The Clues...

[ozzy]

Well Im not an expert on scissors, but im a bit "hung up" in them because they are mentioned so many times, and the "this is not the time to show the correct application of the storks bills"...

But the only way to satisfy myself is to try. :-)
Ill let you know how it goes.

Thanks for your input guys

[niente]

Maybe these are the bars Bessler used....
Look at this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4uLPMGrMohc



(personally I think the wheel is put on a slope!)

More info: http://peswiki.com/index.php/OS:Scott_F ... ty_Motor_A

[Deven]

Crude, but I made a similation of that!

As you can see, he probably cut the video there because he knew it would just show CF pushing the bars to the outside, and it would still move faster, because its on a slope.

If you put it on a flat surface or on a pin joint, you will see it won't move without a push, and then it will pretty much maintain energy.

[graham]

The clues.

An important clue is that his bidirectional wheels were balanced until they had turned a small amount and an impact sound was heard. Then the wheel became unbalanced.

So what happened ?

A weight by falling a certain amount had caused another weight to shift or swing its position creating the imbalance.
The two weights were connected ( Bessler talks of "connectedness").

The nice thing about a weight that pivots or swings out is that it will return to its perpendicular orientation automatically as the wheel turns some more. For example if the weight swings out by 20 deg then when the wheel has turned 20 more deg the weight will have restored itself to the pre swung position.

As the wheel speeds up CF will assist the swinging and amplify the effect.

The mechanics of all this will have to be reinvented, but Karl said it was simple and it probably is.

Graham

[rlortie]

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. Graham

I do not look at this as a "clue", it is the only thing that Bessler wrote that you can identify or resembles a descriptive statement . IMO it was a slip of the tongue, and Bessler may have regretted saying it after the cat was out of the box!

As the wheel speeds up CF will assist the swinging and amplify the effect.

In an attempt not to sound facetious, please help me understand how CF which is an outward pulling force can amplify or assist in velocity and cause a swinging weight to negate its speed which is proportional to and set by rod or swing length?

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,

What I cannot get around is the fact that a swinging weight, when swinging in the same direction of wheel travel it is relatively stopped in relation to the wheel. Believe me I discovered this fact the hard way and it does not make anything go faster.

We know by eyewitnesses statements that the wheel once turning maintained a set RPM and this varied with each size of wheel. To me this is due to the length of the vertical (pendulum rod) portion of a cross.

Ralph

[graham]

What I cannot get around is the fact that a swinging weight, when swinging in the same direction of wheel travel it is relatively stopped in relation to the wheel. Believe me I discovered this fact the hard way and it does not make anything go faster.

You're talking about angular velocity being sacrificed for distance from the axis , and you're right Ralph. No gain.
But think about when the wheel starts after hearing the first thump. What is going on here? There is no angular velocity initially so no losses.

Once the wheel gets going there might be a subtle way around this .Is there a different result from forcing a weight to swing out rather than letting it swing out as a result of CF?
It could be that CF is working against you and is the limiting factor in wheel speed. Experimenting is the key, all we have are the clues.

Graham

[rlortie]

If we rely on swinging weights that are not pinned making for a symmetrical system then as Michael would say there is no point of reference!

I look at it this way: when he says everything must turn with the axle, and then comparing with the other statements (not parable clues) we have a contradiction. Some how there has to be a gradient with a reference, otherwise there is nothing to create force.

IMO the statement "must turn with the axle" is misleading if not a flat out lie to throw Wagner off track! It may turn, but not as one would think.

Ralph

[wikiwheel]

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?

Jim,

So does this mean that your design includes scissor jacks/ stork's bills?

Mik

[rlortie]

Graham,

Once the wheel gets going there might be a subtle way around this .Is there a different result from forcing a weight to swing out rather than letting it swing out as a result of CF?

I do not know it there is a different result, but Bessler definitely was experienced in doing so. He used such a device in his music machine as well as self playing wind organs!

It is called a resetting "Snail cam" and it has been discussed on this forum in the past. Although a handy gadget, it will not create any force with the exception of when the cam follower resets.

Ralph

[jim_mich]

Jim,

So does this mean that your design includes scissor jacks/ stork's bills?

Mik

No! Read my post again. Sissor-jacks are heavy, cumbersome and waste energy, so I see no reason to use them.

[wikiwheel]

Well, just thought I'd ask! There's a little bit of Bessler in us all you know.

Mik

[daxwc]

Maybe he uses scissor jacks because the reactive torque is changed 90 degrees relative to the fulcrums if both legs see even force.

[wheelmaster]

Maybe he uses scissor jacks because the reactive torque is changed 90 degrees relative to the fulcrums if both legs see even force.

Or maybe the torque being generated is so high that a stork bill has to be used to reset the mech.

[Jon J Hutton]

I enlarged mt138 famously known as the toys page and it looks like there are holes in the rivits that make up the scissor jack and also holes in the ladder on the right....see the drawing to understand what I am talking about. Does any one have a clearer drawing.....the holes could be the monitor that I am using.

JJH

[rlortie]

Jon,

IMO, what you are calling "holes" is the hinge point: pins, rivets, bolts, ect.

Yes there is a hole there but it is already filled with one of the above.

Ralph