The Two Axles of MT 55.

[shap-O-vert]

The Two Axles of MT 55.

When you observe the drawings of Bessler’s wheels at:

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

…you notice that the axle, as drawn in the side view, is of a different diameter to that in the front view. The former has a thick axle, the latter a thin one. This is consistent across all the drawings. Does this disguise a mechanism to bring an external force to bear on the internal workings of the wheel, through the supporting framework?

At the Merseberg examination of 31 October, 1715 the following was observed:

“Furthermore the inventor, Orffyreus, in the presence of all, lifted the machine described above from its original wooden support. The timber posts were carefully examined from both top and bottom, as well as in the middle, particularly where a small cut was noticed.�

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

A “small cut was noticed�; but nothing more is recorded.

Is it possible that Bessler had an arrangement whereby one side of the wheel turned on an axle that was fixed to the “wooden support� while the axle on the other side was attached to the wheel and turned in the bearing as the wheel turned? In other words, two axles: one turning, the other fixed.

In MT 55 we also see two (2) axles. The axle in wheel “D� seems to carry the weight of the three (3) rods marked “A� that exert a force onto the axle of wheel “C�.
http://www.orffyre.com/mt41-60.html

In MT 29 and 52 we see something similar, while in MT 44 and 45 we also see double axles and ramps.

I have set up in my experimental model a two axle arrangement; one to bring in an external force and one to turn with the wheel. (Please see the attachments)
Side 1 is the Non-rotating axle (fixed to supporting framework). Side 2 is the rotating axle.
I've tried to take Newton’s 1st out of the equation. This does it, no?

Is this the mechanism that lets: “Poltergeists……… wander freely through locked doors�?

Regards

shap-O-vert.

[path_finder]

Dear shap-O-vert,
Because the mandatory for a grounded reference, it's obvious that one axle linked to the frame(floor) must go inside the wheel.
Any primemover must have a reference for determining the direction of the counteraction to be applied.
IMHO an internal simple keeling pendulum cannot assume this reference function (not stable enough).

Another reference is possible: an internal half size roller on the inner rim.
But in this last case the hypocycloidal mechanism must be adjusted once before any demonstration.
This is perhaps the purpose of the Bessler manipulation recorded by some witnesses before his demonstration.
Remember also the hole at the bottom of the pillar, whic purpose has not be clearly determined.

related links with the two separated axles (I wan't not to repeat):
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 6abe#61553
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/downl ... 152d795568
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/downl ... efdda207a3
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/downl ... 179b315949
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... be36b73661

[shap-O-vert]

Thanks path_finder. We agree that Newton’s 1st has to be eliminated. And that a blind axle is the way Bessler may have done it.

I mustn’t have being paying attention when you posted the concepts contained in your links. The diagrams I referenced in my first post provide evidence of camouflage IMO.

And that small cut that was examined so carefully may well have been a keyway.

The attached photos show what the two axles look like on my test bed wheel; free on one side (edge), fixed on the other.

Of course it is possible to have a turning movement on the fixed axle side as well by simply having a turning axle (connected to its mate on Side 1) passing through the centre of the non-rotating axle and extending beyond it. This would give the appearance of one axle turning on both sides of the wheel. Too my mind this seems to be what Bessler probably did.

Now that we've got that settled, the trick is to find the mechanism that enabled him to take advantage of this set up.

Any thoughts?

Regards

shap-O

[nneba]

It seems to me that if you use a small axle, the gravity pushing on it must be extremely precise, a larger axle would disperse the weight in a way that would make the movement easier...no?

nneba

[path_finder]

dear nneba,
The first use for a fixed axle is as a reference to the ground.
Many possibilities are available at this step: the most obvious is a cam like here:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/downl ... f5905645cf
Another is a fixed disk where two other disks are mutually counter-rotating by the mean of some rollers, like here:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/downl ... 2512b4d7e3
There are a plenty of designs based on the same principle.

[shap-O-vert]

Mitigation of Gravity inside the Wheel?

“The qualities of the elements are necessary to keep things going.�

This Non-rotating axle arrangement outlined in above allows for the introduction of an external force into the internal mechanism, by taking the weight on the supporting frame rather than inside the wheel. With the proper design it allows for the negative effect of Gravity to be mitigated, where needed. In other words it introduces an “anti-gravity� element into the wheel.

Could that element have been a Ramp? (See: MT 6, 7, 8 and 48 for example). At: http://www.orffyre.com/mt.html

So, while not explicit in any of these drawings, did Bessler incorporate an anti-gravity element in the form of a Ramp, attached to the second non-rotating axle, that bears the weights and moves them across the –ve (“up�) side of his wheel, thus taking some of that load off the up-side and, in-so-doing, decreased the time that the weights acted on the –ve side of the wheel? In other words did he, in effect, partially “deload� the up-side?

If he did, was it enough to give 360° rotation?

In my test bed model I've used a Ramp comprising two parallel runners or rails that covered 70% of the radius of the –ve side of the wheel from the 275° point (*) through the point of rotation of the wheel (the centre of the wheel). This Ramp also had a couple of other elements incorporated into its design, which I’ll come to later.

The attachment shows how this sits on the blind axle.

“A driver drives. A runner runs.�

Hope that makes sense. More to come.

Ciao for now

shap-O-vert.

(*) 275 reverses 572.
“17+16+17+17 = 67 plus 505 = 572. That is the pentagon number 72 as well as its mate 5; i.e. 5 x 72 = 360�; John Collins at: http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/html/ap ... f_let.html

[path_finder]

This Non-rotating axle arrangement outlined in above allows for the introduction of an external force into the internal mechanism, by taking the weight on the supporting frame rather than inside the wheel.

No external force is introduced into the mechanism by the fixed axle: the only purpose of this fixed axle is the information given to the prime-mover where is the vertical line, accurate and stable. The control mechanism must analyse the relative position of the moving parts versus this information (basically a variation of angular position), and execute the pertinent corrections using this time the internal source of energy.
For understanding this concept, imagine Bessler using an optical encoder based on a photocell (for sure not available at his time) wich then will control a local gravitic force for interaction on the main wheel. In this example the fixed axle has been just used as an indicator, without any physical energy given to the wheel.

In addition we must absolutely avoid to connect any weight to this fixed axle.
The need for a ground reference has nothing to do directly with the weights: any design where the weights are linked with the central axle will be useless for the good reason that such as link reduces the final torque, by making the COG more closer to the center. In any case the weights must be connected by any method to the rim of the wheel.
This point has been discussed many times earlier here.

Now you will ask me: what kind of mechanism is able to taken in account a reference position without to pump some external energy?
A first one has been used 2.600 years BC in China: the epicycloidal differential gear.
Remember this old thread: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 3785#63785
But there are many other.

[path_finder]

Dear shap-O-vert,
Any mean (ramp, cam, plank, rope, etc) linked to the central axis will drive to a flop.
Each of these items must be linked to the rim of the wheel.
Because the wheel rotates, this position must be dynamically restored in real-time by the internal mechanism.
Here is the difficulty: how to obtain a fixed point whatever the position of the rotating weights
Remember this thread here (a small piece of answer?):
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 6497#56497


edited:
I built the wheel with a cam connected to the ground thanks this fixed axle:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 7885#77885
Today it does NOT work, but I'm still suspicious because it had the real intent to rotate (may be my building was not smart enough).

[shap-O-vert]

How does this Ramp work?

The Ramp sits on the blind axle as shown in the above attachment . The weights are carried from the rising trajectory on the –ve side of the wheel to the 275 degree position where they are loaded onto the ramp - one per 40 degree rotation of the wheel.

The weights, you’ll recall, are designed like fat spherical tops with a “Peg� on the top and another on the bottom (well, on either side really in the context of how they are used here).

The weight rolls on its Pegs down the Ramp (sloped at 4 or 5 degrees) for about 24 to 25 degrees of wheel rotation. This ensures that the timing and coordination of the weight’s arrival onto the Bow is achieved, and more importantly, it absorbs 24 to 25 degrees of rotation when the weight would have been acting on the –ve side of the wheel.

I’ll give some more detail on this later but think: weight moves through 94 to 95 degrees of rotation on the –ve side (the upside) and through 120 degrees of rotation on the +ve side (the down side). The Ramp’s 24 to 25 degree rotation absorption is neutral but it balances out the equation:

x + r = y

95 + 25 = 120

Where:
x = -ve rotation in degrees
r = rotation(in degrees) occurring while weight is on the Ramp (=ve)
y = rotation in degrees on +ve side.

So, in effect, there are 120 degrees down and 120 degrees up and across – of which only 95 degrees have a –ve impact. Simple aye?

Now where’s that bloody carpenter’s boy gone.

There are a few design issues with the Ramp and weight interaction – but nothing insurmountable. I have found, for example, that sometimes the weight drifts into the side of one or other of the Ramp’s rails. I think I’ve overcome it by angling the rails to ensure that minimal area is potentially exposed to contact with the side of the weight. Precision in levels, evenness in surfaces and including on the Pegs is also important.

I’m nearly there. If a photo of this would help, please say so.

Regards

shap-O-vert.

[shap-O-vert]

Does a shotgun have a breach?

“The shotgun shoots. The bow twangs.� AP. XLVI

What is the best mechanism to shift the weight once it is lifted on the –ve side of the wheel into position for loading onto the Ramp? Does MT 55 give a lead here?

Certainly it shows the number of weights needed in make my design operational. That number is 6 and is taken from the 6 cams (are they cams or weights?) apparent on the rim of wheel “B�.

Leaving the weight supported by the raised Load arm of the lever is a poor option, as the lever can move around and impede the precision needed to load the weight onto the Ramp. Is an intermediate step needed? That is, does support for the weight need to be transferred onto the edges of the wheel to ensure the greatest precision in this loading operation?

I think it does.

The component that I’ve designed for this job looks like a half circle (or half a metal tube for example) that accepts the pins of the weight as it gently rolls off the Load arm of the lever. The weight rolls in by half a rotation. In turn, when the weight reaches the Ramp another half turn loads it precisely and evenly onto the rails of the Ramp, and its descent begins down to the Bow.

To prevent early release a restraining “sabre� shaped tooth hanging downwards is located on both the rails of the Ramp to hold the weight in position until the critical moment, should it be inclined to roll out prematurely.

Not much more to come on this, so bear with me.

Regards

shap-O-vert

[shap-O-vert]

Do Children Really Play Amongst the Columns?

“Children play with heavy clubs among the broken columns.� AP LXVI

If you have been following my posts you will know that each of the nine levers has a Bow that pivots off the top of the Effort arm of the lever and that the whole of the lever pivots off the rim of the wheel.

Once the weight is transferred off the Effort arm, the Effort arm is subject to gravity which acts to reset it naturally as it turns within the wheel. However, before it can be reset it “hangs down� and, as it re-enters the +ve side of the wheel the Bow has to be re-set on the end of the Effort arm with absolute certainty, to ensure coordinated capture of the next weight coming off the Ramp.

How to achieve this? Well, over the top of the Ramp and supported by it, there are located a number of round bars (columns) that obstruct the natural "swing" of the Bow, ensuring that the reset plate at the back of the Kennel has properly engaged (Gravity driven) and that the Bow is in the “up� position, to align with the down-hill end of the Ramp.

Hopefully the diagram in the attachment provides the picture that better explains this arrangement, along with the “Sabre� tooth guide on the upside and the position of the Bows at the top of the wheel's rotation.

Regards

shap-O-vert.

[shap-O-vert]

The Peacock’s Tail

“Seen sideways or full-face it is as resplendent as a peacock's tail.� AP XLVI.

It’s late Friday night in Perth and after a pleasant evening and a glass or two of fine Margaret River Pinot Noir, I’ve decided to get this post up before the weekend hits me. I should add that I feel somewhat embarrassed at the number of posts I’ve made on this issue since last Tuesday week. However, it is coming to an end so please bear with me a little longer. I hope, at least, I’ve stimulated some further thinking.

Following on from the MT 138 and MT 55 threads and bringing the various concepts and components outlined in those threads together, I’ve estimated the trajectory of the weights on the +ve, -ve and =ve (neutral) portions of the wheel using the design I’ve been exposing here over the last week or so.

As I’ve said in some of my earlier posts, the arrangement I have gleaned from MT 138 and MT 55 results in more weights on the +ve side of the wheel than on the –ve side; and hence, depending on the distances from the perpendicular through the centre of the wheel, more Moments on the +ve side than the –ve side. I’ve also documented in my earlier posts the neutral impact of the ramp on the –ve side. It’s the Ramp of course that accounts for the difference in the Moments.

Graph of “The Peacock’s Tail�


The values extrapolated from the above “graph� are outlined in Table 1 and are based on a rotation of the fulcrum of the lever system in intervals of 5 degrees as the wheel turns. I’ve used this interval instead of intervals of one degree for ease of presentation (using 1 degree intervals would necessitate 120 separate measurements and a 4 x 120 cell table outlining the results).

Hopefully Scott will permit the incorporation of the above “graph� and Table 1 into the text in this way, rather than as an attachment, to allow for a better quality image for those who would like to get their rulers out.

I have not specified the units of measurement.



Net Outcome:

1,067 – 939 = 128. That’s an interesting turn of events, no? Even with an error of measurement of 10% (+ or -) we would still achieve a +ve outcome.

Assumptions

There are three (3) assumptions in this:

1. that each lever will over-balance as if it were under a static load and effort. The reason for that is the difficulty in estimating whether a dynamic system might bring about an earlier or a later over-balance;

2. any momentum exerted by the weights coming into contact with the top end of the Effort arm (that is, striking the Kennel and stopping) has been discounted. To the extent that it exists it’s an extra quantum of work that will be done on moving the lever out of balance sooner; and,

3. the mass of each weight is taken to be one (1) unit.

A further note by way of explanation: I have endeavoured to be conservative in measuring the –ve and +ve sides (that is overestimating the –ve side and underestimating the +ve side); and in estimating the trajectory of the weights’ paths on both the +ve side and the –ve side.

I’m having some difficulty accepting this result. As I’m sure you are, too.

If anybody is reading this stuff your critiques would be greatly appreciated.

Otherwise, I’ll just get on and complete my build.

Regards

shap-O-vert.

[rlortie]

Shap-O-vert

Attached are some similar mathematical extrapolations; 'Postulates on perpetual motion machines'

One must consider that these are strictly static readings not dynamic.

Maybe I should introduce you to the submitter of these papers and the two of you can collaborate. If you can convince me it is worth a build Arrache will take on the responsibility of building it.

I take the liberty of posting these papers as the submitter does not wish to patent against my judgment.

Ralph

[rlortie]

Some may ask why am I not sold on the above ramp designs?

God only knows the total man hours spent in the last 300 years by Bessler pursuers chasing ramp designs only to find failure in them. Some come close an have been known to achieve an extended run time with a moderate impetus to initiate. None are self-sustaining and most certainly will not lift water or a hundredweight.

For those who believe Centripetal force will augment lifting paired weights I refer you to do a lengthy study of the following thread.

http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=2326.0

Originally the inventor lead forum members to believed Cf would assist pulling the ascending weight via the descending side being extended creating more force augmenting the procedure.

Objective test performed by three individuals including myself proved that the above operation will not complete the described function until the descending weight passes 90 degrees from zenith or acme.

Ralph

[shap-O-vert]

Thanks for the links Ralph. Some very interesting material there. And thanks also for taking the time to consider my analysis.

Three things:

Firstly, I note that the last post at:
http://www.overunity.com/index.php?topic=2326.0
on P 56 of 3 October Alex asks the question:

Re: New accelerating gravity wheel ! Converted video from www.newenergymachine.com !
Does anyone have a complete understanding of how the pure mechanical version worked? Would be interesting to examine and thanks for the info and time Vince
Alex

Repeat: Does anyone have a complete understanding of how the pure mechanical version worked?

Silence was the answer (to date anyway) on that website.

So let me ask on this one: does anyone have a complete understanding? (and no, I’m not Alex!)

Secondly, you say:

God only knows the total man hours spent in the last 300 years by Bessler pursuers chasing ramp designs only to find failure in them. Some come close an have been known to achieve an extended run time with a moderate impetus to initiate. None are self-sustaining and most certainly will not lift water or a hundredweight.

Can you provide a reference to those Ramp designs based on support coming from a “blind� axle (as opposed to being carried within the wheel) that �came close� and to those that achieved “an extended run time with a moderate impetus to initiate�? I’m afraid that I’ve not seen any based on the “blind� axle principle nor have I seen any that achieved the outcome you suggest, that didn’t misrepresent what they’d built; or worse, had a scam or fraud associated with them. But I may have missed something. Have you seen any that are “pillars of integrity�, and are capable of replication?

Thirdly, in terms of the paper “Nsr postulates on perpetual motion machines�, on my quick analysis it seems that the author’s assumptions assume away the possibility that the machine described wouldn’t work. On that basis, it would be somewhat oblique if the analysis concluded anything other than “It must be a perpetual motion machine�.

However, having said that, the mathematics are interesting although the computer Black Box modelling is anything but transparent; and the discussion on instantaneous vs gradual force is a good reminder.

Nevertheless, the difference between that analysis and my somewhat less elegant one is that I’ve made no assumption that the wheel rotates. The numbers on the other hand suggest it might.

But I do appreciate your response, and I understand the frustrations. If you or Arrache want to have a shot at construction, please go ahead. I’m not in the game of convincing people on this. Most of the IP needed is in my posts – I’ve purposely made it open access. Replication of success or failure is part of the scientific method. If either of us succeeds then we will know it’s without resort to scam.

Whether it solves the energy problem is not an issue for me. What is an issue is knowing whether such a mechanism can be arranged to produce similar outcomes to that of Bessler.

Regards

shap-O-vert.