The Clockwork approach

[bluesgtr44]

You know....I am going to throw some MT stuff out there. This goes along with what Fletch has already thrown out there.

curiously he slips in MT's 12 & 13 which show a lifting force is required yet we know that ramps don't work because of induced back torque [action & reactions]

...and then later on, he picks up at MT 37...."This invention belongs among nos. 14, 15 and 16 above and is inserted here, having been accidentally omitted."....what the heck is this?!? The very next MT drawing (38) just continues on and this is where he introduces the "stork's bill".....and he just accidentally left this out of the earlier ones??....hmmmmm...


Steve

[P-Motion]

>>then the weight must be retracted to a closer orbit to the axle & this is where all OOB designs <<
This is only if it is being lifted which requires work to be accomplished.
What Bessler realized was that its' own swinging motion could reposition it.
By having it swing from a tangent near the axis, the tension would be in the connecting line / rod. Otherwise, it would be using inertia to waste energy.
By having it tethered to an axis close to the center of the wheel, it would convert its' energy to angular momentum.
Thus, if it goes from over balance to a balanced position, all the energy developed would be converted to angular, not linear momentum.
Please remember, Bessler has pretty much shown a concept that works.

[Fletcher]

Please remember, Bessler has pretty much shown a concept that works.

I must have been wagging school that day - what concept did he pretty much show, as I don't remember it ????

[P-Motion]

I must have been wagging school that day - what concept did he pretty much show, as I don't remember it ?

Maybe you you were.
I have said before it seems that most people that find this interesting lack both an understanding in engineering and trignometry.
The reason for trig is simple. It is possible to accomplish ALL work in one quadrant.
If this can not be done, then the design most likely will fail.
Can I say that it is my idea and not Bessler's that if gravity does all the work, then all force generated can be converted to angular momentum ?
I really do believe that you guys do not understand what you are discussing. That is why you like playing with what Bessler said.
You don't really have to show anything. You should try playing solitaire.

[rlortie]

OH! oh! Now you went and done it! Must be time for me to re-oil the rockers on my rocking chair, its getting squeaky!

I must have missed school that day also. I sure as h--l do not know trig, but I consider myself a fair hands on engineer. I do not need a whole quadrant just room enough to make sawdust and metal shavings which the professionals call "swarf"

Ralph

[Fletcher]

hmm .. I'll check in from time to time to see how you're getting on P - good luck !

[Bessler007]

Hello P-Motion,

One of the vital functions I do for the agency is analysis. Basically what I do is examine details distilling them to general conclusions for the higher up muckity mucks to breeze through. That saves them time so they can attend to the more pressing matters of deciding who to kill next.

If I might, I'd like to apply my analytical skills to your comments. Fletcher asked a pointed question and you evaded it.

what concept did he pretty much show, as I don't remember it ????

His question was prompted by your assertion...

Please remember, Bessler has pretty much shown a concept that works.

Now I'm sure you recall this comment:

What Bessler realized was that its' own swinging motion could reposition it.

but right on the heels of it. this comment followed:

I really do believe that you guys do not understand what you are discussing. That is why you like playing with what Bessler said.
You don't really have to show anything. You should try playing solitaire.

That makes no sense. You assert you understand what Bessler said then accuse others of 'playing with what Bessler said. Huh?

I'd like to interject that I do enjoy solitaire. I'm an expert at managing the possibilities. In layman's terms I kick ass.

Now I've looked at what you've posted and I really don't see anything that resembles a mathematical proof. I have a rather extensive background in arithmetic and I'd recognize it if I saw it. When you level the charge:

That is why you like playing with what Bessler said.
You don't really have to show anything.

...I'd kind of expect that you would post something that would transport me back to the days when I was studying the identities Ms. Morgan was scratching on the chalk board. I really enjoyed the view of her backside as she scrawled those facts on the board. She had my undivided attention. When she would whirl around slinging her hooters in our faces I would just smile. :)

In conclusion I'd like to reiterate Fletcher's question:

What concept did Bessler show?

... also, isn't it a bit hypocritical on your part to accuse others of examining Bessler's ideas while you present your opinion of those same ideas?

...additionally, do you suppose you could post something at the level Ms. Morgan could with respect to a mathematical proof. I'm not expecting a fine backside nor hooters but I would like to see some polynomials and an equal sign. I don't think that's much to ask.

[Fletcher]

.. it's a rare gift to have the wisdom of youth & the energy of age !

[P-Motion]

Bessler,
I wills ave you the trouble. Here it is. At approx. 37 degrees, a 15 inch arm will be close to that of a 12" arm straight out. This way, you can make 4 lbs. fly as 1. Here he is referring to ratios.
Also, for your info, a carpenter in 1700 most likely worked on homes. The pitch of the roof. Get it ?
Then by taking that dimension, you can use more trig. to figure out the radius the arm will need to move to be back in position without being lifted.
Better yet, by swinging from above, its' force is directed like a pendulum. And this would be about a 3 foot radius. And at no time would the arm extend beneath the bottom of the wheel. And the longer axial rotation can be done without it swinging from an axis 3 feet away. This allows it to be beneath the axis the wheel rotates on.
But who uses trig on a circle ? Apparently Johann did. It is not taiught in schools. Could be why one no one yet has figured out how he did it besides myself.
The attachment is an approximation. If you wish more precise math, take the time to calculate it yourself. Then you will better understand what Bessler was thinking.
But before you analyze, take time to consider. He did play word games yet you take him literally.
And if you read my post in if you had one question to ask him, what would it be ? My question was, is it okay to demonstrate his principal.
And this is it.

[rlortie]

P-Motion,

I do believe you are getting in over your head!

Also, for your info, a carpenter in 1700 most likely worked on homes. The pitch of the roof. Get it ?
Then by taking that dimension, you can use more trig. to figure out the radius the arm will need to move to be back in position without being lifted.

What may I ask does the pitch of a roof have to do with sustaining angular or radial motion. I do not need trig. to figure out how to cut a rafter. The current common roof pitch of 4" in 12" for example requires 5/8' inch additional length for every foot of rise.

There once was a member here that I advised to educate himself on the engineering factors of a common roof truss design. Purpose was to learn where the load bearing points would end up. He never did, and he kept repeating the same mistakes you now trying to sell us.

All this information for any pitch including ridge angle, lookout cut, eave plumb and overall length is etched on a quality grade carpenters square. For that matter it will also give the pitch riser height and tread width for building stairs. The only math required is to divide the total height by number of risers. Oh! and it will also tell you the board feet in any size of dimensional lumber and length.

Now please explain how this is objective proof leading to a functional PM or gravity machine.

And for me, my eighth grade teacher was more fun to watch as she turned toward the black board and erased every thing on it with her endowed hooters. Now that was trigonometry at its best!

You have impressed us of your education of trigonometry. Now lets see you prove what you are implying.

EDIT: By the way I note that another of your threads has received 67 views without a single response. What does this imply?

Ralph

[P-Motion]

>>EDIT: By the way I note that another of your threads has received 67 views without a single response. What does this imply? <<

Ralph, it could imply that how Bessler actually did it is not very interesting.
Math is that way sometimes.
What does trig have to do with Bessler's design ? Today, we would not need the ratio that he did. Better materials to work with.
A 4:1 ratio would probably be overkill.
The warped boards that Bessler used would have supported the weight from just beneath the axis. This would mimic a higher axial point.
But going with what Bessler did, if he used a 3 foot arm, then the weight most likely extended to 3 feet and 9 inches. This would create torque, over balance or whatever name you'd like to give it.
Gravity would cause the extension along with springs. I do believe he used springs to help "float" the weights. Also, when going over the top, the weights can rest on the arms. But when they go below the axis, they can help move the weight to the extended position. And yes, a little potential would be lost when the weights are moved back into place. But the sooner they extend, the more force they can generate.
Then a rope tied to a rod could roll on the warped boards. This would keep the weights from going lower than their original distance from the axis. Also, the rope would become tense letting the weight swing like a pendulum while it maintains its' position to the wheel. In other words, it will not advance or retard angularly.
So when the weight reaches the lowest point it can travel, it will be the same distance form the axis in the location it is supposed to be in.
And by using trig, you can calculate how many degrees of rotation and how much an arm can extend before changing its' axis of rotation.
I told Pirate I think I might be able to get a model built for $200. Hard to say until I can get an estimate. Still, not sure when I would be able to do it.
But with what I have said Bessler did, all the work is accomplished in one quadrant with gravity doing all of the work. I would think that would be as efficient as possible.
I will be posting a complete drawing this weekend. I doubt anyone will build it before I get around to it. It's that I can understand the math and see where energy is being developed and how it is being conserved.

[P-Motion]

Bessler,
I had an interesting thought today.
I will be looking at materials to build a model with. I might be able to get started on it this weekend. Then again, pulling a scavenger hunt to locate everything will be something.
By looking at the design, if the weight drops straight down from 90 degrees to the axis. Even 20 degrees below the plane of the axis, inertia and gravity should have the weight extended. It will be increasing its' potential to leverage.
If the ratio of extension were less than 4:1 allowing for better materials, a longer period of extension would be allowed.
Then when the weight is suspended by a mechanism (warped boards) that changes its' path, its' potential will be increased. Or realization of its' potential. This would be because it is taking a shorter path. The longer the path, the less energy converted to momentum of the wheel.
One thing I am mindful of is that it takes gravity time to accelerate a body. Meaning that if done on to small of a scale, sufficient momentum may not be generated.
Another way of looking at it. If you could increase the radius in the lower right quadrant, but have the radius at the beginning an end be the same as the other 3 quadrants, would it generate force ?

[Bessler007]

hello P-Motion,

I've listened to people describe ideas and for some reason it takes a good hour to finally picture what they are trying to say. If you could make a picture that would help a lot. I'd look at it some time tomorrow.

[P-Motion]

>>hello P-Motion,

I've listened to people describe ideas and for some reason it takes a good hour to finally picture what they are trying to say. If you could make a picture that would help a lot. Id look at it some time tomorrow.<<

Bessler,
I think everyone is in agreement that gravity will cause the arm to extend when it is below the axis of the wheel.
Then the question would be, how to return the arm without using momentum to do work. And the warped board would be the answer.
It would let gravity do the work.
The first 2 pictures show the difference between 30 degrees and 40 degrees. As you can see, the earlier the pendulum effect takes place, the greater the distance the weight can be extended.
In the second picture, the blue and purple line shows that as the wheel rotates, so does the fulcrum point for the weight. And when directly below the axis, the weight and the wheel are in the same position.

Because Johann kept everything inside of his wheel, you might think of what he did as a wheel inside of a wheel.

[Bessler007]

hello PM,

I'm checking to see if I'm clear on this point. Is the wheel spinning clock-wise? If that's the case I don't know if the weight with just the force of gravity is going to bring it along what seems to be a longer, outside path (red) to coincide with the shorter blue one. It will have to accelerate.

I don't think gravity will cause sufficient acceleration but if it would I'm not sure what would stop it from happening earlier.

I do recommend before you begin a full build that you model the parts of the idea and test them to see if they'll behave the way you expect them to. In the event they don't then ask what can you do to cause the effect you're looking for.