The two directional wheel

[primemignonite]

"Just an opinion here, James.....that's a pretty big statement to try and back up! . . ." - Steve, 9. III. 08., 6:00 am

"From my point of stance it isn't necessary for others to become converts. It would serve no purpose." - James, 9. III. 08. 1:01 am

For the record with clarification added, I state once again

". . . The mechanism of the bi-directionals was two-way inherently, and did not need to be doubled in order to function [that way]; it was far more elegant than that. . . ." - James, 8. III. 08., 5:56 pm

The seemingly definitive assertion was (and is) meant to be predictive in nature, if not in form. Was this a confusion for some?

"Of course all is conjecture until demonstrated by a real physical working wheel." - Jim_Misch, 8. III. 08., 9:19 am

Truer words were NEVER written!

James

Upon he who affirms lays the burden of proof, not upon him who denies. - Axiom of law.

[AB Hammer]

The Bi directional wheel, may not have needed 2 wheels in it but for how wide it is, it had the room for it. This is what makes the ideas arguable. And that is what makes this fun. We have to look at all possibilities and how many directions this can take us. this also may be the intentions of Bessler to show that there are truly many possible solution to this problem, just that some of the ideas will prove more tool than toy.

[Fletcher]

I must point you to my Savonius windmill experiments described in my book, Fletch. One Savonius mounted on its vertical axis started spontaneously when placed in a current of wind. With two Savonius windmills mounted on one axel but each designed to turn in the opposite direction to its twin and connected to each other, they each tug against the other and therefore remain stationary. When the whole structure is given a nudge in either direction they begin to turn and accelerate but only up to about half their speed when not connected to each other.

I know I've posted this many times but I think its worth saying again that I am convinced that Bessler's first thoughts in trying to answer his enemy's assertions that the machine was wound up, would be to investigate the possibility of putting two mechanisms within the same wheel casing, but the second one designed to turn the wheel the other way. It was the obvious and simplest route to a solution for him. Of course if it didn't work then we would have to consider your idea James, but to me the simplest idea is probably more likely the right one.

If the doubled Savonius windmill demonstration has any validity then the bi-directional Bessler wheels would have been much easier to stop than the one way ones. I say this because it is true of the Savonius wheel experiment. The acceleration was also slower in the doubled Savonius windmill.

JC

I always keep that analogy in mind john as it is a good one in many regards - it is simple & fits the description of how Bessler's two-way wheels behaved almost to a tee, though at the moment I can't remember if the witness reports ever said it took the one-way wheels as long or less revolutions to accelerate up to speed [i.e. one to three revolutions as reported for the bi-directionals from 1715 to 1721 reports] ?

[MC]

Prime, I’m with You all the way on this one!

". . . The mechanism of the bi-directionals was two-way inherently, and did not need to be doubled in order to function [that way]; it was far more elegant than that. . . ."

I’ve said somewhat the same before…

MC

[DrWhat]

I agree that I don't think the mechanisms were doubled. But by creating the bidirectional wheel an extra mechanism was applied which caused perhaps some resistance to rotation (or a slight opposing force) slowing the wheel down. To have significant force the weights were made fatter (as was the wheel).

I have part of a design for a wheel that could work either direction (but without a prime mover there is nothing worth mentioning)! And it is balanced when stopped! There are may designs that could also do this such as rolling balls flinging to one side or the other.

The problem occurs when you add a hypothetical prime mover (or ideally a real one!).

Although I retain a strong interest in the bi-directional mechanism, we should really focus on the one way wheels when we are trying to design a prototype. Bessler said it took him a while to get the bidirectional mechanism just right. We don't need added complexity when we are searching for the primary and simplest design.

[barksalot]

I think they were doubled.

Can't elaborate at this time, maybe later this year

[bluesgtr44]

Hey James,

"Just an opinion here, James.....that's a pretty big statement to try and back up! . . ." - Steve, 9. III. 08., 6:00 am

"From my point of stance it isn't necessary for others to become converts. It would serve no purpose." - James, 9. III. 08. 1:01 am

For the record with clarification added, I state once again

". . . The mechanism of the bi-directionals was two-way inherently, and did not need to be doubled in order to function [that way]; it was far more elegant than that. . . ." - James, 8. III. 08., 5:56 pm

The seemingly definitive assertion was (and is) meant to be predictive in nature, if not in form. Was this a confusion for some?

My meaning was not that you were being definitive....my meaning was that for it to be definitive....would be hard to back up.

Anything is conceivable but not always concordant with what's sensible. If the mechanisms had actually been dual-opposed, the thing could never have turned; it would have constituted a mechanical nonsense [a chimera], and if in such an arrangement one had been disconnected in favor of the other, the mechanism for effecting it would have been an orgy of mad mechanica, to say nothing of adding frictional problems aplenty, these due mostly to the extra burden of carrying of it's other half as dead weight.

I totally disagree with this as presented....I can see how it could easily be done once the understanding comes. No mad mechanica, no huge difference in the friction factor from the one way wheels. It wouldn't just be "dead weight", it would become a part of the inertial effect on the overall wheel. So, to say it "could never have turned....." is going to be quite a challenge to back up.

I have no problem with what you say here.....

"From my point of stance it isn't necessary for others to become converts. It would serve no purpose."

". . . The mechanism of the bi-directionals was two-way inherently, and did not need to be doubled in order to function [that way]; it was far more elegant than that. . . ."

None of that is what I highlighted and the issue I took was with the "couldn't be done..." aspect....that to me was pretty big. As far as converts go, it would serve little purpose for anyone. I really couldn't say whether they were inherently bi-directional....but I do think there is a good argument that they didn't have to be back to back.


Steve

[primemignonite]

Steve, you are a gentleman as well as a scholar, and I like what you write and the way you do it, even though we might not be on identical wavelengths at all times.

Up there with the best.

You took a great deal of time and care with making your response to what I wrote, but I am now worn-out from the last post I did in the "Off Topic" section. [That stunt may well get me deep-sixed.]

Tomorrow . . .

James

[bluesgtr44]

Thanks James.....there are many who might disagree with this....

Steve, you are a gentleman as well as a scholar, and I like what you write and the way you do it, even though we might not be on identical wavelengths at all times.

As for the different wave lengths? That's a good thing, I learn from you, you learn from me. If we were on the same one all the time, it would get boring! I like that you are seeing things differently...it keeps me alert.

You took a great deal of time and care with making your response to what I wrote, but I am now worn-out from the last post I did in the "Off Topic" section. [That stunt may well get me deep-sixed.]

Well, most know I don't venture into the "off topic" stuff much...I love the jokes thread and I do monitor it for informational purposes. Very little desire to take part in most of those political type discussions. I did respond to the thread on donations and said my peice about it, and that was it....back to the wheel stuff.

You know, if I just took it too seriously about the "could not move..." that just might be so insignificant...my thing was, if you could back it up even with a good theory, it would really be a good bit of information. It's just that at this time I have no problem seeing it work with back to back devices. Where one takes up a neutral position. I just haven't been able to get the damn thing to go in one direction yet....all by itself...so I can prove my point about the two way back to back system! ;-)


Steve

[graham]

I agree you on this one DrWhat:

Although I retain a strong interest in the bi-directional mechanism, we should really focus on the one way wheels when we are trying to design a prototype. Bessler said it took him a while to get the bidirectional mechanism just right. We don't need added complexity when we are searching for the primary and simplest design.

I cannot accept that the bidirectional wheels used a different principle than his one directional wheels. It defies common sense.
Bessler also said that his wheels did not have to be stopped in order to be repaired or serviced.
I don't buy that either.

Graham

[bluesgtr44]

Hey John....

If the doubled Savonius windmill demonstration has any validity then the bi-directional Bessler wheels would have been much easier to stop than the one way ones. I say this because it is true of the Savonius wheel experiment. The acceleration was also slower in the doubled Savonius windmill.

The question I have in relation to this one, is the demonstration being used is very dominantly the Kassel wheel. The Merseberg wheel turned at "40 or more..." rotations a minute. That means the potential of this could be almost 80 rpm's or better if it were designed to turn in just one direction using a Savonius type set up. Do you think that is actually a possibility....or is all of this really conjecture at this point. I mean, if the reaction forces are murder at 50 RPM's....what would they be at 80? That is if the actual driving force is moving at the same rate. Man, if Jim is right, that could be a lot of "OOOMPHHH" to do some serious work!


Steve

[John Collins]

The Merseberg wheel turned at "40 or more..." rotations a minute. That means the potential of this could be almost 80 rpm's or better if it were designed to turn in just one direction using a Savonius type set up

That is an excellent point Steve and one that had escaped my notice. Even if you dismiss my Savonius experiments as irrelevant it is still an interesting point that the bi-directional Merseberg wheel was able to turn at approx 40 rpm. As you say, without a reverse-turning mechanism inside, it might well have been capable of higher speeds than 40 rpm.

On the other hand, the one-way Gera and Draschwitz wheels achieved 50 rpm and that might well be the limit since that is close to the 40 or more of the two-way Merseberg wheel, but if that is the case then reversing mechanism in the two-way wheels could not have had much of a braking effect on the direction the wheel was spinning.

Very interesting point Steve.

JC

[Stewart]

Bessler also said that his wheels did not have to be stopped in order to be repaired or serviced.

No, that's not what he said.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... =8652#8652

In response to the following question that he said he gets asked:

"In the event that the machine needs to be repaired, would it need lots of time, loss, effort, money and expensive things?"

he says:

"If the machine were made well, the main parts will remain all right for many years. However, if indeed something needs altering, it will cost little money, time, effort, risk, and one can easily make most parts in an hour. But if the part is already in stock, I have designed the machine beautifully, so it can always operate if one were to repair the same part. Indeed all machines actually require a mechanic."

So what he means is having stopped the wheel and quickly swapped the faulty part with one in stock, the machine can be restarted and can continue to operate while you are repairing the faulty part, which you would then put back into stock.

Stewart

[bluesgtr44]

Hey John...

That is an excellent point Steve and one that had escaped my notice. Even if you dismiss my Savonius experiments as irrelevant it is still an interesting point that the bi-directional Merseberg wheel was able to turn at approx 40 rpm. As you say, without a reverse-turning mechanism inside, it might well have been capable of higher speeds than 40 rpm.

Well, I don't dismiss your savonius experiment and I don't believe it is irrelevant. I also don't dismiss the idea that the Merseberg wheel could possibly have been able to rotate at 80 rpm's.....that's a big problem with me at this juncture....I am having problems eliminating things. Basically, we don't know enough to take a stance at eliminating either of these....

On the other hand, the one-way Gera and Draschwitz wheels achieved 50 rpm and that might well be the limit since that is close to the 40 or more of the two-way Merseberg wheel, but if that is the case then reversing mechanism in the two-way wheels could not have had much of a braking effect on the direction the wheel was spinning.

From a standpoint of caution, I don't believe he ever came close to the limit of what his wheel would/could do....he played it safe so as not to have anything go wrong. He couldn't afford to have that happen. The argument to this could be that he had no choice, because pushing it to the limit was all he had....and he couldn't afford to show anything less....I find this one less appealing simply because from what we have already seen...he could have built around that problem from the obvious progression. As far as the braking effect goes....it the savonius design is a factor in the solution, we will see if it can be manipulated in some way when one side is not the primary force....again, we just don't know enough...I put some stuff on "Wheel acceleration...." thread and hope you will take a look at it....it did have to do with something you mentioned awhile back ago about the movement being small. I'm still trying to find a good demo for inner acceleration and what it would take to reproduce his results with just the info we have....maybe chasing ghosts here but, I just have a desire to know this.


Steve

[graham]

Thankyou Stewart. I stand corrected.

Graham