Weights

[rlortie]

Fletcher,

I am not Patrick, but just in case he does not come on line.

If you click on the picture it will lead you to;

http://img2.freeimagehosting.net/image. ... 15ae98.jpg

I had to shrink it to 75% to see the whole detail. Three axles with three cylinders.

My generation dates back to the time of real wooden Tinker-toys. We would make these things and listen to them clatter as they rolled across a smooth surface.

I would like to know more about the youtube version and if it is the same or not. I have a feeling it is!

Ralph

[rounder]

hey patrick is there any more information you can tell me about this toy. i want to build one.

[mickegg]

Hmmm...very interesting.

If the table is level and we're not being deceived is this not
the sort of "simple" mechanism we seek?

Does it need forward momentum to continue the motion or will it
revolve on bearings, I wonder?

The three axles at 120º could be indicated on the "Apologia" drawing.
We have percussion of the weights as they hit the other axles.
Looks like CF can be involved.
The wheel accerated...so gain weight from their swinging.

.......A carpenter's boy could make it <grin>

I'm off to my bench to practise some carpentry.

Regards

Mick

Edit
Update.............Looks like I fell for that one!

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Fletch...

So if force of gravity [i.e. accelerartion due to gravity of an object] is the same for all objects with mass [regardless of the amount of mass] & the PM principle comes from the weights themselves, then a differential force must have been created thru movement, that wasn't directly tied to acceleration due to gravity.

...that we know of...leave no stone unturned. He said he found it where others had looked before.

As we all understand, objects always have Inertia which is proportional to its mass. Here's the interesting bit. If you apply a make believe constant acceleration force to an object its rate of increase of velocity is proportional to its mass i.e. the more massive the slower the rate of change of velocity, in all directions.

...and a maximum velocity can be acheived and maintained dependant on the ratio/proportional distribution of the assembly.

So, if gravity [acceleration due to ..] is just a field of force which pushes things downwards at the same rate of acceleration [simplistic analogy] then there is nothing to be gained by way of direct differential from the force of gravity, as there isn't one, & mechanical leveraging/repositioning alone can't give that differential to create constant OOB.

...again, that we know of...I agree with the "alone" part, but it seems that whatever the source for providing the imbalance, an eccentric path of some sort was maintained...."and to this end they are enclosed in a structure or framework"....DT...J. Collins...I might be off base, but I would consider inertia used in this way a mechanical advantage.

Imo, somehow Bessler was able to use gravity to get something moving/swinging [knowing that the momentum gained from gravity would be exactly recovered later]. Then, some arrangement of CoG neutral weight pairs was caused to morph/rotate [from the CF generated] creating an Inertial Hammer to do work via Kinetic Impact. The design of the Inertial Hammer [as it gained momentum] had little effect on the swing mechs Center of Gyration, not slowing it much. The Kinetic Energy from Impact was channelled to change the swing mechs CoG allowing it to swing to a higher Potential Energy State within the wheel, with the process repeating on the back swing.

Nothing about impacts to describe the first two one directional wheels. I do not think this to be an oversight due to the other descriptions of noises the wheels made. I do not think he needed any impact or kinetic energy...I think it has to do with the path...Inertia could have been the fuel that allows this path to be maintained. Think about it.....the one directional wheels were tied off (the path inside is eccentric). Once the wheel is released, the OOB takes over, wheel turns, and inertia can do it's magic within the confines of this path....if this is the way it worked.

So, would it not be reasonable within what you are describing here, Fletch...OOB is always present due to the path (enclosed in a structure or framework), inertia is present as long as there is movement. No matter where you start or stop....you are OOB. Inertia provides the motive force...the OOB (path) keeps it going. Just an opinion here.....


Steve

P.S. Fletch, I always appreciate your input and thinking...now, if you could just get on with it, figure this bugger out....I can sleep better at night! ;-)

[Patrick]

Hi all;
The image I posted of the toy is not at a good angle since it only shows two axles, here is a better view:



You can see the three axles and the cylindrical weights are attached at one end allowing them to swing freely.
The videos I posted are just to illustrate the concept; it is an illusion that it appears to roll on its own; in reality it will of course stop or need to be pushed to keep rolling. (sorry if that gave a false alarm!) However; it is interesting to watch and if the surface has even a hint of incline, it will indeed take off and want to keep rolling. I think it would be a valuable experiment to set up a similar construct in the traditional wheel format; I just haven't had much time lately to test ideas.

I think whoever originally built the toy; must have had PM at the back of his/her mind; it seems to stand out from a typical item built for children. As soon as I saw it; it jumped out at me as a novel wheel idea.

Anyway, maybe it will help stir some existing/new ideas.


ps: did you see this one? looks like a lot of torque!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7lD_65ggChs

[wheelrite]

All I know is Laithwaite demonstrated at the royal institution that he could not lift a motorcycle wheel on a heavy steel pole with one arm. It could be lifted though while spinning. So I dont really understand no.
And his christmas lecture was not published as all others have been, strange.
regards
Jon

see demo here http://www.gyroscopes.org/1974lecture.asp particularly video no. 10

[Fletcher]

Nothing about impacts to describe the first two one directional wheels. I do not think this to be an oversight due to the other descriptions of noises the wheels made. I do not think he needed any impact or kinetic energy...I think it has to do with the path...Inertia could have been the fuel that allows this path to be maintained. Think about it.....the one directional wheels were tied off (the path inside is eccentric). Once the wheel is released, the OOB takes over, wheel turns, and inertia can do it's magic within the confines of this path....if this is the way it worked.

So, would it not be reasonable within what you are describing here, Fletch...OOB is always present due to the path (enclosed in a structure or framework), inertia is present as long as there is movement. No matter where you start or stop....you are OOB. Inertia provides the motive force...the OOB (path) keeps it going. Just an opinion here.....

Steve

P.S. Fletch, I always appreciate your input and thinking...now, if you could just get on with it, figure this bugger out....I can sleep better at night! ;-)

You & me buddy ;)

Now I'm no 'House' but we are all looking for that little bit of insight, that connection of physical facts that allowed Bessler to finally find a path thru the maze. If he could do it then so can we, & that means either turning over a quarry full of stones one by one or sitting around waiting for divine inspiration to come knocking, as Bessler purported happened. I feel that Bessler spent a decade preparing his mind to accept the answer. Not thru brute force intellectualizing but thru acute observation of all things interesting to him in the world around him.

I'm sure you have read my threads so you probably appreciate I try to keep an open mind & to that end I follow parallel lines of enquiry at any one time. I do that to not get too 'desperate' or fixated on one approach, say, finding a loophole in the known laws of physics [I keep trying to get a better understanding of the basics such as gravity & inertia] which would seem improbable given the scrutiny they have been under both here at BesslerWheel.com & in the scientific community at large for 300 years since.

Wearing my practical hat though, I feel that an environmental force is the most likely candidate as the illusive source of extra energy for Bessler's wheels, & I'm still working diligently on that at the same time.

I can relate to your statements Steve .. No KE impact in his first few wheels & that the path had to be critical to the wheels operation to get that OOB condition. BUT .. to follow that path there had to be only a small penalty in performance [i.e. back torque]. All previously explored options that I have pursued have always led to a zero sum game. So ... I need to change my thinking, yet again.

P.S. sometimes I have a penchant for stating the obvious but this rhetoric is more for my own benefit. To remind myself to move on & look under a new set of stones, while not walking in circles ;)

[barksalot]

I think assuming the one directional wheels made no impact sounds may be a mistake.
Did not a visitor to bessler say that when the wheel started moving it made a great noise.
Maybe he cleaned up the sounds the bi-directional ones made to the point that the impacts were clearly discernible.

[rlortie]

Now I am confused and find myself with a pondering question?

Please correct me if I am wrong! The Merseburg wheel is said to be bi-directional. It would have made a banging noise by the lifting and falling of the mill hammers while turning CCW.

BUT! how could this wheel be bi-directional without removing the hammers. How could it turn clockwise as depicted into them without jamming.

IMO It can only lift them when turning CCW, What does the eye witness reports have to say about this? I cannot find anything where it is mentioned. Did they move them to the opposite side or just disconnect them for reverse motion?

Ralph

[wheelmaster]

Didn`t Bessler say that there was more than one way to build his wheel. I believe he said his last and largest wheel worked on a different principle.

My point is to say that if you compare eye witness accounts of all of his wheels it may lead us in the wrong direction. I`m sure that his one directional wheel that ran I think over 60RPMs was much different than his largest wheel running only 24RPMs.

The only thing any of them had in common was what he called The Principle Piece of the device. I believe that never changed no matter what size wheel he built.

Patrick,

Cool toy. A friend of mine and myself built a wheel using the same type of weight system. I posted a poorly drawn image in my thread Springs in a Pendulum. The idea was to use the falling weight to pull the top of the pendulum. This did not work.

[John Collins]

Like the pendulums, Ralph, no witnesses ever described the mill hammers. I think they were on the drawings but not present at the examinations. You have given the reason for this when you asked 'how did the wheel turn against the hammers?'

As barksalot says, there was some mention made of the noise coming from the earlier one direction wheels, and Bessler says that he tried to muffle the noise with felt on the impact points.

John Collins

[Stewart]

Like the pendulums, Ralph, no witnesses ever described the mill hammers.

There are a number of accounts of the stampers (see the quotes at orffyre.com):

Draschwitz wheel (2nd wheel, uni-directional):

"... It has three teeth which are for moving three wooden stamps similar to those used in pounding mills. The stamps are quite heavy and are lifted and dropped continuously. ..."
- Letter from Teuber to Leibniz, 19th January, 1714.

Merseburg (3rd wheel, bi-directional):

"... To demonstrate its effectiveness, four stampers of considerable weight have now been attached. They are lifted by means of eight cams fixed to the shaft, and at each revolution they are lifted twice. ..."
- Leipzig Post Zeitungen, published for week of 24th - 30th June , 1715.

The Merseburg wheel stampers are also described in GB. They were in a frame placed right up against the axle and the pegs in the axle engaged directly with pegs on the stampers. As Ralph points out, the stampers would need to be disengaged to allow the wheel to turn in the opposite direction. I think this would have been achieved either by pulling the whole stamper-frame slightly away from the axle, or by removing the pegs from the stampers or the axle. Alternatively, as presumably there were only one set of stampers, I would doubt that they would bother moving the stampers between the two sets of wheel supports, and so the stamper test could be carried out on one set of supports, and when translocated to the other set the wheel would be free to turn in both directions.

The Kassel wheel stampers are mentioned in NN, and described as differing from the Merseburg ones because they were now moved away from the wheel axle and placed against the wall. Lifting battens were used to connect with the pegs on the axle and the stamps themselves. This configuration may have been more convenient as they were now out of the way and could probably be more easily disengaged by rotating the battens to a vertical position rather than having to move the whole stamper-frame.

Stewart

[rlortie]

Thank you Stewart!

I also found the same information, but did not wish to get involved in a debate over it without more input.

The Drasechwitz machine with three wall mount, batten driven hammers. was obviously uni-directional. Even if it were capable to run backwards the battens would simply be leveraged down and not interfere.
But then who wants to prove that they can pump water downhill?

This would also achieve the same method for the Kassel wheel where as direction could be changed without moving the stamper battens.

I have often thought that the hammer mills may have somehow been an intricate part of the machine accounting for the loud banging heard 8 times per revolution. But then it dawned on me that this would not work for a bi-directional wheel.

IMO I believe that the Merseburg hammers were lifted by cam lobes (pegs) placed into the axle. The hammers contained a morticed quarter circle cut-out pocket. To reverse direction it would have been simpler to remove these pegs from the axle. The pockets left give Bessler's claim to Wagner, that his axle was made up of pockets or compartments validity.

Either way, I sure shoots down my theory that the hammers had something to do with the driving force.

Ralph

[John Collins]

Sorry Stewart - I'm not convinced. You are not quoting eyewitness reports but rather, reports of reports, if you know what I mean. The 'Teuber to Leibnitz' letter comes close to being an eye witness report but we don't know if he actually saw the stampers or was merely reporting Bessler's description of what he intended to add to the demonstration.

I would regard an eye witness report as someone actually describing what he saw and you cannot tell from the quotes you've given whether that is what he (Teuber) saw or whether he is reading from a description of an ideal machine.

Certainly the only official reports by independent witnesses say nothing about the stampers, so for me at least I prefer to remain slightly sceptical. The other quotes are almost certainly written by Bessler or with his approval.

If you assume that the stampers were there for some of the time, I don't think it has any effect on our search for a solution. If they were removed for two directional demonstrations then that is what they must have done.

As always, its just my opinion and it an be changed if clear evidence to the contrary is produced.

JC

[Stewart]

John, I'm not sure how much more evidence you could possibly want?!...

1. We've got an eyewitness report from Teuber, who was actually there and saw the wheel with his own eyes, who then wrote about what he saw in a letter to Leibnitz. I can't see there being any reason for him to make up the presence of a stamping mill.
2. We've got a newspaper report describing the wheel that mentions the stamps. Again, why would anyone make up the presence of a stamping mill that wasn't really there?
3. We've got a thorough report by a patron of Bessler's ("Gründlicher Bericht") in which the stamps are not only described but depicted in the form of a copperplate engraving.
4. In the same document we've got a testimony in which the stampers are mentioned, and it is signed by the following people: Bose, Leidenfrost, Hübner, Semler, von Rohr, Hoffmann, Wolff (Christian), Mencke, Benit and Walbaum.
5. In DT there is a different woodcut print, this time of the Kassel wheel, showing stampers and these are also mentioned in the text.
6. Included in DT is Carl's attestation. In it he mentions the "stamps of solid wood". I've also seen a copy of the original handwritten document, signed and sealed by Carl, and I can confirm it says just that: "Stampen auß gantzem Holtze".
7. In "Neue Nachricht" (a leaflet printed and distributed around Kassel, albeit by Bessler & Carl) it mentions "large heavy stamps of solid oak". Why make up something that could only be refuted by any one of the hundreds of people who visited the wheel?

I could probably find more, but this evidence is enough for me to concluded that the stamps were there. However, in my opinion they are just what they are reported and appear to be, and that is a good demonstration of how the wheel could do useful work. The fact that there are no reports of stampers present on the Gera wheel, and the fact that it is reported that the other wheels ran without the stampers attached, leads me also to conclude that they are not required to make the wheel work. Therefore in my opinion they are not worth spending too much time over; oops, too late! ;-)

Stewart