The Anvils of MT 138

[path_finder]

A combination of MT138 and MT139 could be one solution?

In many previous threads I explained how IMHO the MT137 drawing can be justified.
Apart the way to get the star-like shape, it will be interesting for John to verify his famous '5-5' clue.
The verification can be made on this Java applet here (go to the bottom of the page): http://www.mekanizmalar.com/hypocycloid.html
Enter the values 216, 90, 90 (wich are in the ratio 18-5-5)

But now the question is: if this mechanism was included inside his wheel, for what purpose Bessler made so complex (this confirms my signature).
An answer could be to use this first mechanism in combination with a second one in relation with the workers toy.
You can see here: http://www.mathcurve.com/courbes2d/hypo ... loid.shtml (about at the middle of the page, but I replicate hereafter the most valuable animation) another way - based also on the hypocycloids - to use the same mechanical principle.
Click for enlarge, there is a mistake in the icon below.
Here the difference is coming from the presence of two opposite rollers linked with a rod of constant length.
This mechanism allows a motion of 'va-et-vient' like the seesaw of the MT138 drawing. Just a coincidence?

If this is true the secret would be to combine MT137 and MT138.

[Axelf]

All weights are of equal mass.

All lever have the same force, a short lever and a longer lever with same mass are balanced!

[greendoor]

Any system of mass in motion has a fixed quantity of momentum (Mass x Velocity). This isn't going to change, unless it is impacted with force from outside of this system. So any system that achieves mechanical overunity is, as far as I can tell, going to require impacts of some sort. Whether these are gentle or soft impacts probably isn't the issue. I believe Bessler is telling us, both in words and from the eye/ear witness accounts, that multiple impacts are necessary.

[greendoor]

In a rotating system containing out of balance mass, an obvious source of external force is Gravity. From Pequaide's theory & experiments, i'm fairly certain that if we can create a Time imbalance, where a mass is accelerating downwards for a longer amount of Time than we we to return this same mass, there is a solid mathematical basis for obtaining more downwards Momentum than the upwards Momentum required to reset.

Mechanical systems for contraining rotary motion into an ellipse are interesting - but I don't see any opportunity for mechanical overunity. This is because the ellipse is still symmetrical - therefore the time of fall is still the same as the time of rise.

What would happen if we made a more complex mechanism that created a path that constrained the mass to fall slowly but rise quickly? Could we take a mechanism that draws an ellipse (symmetrical about 180 degrees), and then use that mechanism on a similar mechanism to create a path that is symmetrical about 90 degrees? Maybe we can then create a rotary system that has the necessary elements of slow fall and fast rise...

However - these two systems couldn't be locked together - otherwise they would simple lockup. To have slow fall and fast rise, the slow falling mass must be allowed to accelerate independantly.

The only two ways I can imagine this is either: masses which are dropped into one system during fall and then dropped into the other system during rise, or mass on swings or tethers which are free to move independantly and then get jerked into a force reaction.

Either way - it amounts to impact. I can't see any way around impact, of some sort, being a necessary part of the cycle.

[mickegg]

Hi greendoor

Have a read through Sjack Abeling's patent if you haven't already done
so.

Not a true ellipse used, but the profile is logical and I can see the rest is there.

Regards

Mick

[shap-O-vert]

Greendoor says:

….i'm fairly certain that if we can create a Time imbalance, where a mass is accelerating downwards for a longer amount of Time than we we to return this same mass, there is a solid mathematical basis for obtaining more downwards Momentum than the upwards Momentum required to reset.

I agree, that’s what we need to do.

I think Bessler gives us a good hint at how he was able to generate a slow fall and a fast rise (or an action that provides the same outcome). And as I said above, I have a design concept that I think achieves that. I will post it a little later for comment etc.

And:

However - these two systems couldn't be locked together - otherwise they would simple lockup. To have slow fall and fast rise, the slow falling mass must be allowed to accelerate independently.

Can you turn your mind to the lever system in my earlier post please Greendoor, and give us your assessment of whether it is “locked� as you say, or open to independent acceleration of the weights?

Would you also be prepared to run your calculator over the five weights as they are positioned on the levers in my last post as well, and give us the sum of the Moments about the axle? (assume that the weights have a mass of one (1) for ease). This is called independent verification! :-)

The weight is crucial to the movement. It must be able to be transferred from one lever arm to another – from the Load arm to the Effort arm for example. So what does it look like?

Is there a clue present in MT 138? Is the sixth drawing relevant – the “Top�? This is the one that was added in, by Bessler in his own hand, after the document was printed, was it not?

A further piece of evidence is available from the record of the time.

Bessler, when he took a couple of weights from his machine, disguised them in his handkerchief before allowing people to have a feel.

Johann Christian Wolff (1679 - 1754), professor and philosopher, viewed the bi-directional wheel in 1715 and is recorded as having this to say about the weights:

Several such weights, wrapped in his handkerchief, he let us weigh in our hands to estimate their weight. They were judged to be about four pounds each, and their shape was definitely cylindrical.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/accounts.html

Cylindrical. Why cylindrical and why cover them?

Answer: because at some point during their action within the wheel they had to roll or rotate?

If they were just “shot� from cannon and used because of their ease of availability, why cover them? BTW, a 4lb lead shot is not very big – it's smaller in dimension than a tennis ball, for example.

The “Top� at MT138 is a suspect, no? So what's he saying?

Ciao

shap-O-vert

[jim_mich]

If they were just “shot� from cannon and used because of their ease of availability, why cover them? BTW, a 4lb lead shot is not very big – it's smaller in dimension than a tennis ball, for example.

Wolff said "cylindrical". He did not say "spherical" Four pounds of lead is a slightly bigger than a tennis ball, but not much. A cylinder can be large diameter and thin. Or it can be small diameter and long.

See this post for weight calculations.

[daxwc]

Jim Quote:

A cylinder can be large diameter and thin. Or it can be small diameter and long.

Never thought of it like that, if he was to cover the ends though it gets harder with large and thin, not impossible, but wouldn't this have inspired more comments. Too much in either direction would have attracted more attention.

Tks.

[shap-O-vert]

jim_mich wrote:

Wolff said "cylindrical". He did not say "spherical"

He did, and thanks for emphasising that point. I’d inadvertently linked spherical with it because of my own biases. I recall the discussion that you referenced when I read it again.

There are a number of options for the design of the weights. I wonder whether the design of those incorporated into the “one way wheel� was the same as those for the “two way?

I’ve been in the workshop again - testing “Tops�. The three models I’ve looked at are in the attachment. I’ve added the spherical model because that’s the one I’ve incorporated into my lever exchange mechanism. I must give the cylindrical alternatives a trial and see how they go.

Regards

shap-O-vert.

[shap-O-vert]

Where did that attachment go?

I'll try again.

shap-O

PS success!

[shap-O-vert]

Nope! I don't like the cylindrical variety. I can't adjust their velocity as easily as I can for the spherical model. This is fundamental as the weight needs to travel faster on the -ve side and slower on the +ve side.

But thanks anyway, jim_mich.

Regards

shap-O-vert

[raj]

Greetings from Mauritius.

I am sure that there will be several weights involved in your wheel/s.

Will there be more weights on the -ve side or more weights on the +ve?

My guess is the slower travel side will have more weights.

Am I guessing right?

Raj

[shap-O-vert]

Raj asked:

Will there be more weights on the -ve side or more weights on the +ve?

Amazing as it seems there appears to be more weights on the +ve side in each 40° of rotation. But it's not only a numbers game, it needs width as well.
I propose to post it here over the next couple of weeks.

Ciao

shap-O-vert

[shap-O-vert]

Why am I making this material available online and “compromising� my work from an IP/ Design/Patent/$$$$ perspective? (If it works, of course – and I’m not there yet - but I’m sneaking up on it. :-)

Well, it’s a straightforward answer. The answer is in the form of a few questions?

1. Who owns the IP on Fire?
2. Who owns the IP on the Wheel (not Bessler’s – that other one)?
3. Who owns the IP on Wind?
4. Who owns the IP on Hydro?
5. Who owns the IP on Solar?

Because Bessler wished to own the IP on Gravity, the mechanism to harness it does not exist today.

John Collins understands this issue.

The answer is: nobody owns that IP. And, in the Australian vernacular: “a bloody good thing they don’t, too!�

OK. Here’s my weight exchange mechanism. You know – the one that enables the weight to move from the Effort Arm to the Load Arm immediately above it. See my hypothesis posted on 1 October above.

The two photos in this attachment capture the principle of the mechanism. It’s what I’ve been using on an unsuccessful wheel. They're all a bit "wonky" and my paint job leaves Matisse looking like the true master he was. However, since I had a closer look at the “Hammer Man and Woman� of MT 138 (I posted my model) I’m in the process of revising the weight exchange mechanism, without changing the principle.

Nevertheless, I wanted to get this on the record. It’s not the wrong principle – IMO – just the wrong design!

The white arm is the Effort Arm; the red arm is the Load Arm. The black weight is the "top" from yesterday's post. It's been a bit of a fat lazy horse of late, but it's in front of the cart now. This is, of course, only two of the levers from the nine that I'm playing with; four (4) in Set A and five (5) in Set B, including the crossover levers, as I've mentioned previously.

Has anybody done that sum of the Moments about the axle in my earlier post yet? Please, get out your tape measures/rulers and let me see your sums. It can’t be that hard. A bit of independent verification helps.

Regards

shap-O-vert.

[shap-O-vert]

Fletcher said:

If you've been lurking for a decade you'll remember a gentleman called Ken Brehnt

Well, Ken Behrendt had a very good insight; especially here, where he says:

If one has weights driving a wheel, then, at some point, they are going to have to (be) attached to either the wheel or its rotating axle. That is, there must be some physical contact between the driving weights and the drum that contains them or no torque will be applied to the wheel.
Rather than vague phrases, it would be nice if members could post a sketch now or then of what they mean by not "pinning" one's weights to the wheel.

http://besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1490

The rest of that post was valuable as well – especially the earlier part of the thread. Firmly held views but still no rotation.

Shap-O