The Clues...

[ozzy]

Ive been reading the clues up and down, back and forth, trying to narrow it down a bit.
There is one "paragraph" in particular that I cannot let go;

"If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in my machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself at all, but, on the contrary, when I arrange several bars, pulleys and weights, the machine can revolve much faster" - pg 355

(High clues; apologia, Wiki)

Is he giving away the construction here?

Is it a crossbar with weights, moved by "ropes with weights?" through pulleys?
Then this construction is multiplied (side by side?) for more effect?

Im twisting my head on this one.
Is this the ingredients and then I have to figure out the rest myself?

[graham]

Yes Ozzy, if Bessler is not playing with words and not trying to misdirect the reader then this could be a very important clue.
I too have always been drawn to those words because they seem to make sense where so many of his other veiled hints can be interpreted many different ways.

In fact I have considered that trying to build a "wheel" is like trying to run before you can walk.

Go ahead and figure it out , keep it simple , a single cross bar that can turn of itself is all we need . Good luck with it.

Graham

[KAS]

Ozzy

I have also studied this clue many times. It suggests that the more cross members there is, the more efficient the wheel is.

For those with WM2D, try running the following attachment that appears to back this up.

Either that, or its just a glitch.


Kas

[bluesgtr44]

I have no idea what the "working" concept behind this one was, Kas. The reason it acted the way it did is because you had the air resistance turned off. I let it run awhile without changing any of your settings and it reached a point where there was this surge in the velocity and I just could not see any reason for it. This is just one of the reasons why I think WM2D is not the "be all" of PPM research.... a great testing tool...just not the solution.

I have a WM2D file that I set up with the basic settings of what a real world scenario would be to start out with. Basic air resistance and frictional values are never changed. I titled this file Template, and I use it every time I start a new test....if I choose to save it....I use the "save as" option and my template never changes. This way I am always sure of my starting point and that it is consistent.

Here it is......maybe someone who is more proficient than I with this program could go over this basic template and suggest some changes that would make it more "real world"....I would appreciate it! If anyone else likes this approach, have at it....download it and use it. Make any basic changes you want, just do not save on the "template"....use the save as option and the basic template never changes....


Steve

[KAS]

I know what you mean Steve.
There is no reason for the surge in velocity.
The levers appear to work for the self start then freeze for the remainder of the rotation.

???

I tried adding air resistance or a reverse motor to this one but it just explodes on my version.

I thought I would post it to see if anyone can do anything with it.

Thanks for the template. It will prove very useful.

Kas

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Kas....

Thanks for the template. It will prove very useful.

You may want to make some adjustments...I set it up for values (ft./lbs.) that I am used to dealing with. You might want to use the metric system....the thing is, once one has a basic template to start with....he can deduce that all of his tests are consistent with these basic starting points.

This is the image of what I would consider his basis for the "cross beam" statement. I think this has been discussed before and that this would be a correct assumption to most. I have these set up as basic set ups to work from also....just makes it easier to pick a known starting point and not have to always redraw the same basic structures.....I just pick "crossbar/crossbar1" and one or the other shows up and I work from there.....


Steve

[jim_mich]

Is the phrase "cross-bar" a good and fair translation?

It just seems logical that he might be talking about a mechanism or arrangement of parts that spans from one side of the wheel to the other. These parts would constitute one prime mover assembly. Of course if you add more of these cross-bars then the wheel gets stronger and turns faster. But when you add these cross-bars maybe parts get in the way of each other and so you need to add cords and pulleys running from the parts and weights on one side to those on the other side?

Anyway, this is what makes the most sense to me. Can the translation be construed in this way?

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Jim....LOL, here's what I have so far about "cross bar/beam"

in ein Werk gleichsam nur ein creuz,
in a work so to speak with only a cross

So wird man es ganz langsam sehen
so will be ??? is quite slow looking.

Viel Creuz, zuge und gewicht
many crosses, trains(?) and weights

This part uses the word "Creuz" twice and the translation for this is "cross".

I have to give credit to those who do the interpretations....I know it drives me nuts!


Steve

[ozzy]

Hmm
I havent seen the german text before.

"Werk" I believe is more "machine-ry"

When I see "cross" instead of crossbar, it makes a bit more sense according to my ideas

Zuge= chains?

The mechanism can be anything, just hidden in a wheel-case, so I just try to pull out the "facts" from the clues. Trying to understand something from apologia poetica is a waste of time in my case..

I think it is a thin mechanism, several side by side.
Two small weights on levers raise/displace bigger weights by acting together. Pairs lifting pairs. And it include scissor-jacks.
And from the picture in my head, it will act twice every rotation.

Problem is I dont use wm2d, and I dont draw or calculate very well, so I have to enter my garage and start building..

[jim_mich]

And it include scissor-jacks.

I know that Bessler shows a number of sissor-jacks in MT. And he shows a sissor-jack on the toys page. But I just cannot understand why he would use one. My reasoning is that sissor-jacks are just fancy levers. The same movements can usually be done by other means. Sissor-jacks are heavy and cumbersome. Each lever segment must be thick enough to prevent bending. It takes energy to move all those individual levers. Each has inertia. As it extends and contracts it waists inertial energy. If at all possible it would be much better to use cords, much like in the pipe organs that bessler built.

I may be wrong. Maybe there is a reason?

[Gregory]

I had & have one thought on the scissor jacks.

Maybe they can be good for a kind of catapult mechanism to shot weights upwards. I tried a jack with short pairs of bars, at least 3-4 pair.

If you release / "discharge" enough CF into the jacks, and make the acceleration quick enough, then it can shot weights well. However I found the same, they consume more energy than I would like. But it is still an interesting use of these fancy levers.

Or it can lift a weight to a higher position when more small levers are used, but also consumes its own amount of energy to accomplish this task.

[Stewart]

I'm planning to talk about all the wheel related parts of AP in detail in my forum soon, but for now I'll just try and help you with the part you've queried...

Denn wenn ich mache hier bereits
In ein Werck gleichsam nur ein Creutz/
So wird man es gantz langsam sehen
Kaum von sich selber herum drehen;
Hingegen/ wenn ich zugericht't
Viel Creutze/ Züge und Gewicht_/
So kan das Werck viel schneller lauffen/

Because if I make here already
in a work so to speak only one cross,
So will one see it quite slow
Barely turn itself around;
However, if I prepared
Many crosses, pulls and weights,
So the work can move much faster,

Firstly, I should just point out again that the use of 'so to speak'/'as it were' suggests to me that this is just a hypothetical scenario that Bessler is proposing, and not necessarily to be taken as the exact mechanism he is using. However, I think it is the most basic way of depicting an overbalance system, which he tells us was turning his wheel.

To understand what he is talking about here, have a look at MT14. In MT14 you can see the overbalance system in the centre that he is talking about in the above text. In MT14 he mentions "inwendigen Creütz-Züge mit den Gewichten" (internal cross-pulls with weights). The cross-pulls connect the weights together across the wheel, and could refer to ropes or rods. He also refers to the ropes that connect the outer weight system to the inner weight system as pulls (Züge). MT15 is another example, and in that he says the 'pulls' are longer. MT16 also refers to 'pulls', but these are the ones between the outer and inner weights, as there are no cross-pulls.

'Pulleys' is not a good translation for 'Züge' here IMO, because that conjures up in ones mind a more complicated system of ropes and wheels, when, as you can see, Bessler uses the term in MT to refer to a very simple rope/rod connection between two weights.

So, Bessler isn't really giving anything away here, but merely describing how a single cross-pull unit means the wheel turns slowly, but add more like in MT14 & 15 and the wheel will turn faster. However, we still need that elusive second system for shifting the overbalancing-weights!

Stewart

[rlortie]

Once again I agree with Jim, I as most of you know recently had an experience with scissor jacks for a design by Turulato.

It did not work, but I kept experimenting, augmenting and re-designing the scissor concept. The first fault is that at least one of the two handles must be pinned. The second fault is that they have to be almost half open in order to extend with the least amount of force.

Scissors revolving with the wheel are a waste of time and effort when the same results can be obtained with cells or spokes. And of course these do not work either!

True! a design using CF to open them is feasible but in doing so you have extended them, which in turn puts them at even more CF due to the increase in radius, So once open. how do you close them? The only way to get any efficiency out of a scissor jack is if the handles are opened and closed from a stationary base that does not rotate with the drum.

Ralph

[Gregory]

True! a design using CF to open them is feasible but in doing so you have extended them, which in turn puts them at even more CF due to the increase in radius, So once open. how do you close them? The only way to get any efficiency out of a scissor jack is if the handles are opened and closed from a stationary base that does not rotate with the drum.

Yes, I also tried them only on a stationary support. I figured out a mechanism which lets me use the CF outside the rotational environment. It would be a disaster to close the jack when rotating & subjected to CF. Also, I only tried them in the computer simulated world, but I did not let them to open to maximum, which would make them almost impossible to close in the real world.

So, I did read & learned these things from you Ralph!
Thanks. ;)

I think I also found one more important thing about them. Before use, it is good to balance the whole mechanism by fixing two weight on the non-sliding base bars at the bottom pinned to the stationary support. So, the mass of these balance weights will balances with the mass of the other sliding bars above. It can be balanced for one chosen position. This can make them easier to open, and by adjusting the mass of the balance weights, a compromise can be experimented out for the open / close operation.

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Ozzy....

"Werk" I believe is more "machine-ry"

There seemed to be an understanding that "works" of this sort, of that time period, were considered an art form. Machinery would also be fitting of this endeavor.

Stewart.....I have read many times about how MT15 "...shows the over balance..." Now, would that be an over balance or the over balance. ;-), See how insane it can get!?! It probably means absolutely nothing...but I think about it....I know I have said it before and it might get old...but, I really admire your work, Stewart...this is hard stuff to try and do. I'd really just rather wait and buy your version of the translation of these publications than try this crap myself. Just an opinion....

Hey Ralph...I was messing around with a scissor jack mechanism that when it descended, it pulled down and aided and then when it hit the end of the downward cycle...the cross sections were slotted and the CF shifted the sections to the other side and now the weighted part was actually pulling up! Well, then I woke up......actually tried to work it out.....nothing, nada, niente, zip, zilch, zero (I hear ya, Jim)....if you don't mess with any of the structure, PQ is at the exact same point every time (+ or - .5). I sure do like those things, though....

Hey Greg....Ralph has shown me a lot also. There a lot of people here that have some good input...just a suggestion, WM2D is good test ground. Don't use it to actually produce PM. If you test certain criteria for what might be a real world build in WM2D...it might save you an unworthy build. Other than tests and experiments of certain natures, I personally do not put much faith in WM2D as far as showing a working example of what we are looking for. Sorry.....


Steve