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

[Fletcher]

P.S. imo Bessler didn't invent some new form of leverage. He used leverage as we know it to be.

Imo he didn't discover some new theory of physics. Newton had that covered.

What he did do was use available forces generated by the movement of the wheel to keep resetting his OOB wheel [he could have added another chapter to Newton's Treatise about applying Newtons Laws to his PM principle].

What we do know is that the toy page will point us to his principle, if we can decipher it, but first we must narrow the field so as not to be side tracked i.e. get some clear pointers & direction about what we want to achieve & then we might be able to zero in on how he did it. JMO's.

P.P.S. winkle .. I have searched high & low for an example in nature & so far I've been unable to think of a single thing than can balance on the head of a pin indefinitely but in essence that is what Bessler's wheels could do.

[Gregory]

I agree with you Fletcher.

The three classes of OOB designs look very reasonable, thank you. It was good to read the third one described by you.

[bluesgtr44]

I think that is a great synopsis for the OOB approaches. Very good way to put it into perspective, Fletch.

Now, I kind of disagree with Wink as to the solution has to be the third way...I just can not totally dismiss the others as of yet. I get the feeling that with the principle known, all of these would work! And if it is using CF, this could be possible with any of these 3 approaches...once the secret is discovered.

If one wants to maintain an OOB effect, it would seem that the main thing would be to control the reaction forces. Whether one uses them or eliminates them...they have to be addressed. Would it not be safe to assume, that if ones' system does not have a "fluidity" to it...that the reaction forces are wreaking havok on it?

The one thing I rarely hear mentioned is the path...I could be wrong, but I think this is an important part in solving this mystery. It has to be a path of least resistance...whereby, the shifting, lifting, latching, transferring....takes the least amount of energy as possible....in a true OOB design.

So, I agree with the three types...excellent work, Fletch. I just disagree with a conclusion as to which of these three that Bessler employed. Convince me, Wink...I would love to narrow it down....;-)


Steve

[Fletcher]

Hi Steve .. all 3 Classes are OOB wheels. The difference is just where the CoG [of the entire wheel] is at at various times.

Its very easy to design a wheel where the CoG starts below the axle & ends up lower. They don't run. It's a little harder to design a wheel where the CoG starts below the axle but doesn't drop any further. They don't run also. It's hard to imagine a wheel where the CoG starts below the axle & then gets above it.

Reaction forces are a natural part of things. Constraining weights to travel certain paths adds further reaction forces to be dealt with, so far in my experience, without any success. A clear example of that is ramp wheels.

It was recently mentioned by Wheelmaster in another thread where JB was talking about the form of objects. He gave the example of spheres of wax, lead & iron . JB said that you would say they all had the same form & were described as spheres but when placed in an oven had different melting points, so did they really have the same form ? I'll see if I can find the quote on wiki [from DT I think].

I think he was saying that shape is important & if you morphed the shape of the mech [not the individual weights or path per se] you would have an interesting effect.

'If all things retain their structure & form etc' [at certain times - italics mine]

"they are enclosed in a structure or framework, and co-ordinated in such a way that not only are they prevented from attaining their desired equilibrium or 'point of rest', but they must for ever seek it, thereby developing an impressive velocity which is proportional to their mass and to the dimensions of their housing." - pg 191

From wiki clues - DT

"the motive force, the ability to move itself and drive other objects makes up the FORM of the device" ... The "essence" - pg 221

"as an example of the ideas I am discussing, consider the case of two small metal spheres, one of iron and one of lead. For both of them, their FORM consists in their regular sphericity. But we find that placed in a furnace, one loses its shape quicker than the other. Therefore the greater or lesser "meltability" of such spheres is not the result of "sphericalness" - common to both - but of the physical characteristics of the two materials. And it is this "material accident" which is the FORMAL CAUSE of the difference." - pg 221

"The case is no different from that of a leaden or even waxen sphere. They are both as perfectly deserving of the description "sphere" as is an iron one, despite the fact that the latter will withstand fire and other attacks better than the two former. For form give the essence of the thing." - pg 222

[winkle]

If I can't picture it, I can't understand it.
- Albert Einstein

seems to be a lot of that going around for the last three hundred years

[mickegg]

I have searched high & low for an example in nature & so far I've been unable to think of a single thing than can balance on the head of a pin indefinitely but in essence that is what Bessler's wheels could do.

Not exactly "in nature" but should we be looking at the gyroscopic properties of the top?

Spinning weights maybe?

The bearings for such a device in Bessler's time would give me
cause for concern, but perhaps they only accelerate while falling, and
then slow down on the upside.

Mick

[Fletcher]

Gyroscopic spinning does seem to fit within the frame of the spinning top so can't be ruled out. If you think that the falling link in the jacob's ladder indicates 2 dimensional falling then they may not marry that well.

Personally, I think it unlikely but I have no evidence to back that up categorically.

Heck, until recently I didn't think it was possible to control CF favorably either & the jury is still out, but the door is ajar instead of firmly closed.

P.S. about standing on a pin head. We can balance on a pin head in two ways. The usual is to have the CoG below the pivot like an extended pendulum at rest. The second way is to have the CoG above the pivot & then shift the CoG laterally to compensate for tilt [like an acrobat tight rope walking]. In other words we shift the CoG sideways & use our feet to create torque to right ourselves. This requires muscular energy & every creature that walks the earth uses this mechanism.

Imo Besslers wheel didn't get its energy from nourishment in the sense of external energy input, but from its innate forces generated & redirected, gained from its own movement. As it toppled, so the mech was able to right itself by using torque - bizarre, & it wasn't alive ;)

Newton wrote the description of the forces & explained them. Bessler went one better & showed, it's one thing to describe something, its another to apply it.

[wheelrite]

Its difficult to imagine how the first few inches of push to start the wheel generates enough weight spinning to amount to useful level of force.
The weights shape could lend them to being 'rollers' at some time, part of a bearing action or maybe to ride over one another.
Regards
Jon

[mickegg]

like an acrobat tight rope walking

........There you go again ! <grin>

Acrobats and shadow boxers..............etc.etc

I suppose my reference to gyros and the top are more as food for
thought, than design, if I'm honest.

I was seriously wondering about weights on a rope though with a loop
around the centre, so they revolved as they fell, then as the wheel
turned to the upside they would have rotational momentum to climb the rope.

Remember those jugglers (always dressed up in a chinese outfit for some reason...pehaps the hat shape!)with a rope and two sticks and internal conical weights, where the weight could climb the inclined cord?

I'm trying to model it in wm2d but I have a lot
of difficulty with ropes and pulleys......

Probably just more "thinking out loud", however, I do believe that
such an exercise may spark someone else's neurons to inspirational
ideas

[Fletcher]

All thoughts welcome. I read them with interest because your thoughts may trigger some inspiration for me in return & that's a fair trade.

[wheelrite]

I still think any rotational speed of a spinning weight would be too slow for useful work, ie climbing/winding itself up a rope.
The toy mentioned is called a 'diabolo' I believe and they have high rpm due to the large input from your arms as you do the first lengthy up/down motion, I cant see how this initial energy 'kick' of a diabolo can equate to a push start on a wheel, I am not saying there are not ways of achieving this (springs?), I can't see how tho'. http://www.amazon.co.uk/WoodKiosk-Diabolo/dp/B00062RTPG
hmmmm, still thinking lol, the toy seems to use a small driving diameter for the string to 'gear up' the speed without the losses associated with actual gearing/gears.
Regards
Jon

[Fletcher]

Yes, I've played around with designs based on this sort of concept b4 also. It was a mechanical hamster in a cage idea.

In mine I had a swinging counter weight hanging below the axle to keep things orientated & a chain looping over a center axle cog & hanging near to the rim at 5 o'cl [closed loop chain].

The idea was that the counter weight would oscillate slightly like a pendulum. As the chain turned with the central cog it spun up a circular weight hanging at about 5 o'cl like your toy [but geared thru mesh teeth & the chain].

As things swung the drive weight [which was spinning] would engage the rim & its rotational inertia in the form of translational inertia would want it to climb the rim CCW b4 the counter weight swung back again disengaging it until the next swing to re-engage.

Reaction forces were to force the wheel rim CW.

Unfortunately I didn't see how any excess energy was to to be derived from the system to keep the counter weight swinging, the driver climbing & the rim turning, so I never built it.

The problem was that a flywheel [the driver & climber] has center of gyration considerations, in other words, where the mass is located determines its translational inertia but also how much energy it takes to get it spinning up to a suitable rpm.

[Fletcher]

Here's a quick sketch of what I was envisaging. I played around with the idea of either a spring loaded jockey wheel or extending storksbill to help it make contact & disengage the rim.

[Fletcher]

That made me think back then about Folded Chains & Weight Transference [if the jacob's ladder was in fact a chain].

The chain would need to be like a thick bicycle chain or one used in industrial machinary that could lay flat & fold over on itself & had some weight.

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Fletch, I would like to delve into this a bit further. You really tweaked my thought process with this....I added a line to your quote from DT, I think it applies....

I think he was saying that shape is important & if you morphed the shape of the mech [not the individual weights or path per se] you would have an interesting effect.

'If all things retain their structure & form etc' [at certain times - italics mine]

...So long as they keep away from the centre of gravity. To this end....

"they are enclosed in a structure or framework, and co-ordinated in such a way that not only are they prevented from attaining their desired equilibrium or 'point of rest', but they must for ever seek it, thereby developing an impressive velocity which is proportional to their mass and to the dimensions of their housing." - pg 191

From wiki clues - DT

"the motive force, the ability to move itself and drive other objects makes up the FORM of the device" ... The "essence" - pg 221

"as an example of the ideas I am discussing, consider the case of two small metal spheres, one of iron and one of lead. For both of them, their FORM consists in their regular sphericity. But we find that placed in a furnace, one loses its shape quicker than the other. Therefore the greater or lesser "meltability" of such spheres is not the result of "sphericalness" - common to both - but of the physical characteristics of the two materials. And it is this "material accident" which is the FORMAL CAUSE of the difference." - pg 221

"The case is no different from that of a leaden or even waxen sphere. They are both as perfectly deserving of the description "sphere" as is an iron one, despite the fact that the latter will withstand fire and other attacks better than the two former. For form give the essence of the thing." - pg 222

An argument can still be made about the path...the FORM of this path would, out of neccesity, need to be eccentric in some way or another....would it not? I think eccentric can be a form.

This gets back to the title of your thread about "symmetrically balanced systems" and usable torque....basically, excess torque to do work exterior to the closed loop system. So, it would seem that if....

DT...pg. 190-191...J. Collins pub....."NO, these weights are themselves the PM device, the "essential constituent parts" which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the PM principle) indefinitely - so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity."

The structure or framework he refers to is what maintains this path...this FORM...that presents an eccentric within a concentric and it has the ability to hold itself to one side and maintain an OOB.

It's not just the FORM he talks about, it is also the essence...

"the motive force, the ability to move itself and drive other objects makes up the FORM of the device" ... The "essence" - pg 221

In it's entirety....

DT...pg. 219...J. Collins pub....(italics mine)

In a machine such as mine, on the other hand, the motive force, the ability to move itself and drive other objects makes up the FORM of the device, without which its framework is just any old heap of material, which has completely lost its essence.

The motive force are the weights as he described earlier...."NO, these weights are themselves the PM device."

Now, the "framework"...(emphasis mine)..."To this end they are enclosed in a structure or framework, and co-ordinated in such a way that not only are they prevented from attaining their desired equilibrium or "point of rest", but they must forever seek it...."

Enclosed, co-ordinated, prevented....this is path control to me. The FORM is the path...the asymmetry...the eccentric within a concentric.


Steve