The summary of my latest studies

[bluesgtr44]

Dear getterdone,
Many thanks for the encouragement, regarding the few comments received (may be my literature has no interest for the members).

I'm pretty sure many here are working on the same theme.
I'm just surprised that no one found already a solution based on this principle, which has been published already in june 2009 here:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/downl ... 34554902c6
But at that time I did not make the link with the jacob ladder. Nobody is perfect.

And I'm sure to be not the single thinking at this way.
Thus why a so low level of share in this forum?

Hey P.F., tremendous amount of respect for you and what you have contributed since joining the forum. I just ask that you please take another look at that arrangement from June of 2009 and see why it falls right into the same category as many others do. Unless there is an aspect of this type of arrangement that you haven't revealed yet, I can't see why you have such strong ties to this.

And yes.....the sharing on this forum is not very ideal for a lot of folks. I have put up every approach that I have tried and have reached that point where I'm pretty aware of what won't work and why as far as purely mechanical arrangements go. So, unless I have a strong revelation about something........;-)


Steve

[FunWithGravity2]

Well PF i'll remind you to look at my forum, i routinely post direct questions and open requests for feedback but seldomley(not always,i appreciate what i get) get any, It's expected and i learned that long ago. I still come and continue to add my ridiculous thoughts to this journey of everyones when i can tell you i certainly do not need to. I try and do it in my own forum as at least i'm only wasting space their and not stretching out the forum listing with ridiculous mundane thoughts as a title every other day.


I wrote a very long post in reply to your design when you added the springs on the lat page, but then i though better of the things i had said because i did not want to offend you. (some don't take criticism very well). I realised/remembered that my mom told me "if you have nothing nice to say, don't say anything". I have not always followed that advice. And your request for sharing has forced me to not be nice.



I have made very obvious corrections and concerns about some of your designs in the past, and you rebutle when it does go copletely unoticed is that you'll just "add" this or that to fix.

1. you need to stop thinking that by adding things you can overcome anything. Everyone it seems has these grandious plans and then when the build does not go their way they start to think, maybe 4, no 8 OK 12, that might make it work, and then still nothing learned. If it doesn't work without a spring it won't work with one, if it doesn't work with 2 then 12 won't make a difference. You coiuld save alot of time by learning this now. I used to think the same way, thats not the problem, we should all go through learning. but when you start wih an idea and then only make it more complicated without understanding or fixing the underlying reason for failure, i for one lose interest quickly.

2. This current build has so many flaws that i would have assumed you would have learned by now, your Hamster designs at least tried to push the COG above the axle. These here have the entire system COG heavily below the axle. very bottom heavy and stable.

3.Springs, really, c'mon these must be magic springs they seem to only work in one direction, tell me how do they know which way to pull?


4. You had a simple lever design that you asked for feedback, I would build that and play with it, it will teach you more about the dynamics of the wheel then this design ever will. You either learned nothing from it or did not build it.


Now with that said please stop reading here before you post a reply, I do not want to be rude or have the intent to insult you. But you want sharing in regards to feedback, and unfortunately that is going to hurt sometimes. This is probably much of the reason behind why everyone does not want to ask for others opinions. But, understand, some rude yankee bastard giving you less than flattering feedback might be more helpful than some vague keep up the good work comment, although i agree. Keep up the good work(sharing) because it might be one of these days that someone says something that turns the light on for you. I know it was for me.

Sorry

Crazy Dave

[getterdone]

I'd like to clairify my post from page 7 . I was refering to the diagram of MT138, The simple lever arrangement that you showed I think shows a lot of promise. I think that the lesson Bessler was trying to teach us in this MT is very simple. Let the tail wag the dog. Or to put it in another way, by moving the bottom lever slightly you can get one side to do the work, or the other side to do the work. Your transfering the energy from one side to the next with very little movement.

As far as MT 137 goes, I think that that was a way of building a strong frame that wouldn't fall apart during testing.

Keep up the good work

Leo

[jim_mich]

1. you need to stop thinking that by adding things you can overcome anything. Everyone it seems has these grandiose plans and then when the build does not go their way they start to think, maybe 4, no 8 OK 12, that might make it work, and then still nothing learned. If it doesn't work without a spring it won't work with one, if it doesn't work with 2 then 12 won't make a difference. You could save a lot of time by learning this now. I used to think the same way, that's not the problem, we should all go through learning. but when you start with an idea and then only make it more complicated without understanding or fixing the underlying reason for failure, i for one lose interest quickly.

He can rack his brains and work his fingers to the bones with all sorts of ingenious ideas about adding extra weights here and there. The only result would be that his wheel will get heavier and heavier - it would run longer if it were empty! (From pg 295 of Apologia Poetica)

[path_finder]

Dear bluesgtr44, getterdone and Jim_Mich,
Many thanks for the comments (so few here).

Dear FunWithGravity2,
I understand your strong comment, if you are one having shared yet on this forum without any feedback.
But you forget the last line of my old post (referenced by the blue link above):

Perhaps one person here, more clever than me, can find the correct use for this very simple design

Despite what you said, I did NOT hide any other data at that time and nobody gave a follow to the animation.
As explained above at that time I was thinking that no useful result can be obtained from this concept.
My opinion today is:
- either one or several clever members discovered a way to use this concept, but they did not share their discovery.
- either this concept has been (like for myself) abandoned because judged futile.
There is no other reason for my comment about the poor level of share (a general consideration).

I accept any kind of comments, even sometime perhaps not entirely justified.
But I cannot accept wrong assumptions:

1. Regarding the position of the hamster COG lower than the axle:

This current build has so many flaws that i would have assumed you would have learned by now, your Hamster designs at least tried to push the COG above the axle. These here have the entire system COG heavily below the axle. very bottom heavy and stable.

I NEVER tried to drive the hamster COG above the axle.
Obviously the position of the COG under the main axle has NOT been a sufficient reason for declaring a design as 'not working'
This is perhaps correct if this COG is fixed to the inner rim : in that case there is an amortized oscillation until the keeling 6:00 point is reached.
But if the COG is permanently moving and readjusted remote from the vertical line, you will obtain a working wheel.
The best example is the 'hamster wheel', despite your affirmation.
Again (for the fun) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHu8LAWSKxU
The COG of the 'hamster' concept has been fully explained here:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/downl ... 6c00aef9d2
and is one of the four ways I still believe able to solve the quest.

2. Regarding the 'magic' springs:

Springs, really, c'mon these must be magic springs they seem to only work in one direction, tell me how do they know which way to pull?

The springs are acting with an identical power in the both directions, and I regret you did NOT analyse further the direction of the force vectors.
When the spring is extended there is the same force applied at the both sides of the spring.
But the angles of the two linked rods are different: it is obvious that the most vertical will move quicker than the most leaned.
This unbalance of the force application is increased by the rotation of the wheel.
Thus the springs are not magic, they just accelerate the jump.
In addition nobody forbidden you to attach the front end of the springs more in advance, said to the second or third previous rod, like a crawfish tail and 'the car ahead the horse'.

3. Regarding the building:

You either learned nothing from it or did not build it

Did you built it? If yes, why do not publish your results?
I cannot evaluate the total number of really built wheels in this forum, due to the lack of share.
But I'm sure to be one of those builders which shared a significant number of practical attempts.
You have the right to keep the silence, but perhaps the display of practical built devices may be helpful for the other members, even if not successful yet.

In any case, thanks for your remarks I will take in account.
You took your own time for an answer, I appreciate.
Are you a little bit pessimistic in the life?

[Ealadha]

I did share my discovery , if you want to find out how a pendulum operates on a wheel , put a wheel with a pendulum horizontal and experiment , if you do this , you will start to see how it works when the wheel is vertical .

[Ealadha]

A spinning top is a horizontal wheel , why would Bessler show a spinnig top in MT 138 ?

[path_finder]

As you can see I'm working simultaneously on some different designs (and thus wheels).
I has been stopped with several wheels because I cannot find any mechanism able to invert the reciprocator.
For memory the principle of the reciprocator can be found here:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/downl ... 91c148dd10
Several of my buildings are related with this principle, like this one:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/downl ... 46e9e063e1
The difficulty I encountered was to transform these two orthogonal motions into a rotation of the main wheel.

I discovered only recently the way to do this job.
I named this mechanism an retro-reciprocator (because it allows to return back to the original rotational motion).
Basically this mechanism is made with two Cardan's gears, see here an animation of ONE of the two used parts:
http://www.mechanisms101.com/cardan_gear.html
By using two sets of this single linear antireciprocator, dephased of 90 grades, I can now complete my wheels.

[path_finder]

Dear Ealadha,
The horizontal wheel and the spinning top have been discussed many times in this forum.
Open a new thread if needed, but first make a search with the 'gurbakhsh' and 'top' keywords.

[Fletcher]

My opinion today is:

- either one or several clever members discovered a way to use this concept, but they did not share their discovery.

- either this concept has been (like for myself) abandoned because judged futile.

There is no other reason for my comment about the poor level of share (a general consideration).

Pathfinder .. I have absolutely no doubt in my mind that the lack of discussion & sharing of designs in general you mention quite frequently is NOT because someone more clever than you has found a way to connect the dots & use one of them, albeit without sharing if that were the case.

It is plain & simple that no way has been found to create a self sustaining wheel.

In most minds an idea is or has been explored & judged futile therefore there is no further interest in pursuing it until hope flares when some insight comes along to make you revisit a mechanism again.

We have all experienced it - the people who want to solve this puzzle toil away, never stop thinking about it, sharing what they can, discussing others designs from time to time - this process makes you an expert in what doesn't work - the process is that eventually you can quickly discount unworkable ideas freeing up the mind for that one insight that will lead you down the correct path.

I am reminded of the old chestnut - 'it is better to know the questions than the answers' or 'understand the problem before the answer'.

[Unbalanced]

Well put Fletcher. Couldn't have put it any better myself. The longer we pursue this puzzle the more expert we become in what doesn't work.

What never ceases to surprise me is the how increasingly esoteric the terms and complexity of design we see as this pursuit continues.

When asked by those who take the time to worry about me, why do I pursue these wheels, I quote Charles Dodgson's character in Alice in Wonderland:

Alice laughed. "There's no use trying," she said: "one can't believe impossible things."
"I daresay you haven't had much practice," said the Queen. "When I was your age, I always did it for half-an-hour a day. Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast."

and

"But I don't want to go among mad people," Alice remarked.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat: "we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat, "or you wouldn't have come here."

[Fletcher]

LOL, yes, we're all fruit loops here, mad as hatters.

Mad or not, we're at least trying to make a difference, if not occupy ourselves in a worthy pursuit, though some wives & partners would disagree ;7)

[Ealadha]

Thus why a so low level of share in this forum?

I always thought it was because of the fear mongering , conspiracy theororists on this forum , of course if the forum becomes active again , they will probably be back with their shite . I saw one of them logged on yesterday .

[path_finder]

Despite the pessimistic advices of the theoricists, I persist and sign.
Doing nothing is the best way to learn nothing, thus I still continue my tests.
The truth is on the building (old sentence from Lao-Tseu)

Hereafter two shots from the building of the MT137 suggested design (see above for the details).
The first shot shows the basic parts.
The second shot shows the wheel with the five leaning rods, but without the springs.
As you can see there is a difference with the animation showing the basic principle: in the practical building, the weights are outside the sequencer.

[path_finder]

Searching inside my archived files, I found this document in relation with the previous shots.
Many thanks to Patrick Doucette for his contribution.
The original link is here:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/downl ... 6e67b4f6e1