on two differnt fulcrums.
One weight swinging back and forth past center,that acts as two,by way of alternating fulcrums near either side of the axle.Search Joel Wrights ideas for a diagram of this theory.

[jim_mich]

MT-138 (The toy's page) shows two toys where the little toy men hammer or chop when the handles are moved. We must assume that these toys have some meaning. I think the tools in the little guysÂ’ hands would be symbolic of the weights. I think it very likely that the linkage between the weights would be similar to the linkage on Bessler's wheel, only somewhat different. I ponder what that difference might be? I see four possibilities configuration. Number one is as just as shown on the toys page. Two would be flipping one of the little guys upside down so he hammers on the bottom. Three would be like number one except that the linkage rods cross causing the little guys to both hammer at the same time. Four would be like number two except again the linkage rods cross causing the little guys to hammer one on the top then the other upside down on the bottom. I currently feel that the weights in Bessler's wheel don't drive the wheel by the force of hammering, but rather drive the wheel by inertial reactions which it what I'm trying to discover.

Assume that we have two weights and assume that they weigh W1 pounds and W2 pounds.
The radial distance of the weights from the wheel axis is R1 inches and R2 inches. This distance changes as the weights swing and move.
Assume the weight's locations are X1, Y1 and X2, Y2 with zero location being the wheel center.
If the weights are free to rotate about their individual axis then their Gyration Radii are GR1 = R1 and GR2 = R2
Whereas if the weights are fixed and cylindrical shaped with radii of CR1 and CR2 then the Gyration Radii are GR1 = Sqr(R1^2 + 0.5 * CR1^2) and GR2 = Sqr(R2^2 + 0.5 * CR2^2).

The Gyration Radius for the combined pair of weights is GR = Sqr( (GR1^2 * W1 + GR2^2 * W2) / (GR1 * W1 + GR2 * W2) )
The Torque Radius for the combined pair of weights is TR = ( Sqr(X1^2 + Y1^2) + Sqr(X2^2 + Y2^) ) / 2
The Center of gravity Radius for the combined pair of weights is CR = Sqr( ((X1 + X2) / 2)^2 + ((Y1 + Y2) / 2)^2 )

These three radii each have a different action or meaning.
The Gyration Radius (GR) defines inertial momentum or how much energy is stored by the rotating pair of weights.
The Torque Radius (TR) defines the average rotational leverage that the pair of weights has on the wheel.
The Center of gravity Radius (CR) defines a radial distance to the center of mass of the pair of weights.

The attached drawings show a Visual Basic program I wrote that calculates and displays the weights in any of the four configurations, oriented at any angle and swung to any angle. It calculates the three Radii I've described above. As the weights swing around (like pulling and pushing on the toy's handles) these radii change. Note that in my program I have all the weights moving simultaneously in unison whereas in a wheel they would move independently in some manner. I'm just trying to understand what happens in certain situations. When I understand ("and still you don't understand") what happens as the weights swing then I may be able to make use of this information. What I've noticed by observing the three radii is that the weights can swing in such a manner as to cause the Torque Radius and the Gyration Radius to move together and apart.

This post is getting quit long. There is much more I could post like how in the Forces4 picture the centrifugal force would be much greater on the outer weight due to the angle of the weight rod to its pivot point. Compared it to the inner weight. This all gets very complex which I think is the reason none (except Bessler) have found the solution.

[Fletcher]

Thanks for putting that up Jim (that's a lot of thought & programming time). It's going to take some contemplation & analysis to see if there is a way forward where one center can be traded against or combined with another (as you say) to temporarily suspend Mr Newton's Laws in a way that can be used.

The initial thought is that the center of gyration changes the inertial charactoristics of a pendulum (or one side of a wheel in this case) but IINM the total amount of energy in the form of momentum remains the same. In a way the center of gyration is playing a game of changing the Angular Momentum of a wheel which must be taken back again to reset the device. Perhaps you are right & CF's can provide an assist when required. That would be interesting.

[james kelly]

I THINK THAT we have an old friend back with us. j kelly

[Michael]

Jim how would this explain the wheel that needed to be tied down,the unidirectional ones?

[ken_behrendt]

I think that once one of Bessler's one-directional wheels achieved its maximum terminal rotation rate, then there was no further increase in angular momentum or kinetic energy of the wheel.

His wheels would not have violated the Conservation of Angular Momentum principle. As weights moved away from the wheel's axle on the descending side, that would increase the moment of inertia of the wheel and require the wheel to slow down to conserve angular momentum. However, that process would be exactly counteracted by the weights moving closer to the axle on the wheel's ascending side which would then decrease the moment of inertia of the wheel and require the wheel to speed up to conserve angular momentum. Thus, at any instant of its rotation, the changes in wheel speed would cancel each other out just as would the changes in the moment of inertia of the wheel. And, angular momentum would, therefore, remain constant.

As I have previously mentioned (and recently mentioned in my Community Buzz "...Updates" thread), I believe that the operation of Bessler's wheels requires that we postulate an additional Law of Motion which I refer to as "Bessler's 4th Law of Motion".

Basically, this new law, which only applies to chronically overbalanced gravity wheels, states that such wheels work because they manage to create a continuous net downward vertical velocity in the weights that they carry. It is as though their weights were in a continuous state of free fall and, thus, continously converting gravitational potential energy into the mechanical energy that accelerates the wheel and can also do useful work external to the wheel itself. So far, there have only been a handful of devices which demonstrate this law in action and that, of course, is why I feel it should be named in honor of Bessler and his achievement.


ken