Would JC contradict me ?

[FunWithGravity2]

I might be looking wrong but could someone tell me what they see.

In stewarts/eds very nice drawing it appears that the purple U shaped device is connected to the axle/mount but i have always and still do see it as being connected to the yellow upper t bar of the pendulum in the woodcut and the copperplate.

I have neverlooked at the high resolution images this closely and have noticed that in the woodcut and the copperplate he has hung the pendulum from the axle/mount in two different locations. In one picture it goes through the triangle portion and in the other it goes through the hoop.

Not that where it goes though necesarily changes the way i view them as working. I have always envisioned them as a weight brake for a particular section of the wheel, and thought they would be working along with the wheels power stroke. When the t bar weights are all the way out then the COM of the triangle that the pendulum creates would be right about where the axle COM of the wheel is. As the t bar wieghts are brought to the center the COM of the triangle would rise further above the axle and create a heavier weight at some point in the wheels rotation, maybe retarding it on the downstoke and accelerating it on the up?

Also i have since the beggining of my journey agreed with the point Nic and others have made in the past about the ability to translate and the handicaps that we face from our positions so far removed from the original. I had asked HANS some years ago now to look into the applicable German translations as they are in a language that he was actually taught in his early childhood. An older dialect of regionalized german. But he was busy and thought his talents lay elsewhere. it would be nice if someone from that region could find someone in the 100plus range that is still cognizant and interested in translating the docs with a blind eye. I would be very curious to hear the translation from someone who had never heard of PM/bessler and was able to speak the dialect.

Not that Stewart and whoever did JC's have not done an admirable job.

My 2 cents

Crazy Dave

[ovyyus]

Ed, I agree with Crazy Dave, the purple U-shaped piece in your drawing is incorrect.

[FunWithGravity2]

Bill

Can i purchase the High res MT from you or who do i get it from? the quality of the picture that ed posted is what i would love to have in front of me. I have wanted them for awhile but.....


Dave

[ovyyus]

Dave, Ed hasn't posted images from MT. Do you mean high res DT images? I offer high res archival quality prints of the DT images (on my website) but haven't really thought about offering them as jpegs. Of course I'm happy to post cropped and lower res sections of them to the forum for research purposes, as per the previous page.

[Ed]

Bill and Dave don't contradict me! Seriously that's fine that you don't agree. Let me explain why we think differently. Keep in mind that the copperplate image was a) the first one done and b) higher quality due to being a copperplate.

In the woodcut it looks more like the U piece is attached to the yellow T part of the pendulum (but then there are many other wired issues in that woodcut), but in the copperplate image it isn't so clear cut. It could go either way but we believe it leans towards the U being attached to the axle, due to it likely being a perspective attempt and how some of the lines are drawn.

However, further evidence comes from a structural point of view. If the U was attached to the yellow T piece, then all of the structure rests on one small point on the axle and is all in the same plane. This would be weaker.
Also I don't believe the pendulum is meant to flop around loose on the axle. We spent some time debating this point and it doesn't really buy you anything.

Now if the U is attached to the axle like we have shown, then you have the two pieces making a V reinforcing the pendulum shaft at 90 degrees. This would be stronger. Bessler does show structural details all throughout MT also. Little details that one may ask "why bother?".

The DT woodcut was likely a flawed reproduction of the GB copperplate. Maybe it didn't occur to many of you, but Bessler would have had to reproduce the Wagner and Borlach woodcuts for DT, and those are of lesser quality than the originals as well. We don't even know to what extent Bessler created the engravings vs. having them done. Stewart may have something further to add.

Here's one of the images again so you don't have to go to the previous page.

[ovyyus]

It is hard to make out and I guess your version could be correct, Ed. FWIW, I attached a closer comparison of GB vs DT.

[John Collins]

John, I iMagine yOu've already goT the wheel to work but meanwhIle you are just racing tO fiNish the book LOL

I wish Damian! Nice little code, if only it were that simple! I've stopped work on the book and I'm concentrating on finishing this !*^$!!! wheel!

I, of course, dispute all the opinions posted here about the pendulums - awkward cuss ain't I? I don't believe there ever were any pendulums otherwise someone, other than Bessler, would have mentioned them - mentioned seeing them!

They have another purpose, which I believe, in my madness, I understand completely. Oh well, time will tell and soon.

JC

[Ed]

John, in 300 years it's likely nobody will be mentioning me either. I hope that won't mean I didn't exist! ;-)

[DrWhat]

Ed, I thought the little image/animation under your name was loading, but now i realise that IS the animation.

[Ed]

Yes, I thought it was appropriate. I use a mac & iphone, I'm trying to create an endlessly turning wheel, and it's taking a long time. :-)

[Fletcher]

Kas .. gravity can do work in one direction providing something else lifts the weight to give it height [potential energy of position]

That's my point Fletch, there is nothing else!

I believe that Jim is right in thinking that CF contributed to the running of Bessler's system. The CF influence was probably needed to provide additional energy once conservation of rotation was established, but, and it's a big BUT, His wheel only needed to be rotated a half a turn to start. at that speed, its overunity cannot be put down to CF or any other theoretical influence.

It has to be using gravity as a source of energy.

What else is there? Leverage perhaps! but even that would need to contradict Newton's 3rd law to be successful.

Kas

The first step I believe Kas is to let go of the notion that gravity is a source of energy - once liberated from that notion then you are free to move on & think about what else might provide the energy - this won't stop you falling into old thought patterns from time to time & it's not easy to do when there seems a dearth of viable alternatives.

All I can add is that Bessler's wheels & any future FE wheel will be underpinned by extreme logic - so logical that the simplicity & connectedness between physics principles & the real world around us escapes us because it takes much more effort to think & reduce ideas to their simplist form than maintain the illusion of truth hidden in complexity.

Here is the simple truth as I have reduced it - you may choose to believe it or not !

Bessler said his wheels were so simple that a single word could give it away - he said that children in the street could be seen using his principle - this seems to suggest the hoop tapping game where impact drives the wheel - he also said that the weights gained force from their on motion & there were impact sounds heard on the descending side of the later wheels [not felt covered to reduce or disguise noise].

In order for there to be impact to drive a wheel then a very simple thing needs to happen - a lever must fall that is pinned towards or near the axle, it must have a weight attached - the lever must impact a rim stop to transfer its energy to the rim, giving it momentum [N.B. pictures A & B on the toy page could represent a jacobs ladder but also look like an unwound circle of levers where each one falls in turn, he even shows one already in the process of falling IMO].

So, what must happen for a falling lever/pendulum to impact & turn a wheel, giving the wheel greater momentum than it could get from gravity alone ? - the lever must fall faster than gravity alone would allow, then the pendulum bob would arrive at the rim stop with greater Ke which it could impart to the rim giving it a surplus of momentum, carrying it thru.

So, we have a principle, but we don't know what the force is that uber accelerates the lever - what we do know is that force must accelerate the falling lever to a speed greater than falling under gravity acceleration alone could achieve - I can not put it any plainer than that ! - whether you choose to believe this reduction & search for a different energy source to supplement gravity is entirely up to you - you may think it too simple for words or indeed words from a simpleton - perhaps you think a simple explanation but altogether too improbable - 'when you've eliminated the impossible you're left with the improbable' - I can live with that !

[DrWhat]

Yet Fletcher if that weighted lever (prime mover) must impact the rim, then the rim needs to be separate from the prime mover otherwise you are not pushing anything. So you have a disk in the middle in a sense and an external rim. Then if the rim is turning the external axle that we see, once again the prime mover must me independently spinning around a hidden part of the axle.

And as you say there must be acceleration during the swing or at least faster than G, so an inertial force must come into play, or perhaps a leveraged acceleration must be doing the speeding up of the weight.

Plus the two systems must be synchronized so they literally don't get "out of whack" as we say.

Then you have to restore any skewed movement to maintain balance in the wheel.

[Fletcher]

Well Damian .. take another look at the pie shaped diagram [the black & white wedges] from AP "are ye yet still without understanding etc" - look specifically at the black wedges, these could be the operational area of a 3 armed device i.e. each lever is pivoted at the axle, falls after 12 o'cl & impacts after 90 degrees of forward rotation, say CW - once at 6 o'cl the arm is free to travels backwards in relation to the wheel [i.e. it stays stationary relative to the forward moving wheel] & relatches.

Take a closer look at MT55 - it is a geared turnspit - the paddle wheel needs to be hit with extra velocity to get it to work as I've postulated, & as I've said before - but this would require the hockey stick arms to rotate a full 360 degrees around the top axle, rather then oscillating back & forth whilst hanging from the axle - then the falling pendulums are indeed the prime movers that turn the 'flywheel turn spit' which in turn lifts the pendulums.

[WaltzCee]

Walter, you must still be at it hard because I look at your post for as long as I can and I can't see any emboldened pics of enlarged relevant parts you're alluding to.

Nick

This is Walter's boss. A little less squinting and a little more reading. I never alluded to any picture. Now sonny go wash your hands and stop that nonsense before you go blind!

It appears some of the old timers don't have the slack memory they were accused of having.

On a serious note the intensity of this thread is picking up.

Walter

[justsomeone]

Fletcher said:

" Bessler said his wheels were so simple that a single word could give it away "


Who wants to start in the dictionary and go from word to word to discover

the answer? Go through all the A's the first day and B's the next.

Within 26 days we may have it. ;)