Gain force from their own swinging.

[Gregory]

OK, a quick search and this is what might be the sticking point. I came across the word schwunges in the original German part of the book. this is interpretted as...get this! Flywheel!...Are we really confused now?


Steve

A quote from DT, you all know:
"Around the firmly placed horizontal axis is a rotating disc (or lower or narrow cylinder) which resembles a grindstone. This disc can be called the principle piece of my machine."

Grindstone... Resemles to a flywheel, IMHO.
A flywheel itself is always balanced.

Around a month ago I had an idea about a device which represents a flywheel, but which is not a flywheel at all.

I think the "flywheel" Bessler used in his machines (if there was one) is not like the kind of normal flywheels we usually think about. Maybe it was something other device with specific functions, which casually also worked as a flywheel.

[bluesgtr44]

Greg, there has been a lot of debate on this board about that one. Some believe that it implies a wheel within a wheel and others believe it is reffering to the exterior or cover. You can use the search function here to check out some of the debate...

Unable to quote the original page#, but Bessler wrote that "flywheels were not to be sniffed at."

Hey Chris...yep, and goes on to basically say that anyone who thinks that a flywheel is the solution is wrong...he insists that it is the movement of the weights that cause the wheel to turn.

I had asked about centrepetal force and opposed to centrifugal force...I think we are talking about the former...and I spelled it totally wrong before...

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/cf.html#cf2

[jim_mich]

To my way of thinking weights and flywheels are very similar. A flywheel is just a weight in the form of a wheel. Weights attached to a wheel are just pieces of a flywheel. Both store and release inertial kinetic energy.

The total weight of the wheel would have acted like a flywheel. If the weights were attached to levers then they would swing like pendulums. If some levers were inter-connected then they would swing like compound pendulums.

[Tinhead]

Hmmmm ... no idea where the "not to be sniffed at" translation is comming from.
The original quote is Schwung-Räder sind nicht zu verachten!

That would translate as Flywheels are not to be despised
But still, afterwards he mentions that they are the wrong way to go.

Cheers,
Rainer

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Rainer, thanks for chiming in. You made me have to go and break out the books....

From AP, page 360...J. Collins pub.

For Wagner sings the praises of weights and springs, and the sort of fly-wheels to be found in saw-mills. (However, in Borlachs's writings a contrary point of view is expressed.) But, fly-wheels are not to be sniffed at! Though anyone who sets about the task of bringing a Mobile to golrious completion with such devices, is not on the right track at all. For external wheels, weights etc. - all of this sort of stuff is not the real thing. The wheels own inner force must come into being without external momentum being applied by such devices. It must, simpluy put, just revolve, without being wound-up, through the principle of "excess weight", as I describe in Part 1.

And once again, I will plug the books...they are a great source of information. Thanks John!


Steve

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Jim...just wanted you to know I am not trying to hamper anything you are saying. I am interested in your point here, but a bit confused about it being CF and CpF that you are referring to. I remember a discussion taking place about CpF awhile back ago and I had done some tests and was intrigued by some of the action that took place with this...I did not, however, find a way to use it in any applications that I could think of. Doesn't mean there isn't one...I'm just not the one that could see it.

I pulled up an old WM2D test that I had done when I read this thread to kind of jog my memory of that reaction. I called it a plunger test...the purpose was to see how CpF would react with an impact. I saw what I wanted to see, but it didn't seem like the time would be enough to make a difference. I never tried to apply it to anything. The swing of the upper pendulum has a "backlash" reaction that causes a second impact against the plunger. The main arm of the upper pendulum is 5 lbs and the small attached arm is 2 lbs., the lower pendulum is 7 lbs. which makes it even weight.

CF doesn't seem to fit what you are trying to explain here is all I'm saying...It would seem you are talking about CpF. The link I presented was already on here somewhere, that's where I got it and then bookmarked it...it really shows some promise for certain applications. I just haven't figured out anyway to apply it. Just wondering if this anywhere near the type of effect you are talking about.


Steve

[jim_mich]

Definition: [adj] tending to move away from a center; "centrifugal force"

Definition: [adj] tending to move toward a center; "centripetal force"

I just use only the more common term 'centrifugal' force since both are equal in value but opposite in direction. I sometimes wonder why there is a need to have two names for the same force. Whenever you have a force in one direction there is most always a counter-force in the other direction. We don't make up a separate name for the opposite of gravity. Maybe we could call it 'ground pushback' or something?

In my picture there are two pendulum weights pivotally attached to a wheel, a red weight and a green one. Both are inter-connected at their pivot points using cords and pulleys shown in blue. Gravity is trying to pull both weights downward. But the inter-connection makes the weights swing in opposite directions. They would balance when the torque on both pivot pulleys are equal. In this case the green weight will swing down 25 degrees and the red one up 25 degrees so that both are at a same angle.

Now if the wheel is rotating then CF will not produce any torque on the green weight's pivot pulley because the CF is straight out from the axle and there is no leverage. The red weight will have CF trying to turn it CW. As it swings farther out nearer the edge CF will increase but leverage will decrease.

So by this little demo picture you can see that the torque that is trying to 'swing' the weights is very complex. It is a mix of gravity, centrifugal force, leverage angle, distance from axle, momentum and pulley inter-connection. These all combine in a complex manner to torque the pendulums one way or the other. This is only one pair. Now connect a second pair so you have 'a pair of pairs' of weights and things get really complex. And very interesting.

[John Collins]

Rainer wrote:-

Hmmmm ... no idea where the "not to be sniffed at" translation is comming from.
The original quote is Schwung-Räder sind nicht zu verachten!

That would translate as Flywheels are not to be despised
But still, afterwards he mentions that they are the wrong way to go.

Mike, my friend who did the translations has used his own colloquialisms. For elucidation I offer the following definition of 'colloquialism' - Informal words, or phrases of conversational language that bring color to everyday speech and a friendly, conversational tone to writing; many are figures of speech that are not meant to be taken literally, such as fly off the handle, foot the bill...etc.

He has a slightly old-fashioned turn-of-phrase, and 'not to be sniffed at' means the same thing as 'not to be despised'. I apologise for any confusion resulting from Mike's idiosyncratic phraseology.

John Collins
-

[KAS]

That would translate as "Flywheels are not to be despised." But still, afterwards he mentions that they are the wrong way to go.

I go back to what I may have deduced on another thread - that a governor in some way was used to avoid the jerky movement of CF coming into and out of play (on startup) would have caused.
Jerky movements were not recorded so either the witnesses overlooked this (unlikely) or a "Flywheel" which also acts in some ways like a governor may have been used. The only fly in the ointment is the few rotations it took to reach normal working RPM. A fly wheel similar to a grind stone would have been difficult to start in a few turns. The "wrong way to go" part may have been one of Bessler's never ending ploys to get you off the scent of the true design.

Kas

[Mac]

About the "grindstone" reference...

In Bessler's time, a grindstone used to sharpen tools was usually a foot operated stone wheel with a "crank" type shaft and linkage (often a piece of wood) connected to a wooden foot pedal.

Perhaps there was a similar "grindstone" flywheel with its crank connected to something inside the large wheel, such as a pendulum or perhaps the large wheel's axle (which may also have had a "crank" type offset).

Possibilities?
- gyroscopic effect, flywheel effect, or both.
- its position rotated with the wheel, or...
- it hung inside the wheel and rotated in one position.

Just a few thoughts. ;)

Mac

[KAS]

Possibilities?
- gyroscopic effect, flywheel effect, or both.
- its position rotated with the wheel, or...
- it hung inside the wheel and rotated in one position.

I prefer the latter. It could have been suspended from and driven by the axle at the same time. This way, if his wheel was cronically overbalanced, the fly wheel would receive and emit kinetic energy culminating in the wheel rotating at a constant speed without the jerky movement.
In addition, this would account for the instant release of energy when applying loads. The slow down would then occur gradually.

Just a thought!

Kas

[Mac]

Agreed. I'd guess if it rotated with the wheel, there'd have to be one or more pairs - although not necessarily perfectly matched perhaps?

Lol, every new idea seems to spawn a dozen more...

Mac

[ken_behrendt]

Jim wrote:

It is a mix of gravity, centrifugal force, leverage angle, distance from axle, momentum and pulley inter-connection. These all combine in a complex manner to torque the pendulums one way or the other. This is only one pair. Now connect a second pair so you have 'a pair of pairs' of weights and things get really complex.

If this is a demonstration of what is involved with the pro-CF, "dynamic" approach to resolving the mystery of Bessler's wheels, then all I can say is that "carpenter's boy" must have had the IQ of Einstein if this is how Bessler did it!


As far as Bessler's comparison of his wheel to a "grindstone" in concerned, I think that word might have been better translated as "millstone". I think that Bessler is using this term solely to describe the size and shape of his larger two-directional wheels. This term may also have been selected by him to impress the reader with the power one of his wheels could produce. In reality, however, a Kassel wheel sized millstone turning with a rotational rate of 26 rpm's would have had an initial power output far, far higher than that of the Kassel wheel. I still discount the possibility that any of Bessler's wheels contained an internal rotating grindstone of any sort.


ken

[KAS]

Ken,

In 'Das Triumphirende Perpetuum Mobile Orffyreanum' Bessler didn't describe one of his wheels as a grindstone. Merely a lower part or inner workings of his wheel.

Note:

"Around the firmly placed horizontal axis is a rotating disc (or lower or narrow cylinder) which resembles a grindstone. This disc can be called the principle piece of my machine".

He goes on:

"Accordingly, this wheel consists of an external wheel (or drum) for raising weights which is covered with stretched linen. The base of the cylinder is 12 Rhenish feet in diameter. The height (or thickness) is between 15 and 18 inches. The axle (or shaft) passing through the center is 6 feet long and 8 inches thick cross-sectionally".


In the paragraph, he separated the grindstone or flywheel from the outer drum or wheel. I believe the (lower) narrow cylinder he refers to is in fact a flywheel suspended from the axle. Hence the clues "lower" and "rotating disk". In the second part of the paragraph, the word "cylinder" is used again which, although confusing, I think means the wheel itself (observing the dimensions).

Everything seams to point to a flywheel in this description which I think shouldn't be discounted.

Kas

[jim_mich]

Kas, we have disccussed this many times in the past. Translating 300 year old documents is not a perfect science. There is no indication that there was a separate 'grindstone' flywheel inside the wheel, but rather that the whole wheel was the shape of a large grindstone!

then all I can say is that "carpenter's boy" must have had the IQ of Einstein if this is how Bessler did it!

Never was it said that the 'carpenters boy' needed to design the wheel. Only that he could easily build it once shown the design. There is a big difference between 'building' and 'designing'.

Think about it. Just four swinging weights per mechanism. Limit their swing to say maybe 90 degrees. Inter-connect them using cords like those used between an organ keyboard and its air valves. Make a simple gravity operated latching system, again using pipe organ technology.

I doubt if Bessler himself made all the parts for his wheel. I'm quite sure he had some made by the local crafts men under the guise of making pipe organ repair parts. And the 'carpenter's boy' apprentice probably made some of those parts. I'm sure he was a good customer for the local carpenter as he built hundreds of non-working wheel before he discovered the secret.