Who is .....

[Unbalanced]

Another example of harnessing precessive force to shift mass.

[Unbalanced]

Bessler Corroboration to the Theory of Precession as a Supplementary Force Utilized to Shift Mass in an Overbalanced Wheel.

Precession (as seen with gyros on earth) is effectively a coupling or harnessing of the Earths rotational energy. Precession is initiated by a slight drop (of the axis of a rotating mass) in the Earth's gravitational field. It is this slight reduction in PE that is converted to precessional kinetic energy. The result, miraculously, is a coupling of the rotating mass of the flywheel with that of the exponentially greater mass of the Earth. This is the universal force.

Bessler


(weights) “are the essential parts, and constitute the perpetual motion itself; since from them is received the universal movement which they must exercise so long as they remain out of the centre of gravity�
- Johann E. E. Bessler, 1717

If we think of a rotating disk or flywheel that was free to precess i.e. free to be pulled off of the axis of rotation, to lean or wobble, it would "remain out of the centre of gravity" in relation to the same wheel running true and perpendicular to its axis.



“the cause of perpetual Motion, the essence of the Sun, and the reason for the movements of the Sky, Moon, Sea and Earth; finally, the causes of the ebb and flow of the Tides, Thunder, Lightning, Rainstorms, Winds, and the reasons why all these things grow and multiply� - pg 265

A driver drives. A runner runs

Saturn, Mars, and Jupiter are ready to join in any battle.
AP


Weights gained force from their own swinging (or movement). Bessler

My guess is that this swinging movement was lateral

[silverfox]

What everyone seems to underestimate is just how elegantly simple and exceedingly direct the wheel's inner mechanism not only was, but how very "un-wheel-like" that mechanism would quite naturally have had to be to accomplish what was necessary within such very slim confines.

Just think, poor old Bessler had to work with crude wood and leaden weights while we could use titanium and tungsten to really whip-up something you could even more easily spit-through, provided it wasn't running at the time, of course.

That should preclude any designs that aren't equally capable of being just every bit if not even more stream-lined than Bessler's or automatically eliminate any notions or ideas that aren't completely adaptable to that most obvious of all considerations.

Sorry if that throws a damper in anyone's wild imaginings but in light of no one knowing any better than Bessler, it's only prudent to accept that he at least knew what he was doing, while no one else seems to... at least not yet.

[Unbalanced]

Now I will discus the stork bill actuating mechanism that converts the lateral motion in the Z-axis of the rotating mass.

I take you back to the toy page, to the little anvil pounders. One of these 4-bar parallel rules per 90º weighted arm pairs. Please refer to the illustration.

In this manner of using only one anvil hitter on one stork bill handle, the stork bills can be used to their greatest advantage.

[Unbalanced]

I am not attempting to say that this is the means that Bessler used to achieve his end. I am only putting this idea forward as a possible means.

My greatest ambition is not to solve Bessler's mystery but rather to solve the problems of the world.

If it would help my concept to rotate in two axis's (as Eric Laithwaite's gyro did) in order to force the flywheel to precess at a steady cant, then I would be pleased to have it revolve about the room all day long.

Eric Laithwaite's gyro utilized spring steel arms and I believe this is the answer to his question as to why his gyro precessed so rapidly while others did not.

Fletcher reminded us that Winkle of years gone by had introduced the concept of harnessing precession with the "L" arms such as seen in MT130, MT 131 and others. This may be the better method.

I have tried to picture every MT illustration as having a Z-axis component. Some fit the bill better than others.

I believe there is adequate width in Bessler's parameters to cant a disk. It is not necessary to cant it very far.



[/i]

[Unbalanced]

There is one possible draw back to this concept of harnessing precessional energy to shift mass. This is that feasibly, if there was enough of these wheels in existence, it could possibly, eventually slow the rotation of the Earth.

This has been aptly coined by another as "rotational pollution." It amounts to us losing a few seconds to a minute per day over the next thousand years.

I would not like to go down in posterity as being the man who made the Earth stand still.

[Fletcher]

Hi Curtis ..

You have obviously studied this subject extensively - bare with me a while as I play catch-up.

My understanding of precession is that it comes in two forms - torque-free & torque-induced.

I assume you are interested in the torque-free type using the earth moving beneath the device ?

Yet, you seem to be using the torque-induced model in your descriptions ?

Here's my simple take on torque-induced precession - N.B. it was once a small part of theory with practical experiments covering gyroscopic instruments in aircraft - a couple of things were self evident at the time & they come back to me now.

The first experiment we viewed was the standard vertical spinning solid disk inside a gimbal - the disk was spun up using hand input [or compressed air for small varieties] - once established at an rpm a force was applied to the gimbal - it was demonstrated that the disk precessed 90 degrees further on in the direction of rotation [wobbled].

IOW, any force applied to a spinning disk at any rim position causes the disk to pitch 90 degree on - so in effect a force applied at A was seen to act at B - BUT, the force B was the same magnitude as delivered at A, not greater.

So, here are the holes I see in your argument at this stage.

1. Input Energy must be supplied to the device to have it spinning & maintain that rpm after frictional losses [quite a lot of Energy].

2. A force must be applied to the spinning disk to cause precessional force B 90 degrees on from the application position of force A - these forces are equivalent [really Output force B is Input force A].

3. Something must provide the A force so that the weights can be displaced to maintain OOB & rpm - you are saying that the earth rotating beneath the reference frame of the gyroscope can provide this force ?

4. a wheel/disk rotating at 26 rpm has how much precessional force applied to it over what horizontal distance, in one minute ?

N.B. this appears to be a Work Done problem of F x D ? - is there enough force from the earths rotation & precession to lift/move a series of falling weights to keep a constant OOB condition & rpm of 26 rpm for a 12 foot diameter disk ? - first impressions are that the distance they'd be able to be moved would be fractional ?

P.S. sorry to here about your wife.

[Tarsier79]

I am vaguely aware of precession, but am unaware on how it could be harnessed, and the amount of available force compared to rotation.
Could you explain the drawings a little more?

[Unbalanced]

You have obviously studied this subject extensively - bare with me a while as I play catch-up.

I have been studying this subject a great deal of late but interestingly enough there seems to be a extraordinary lack of reliable information on the subject of harnessing precession.

My understanding of precession is that it comes in two forms - torque-free & torque-induced.

I assume you are interested in the torque-free type using the earth moving beneath the device ?

Yet, you seem to be using the torque-induced model in your descriptions ?

I am using the torque induced model in the description of my theory though the more I study this phenomenon the more these two models seem to blur.

So, here are the holes I see in your argument at this stage.

I am the first to admit that there may be more holes in my theory than Bessler's drum axle and the ozone layer over Fiji combined.

1. Input Energy must be supplied to the device to have it spinning & maintain that rpm after frictional losses [quite a lot of Energy].

2. A force must be applied to the spinning disk to cause precessional force B 90 degrees on from the application position of force A - these forces are equivalent [really Output force B is Input force A].

3. Something must provide the A force so that the weights can be displaced to maintain OOB & rpm - you are saying that the earth rotating beneath the reference frame of the gyroscope can provide this force ?

4. a wheel/disk rotating at 26 rpm has how much precessional force applied to it over what horizontal distance, in one minute ?

N.B. this appears to be a Work Done problem of F x D ? - is there enough force from the earths rotation & precession to lift/move a series of falling weights to keep a constant OOB condition & rpm of 26 rpm for a 12 foot diameter disk ? - first impressions are that the distance they'd be able to be moved would be fractional ?

(1) True: As in the wheel at Kassel, I anticipate the need for an induced "shove" to get this concept turning initially. I envision a design that is perhaps slightly canted off its axis at rest though admittedly I do not know how I will accomplish this at the present. If the wheel begins to turn in a slightly tilted or canted state then the sliding weights will be in an OOB configuration from the onset. It is my hope that this over balance will perpetuate itself as precession continues to hold the wheel tilted off its plane of rotation. This is new territory, I have little in the way of past experimentation to work from.

(2) I understand your point and again I wish I had a clearer understanding of the dynamics. Unfortunately my ignorance is matched only by my enthusiasm. Precession is instantaneous and occurs in some degree in all rotating masses. The best I can do is to refer you back to that segment of Eric Laithwaite's lecture video. It clearly shows that the weights are pulled off center when the frame is disturbed (shaken) or when it has been freed to swivel. When the device swivels, and some roll is added, the wheel tends to pitch. I propose that this "pitching" may be used to shift mass. The patent below is for a precessional electrical generator that requires external impetus such as wave action etc. but explains the concept well.

(3) No, again I apologize if I have blurred the concepts of torque free and torque induced precession. It may become apparent through experimentation that it is essential for this wheel concept to swivel in order
for the precessive force to cant the wheel sufficiently to create the necessary OOB and the resulting rpm. Again, I am sailing in uncharted waters here. No one to my knowledge has fashioned and experimented with a gyro that is purposely overbalanced and or one in which 50% of the mass is defining an elliptical path. I may very well be full of it, but I anticipate some very unique results, perhaps nothing less than the birth of the new field of physics, that of PM.

(4) I have searched the www and usenet till the cows came home and I have not found a reliable calculation for determining the force of precession though I have found a number of people who want to know.

Here are several informative sites:

http://www.ph.biu.ac.il/~rapaport/java-apps/gyro.html


http://www.gyroscopes.org/math.asp


A US Patent for a precession powered electrical generator

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/7375436.pdf

There is nothing for it but for me to clear out the little space I have available and resurrect my work shop.

A common demonstration of precession is to have a student stand on a turntable and hold a spinning bicycle wheel once he cants the wheel even slightly he instantly begins to rotate.

Many of our designs would be runners if they only had the slightest added impetus to tip their balance. I am not in any way suggesting that my illustrations represent a workable solution but precession has been harnessed now we just need to direct it back into the rotational energy.








[/url][/b]

[Tarsier79]

My first question would be: is the movement gained from precession directly taken from the rotation of the object?... (reworded) to maintain the gyroscopes speed, is the same amount of energy required to be input as is used due to precession-weight shift?

[rickydog]

Unbalanced-
Take care of your wife, she's more important than any blasted wheel.
My thoughts & prayers are with the both of you.

[DrWhat]

Unbalanced, my thoughts are with you and your wife. Best wishes to you both.

[path_finder]

Dear Unbalanced,
For the first point (how to start the initial rotation) there is a very simple way, used in the wheel shown in Paris (Universal exhibition 1889): a spiral spring.
Even if Bessler certified 'his wheel don't use any spring like you think' this does not deny at all the presence of any spiral spring for a specific purpose.
May be NOT as the main active principle, but INSTEAD as tank of energy for the start phase (when the wheel decrease his rotation, the spiral spring is bent, loading a sufficient energy for the next start phase).
IMHO just a suggestion.

[Unbalanced]

Good Day Path_Finder,

I thank you very much for your contribution. It was constructive.

Until such time as I am able to resurrect my shop and purchase the necessary materials, I am flying blind. Specifically, I can not conjecture as to how this configuration may park itself if by the grace of God it does anything other than park itself.

I love the idea that it will require restraint to be parked or that upon receiving a minimal impetus will accelerate to a stable revolving state but caution born of past experience leaves me reserved.

To recap some of the more promising aspects of my research to date:

There seems to exist a general consensus within the physics community that precessional force is a very real and external force with measurable kinetic energy.

All of my efforts to substantiate the nature, power, and source of this force
have met with less than substantive answers. It is like listening to a lot of learned scientist describe love. They tell me where to look for it, its observable qualities and quantities but they all seem to fall short on just what the heck precession really is or from where or why it originates. In truth they (we) are no closer to actually defining gravity.

Findings:

Precessional force is dependent on the rotation of mass.

All rotating mass is effected by or creates an environment for precessional force regardless of the quantity of mass or the velocity at which it revolves.

The quantity and velocity of a rotating mass effects the strength of the processional force associated with it.

The direction of rotation of the mass, flywheel, gyro, etc. dictates the direction of the applied precessional force or torque. This torque is perpendicular to the angular momentum of the wheel.

Spinning wheels and pendulums exhibit the same property of staying their plane of movement while the Earth rotates beneath them. As such if a large wheel were mounted on a turn table it would appear to describe a 360º turn every 24-hours. It would be closer to the truth to state that it does not turn at all but rather the spinning wheel stays on its plane of rotation and the Earth turns beneath it. This is not the case as we move closer to Earth's equator.

A spinning wheel (above approximately 20º north and south latitude) that is rigidly fixed to the Earth, will experience differential torque on its axle as it tries to maintain its plane of rotation but is being forcibly pulled off of this plane to follow the Earth at the rate of 15º per hour, .25º per minute or .00417º per second. For a very large flywheel mounted in the higher latitudes this amounts to a great deal of torque.

Precessional force does not take power from the spinning flywheel.

Precessional force manifests itself without observable delay once the spinning mass is lowered even an infinitesimal amount within the Earth's gravitational field.

Now I am going to refer to the properties of a spinning mass whose axis is supported from only one side of its axel and that it is allowed to swivel or pivot freely about this one support point.

Immediately upon release of one of two support points the axis will drop due to gravity the degree to which is dependent on the quantity and velocity of the spinning mass. The wheel will then precess (turn in a circle about its single support point) and the velocity of this precession may be increased by the application of more mass to the unsupported side of the axle.

It has just occurred to me that I may be boring the majority here by rehashing that which is readily available to all who may wish to research this on their own from a better source than I.

My underlying motive here is to spark a discussion on how this precessional energy can be directed back into rotational energy of the flywheel to sustain all of the motions involved.

I believe that with a bit of collective thinking we can arrive at a very simple solution that will make us all crap our collective pants.

I have proposed one solution in this thread. I am not certain but that my solution would require that the wheel be free to swivel and that the initial cant or keeling of the disk, be induced.

I am hoping that experimentation will demonstrate that because 50% of my mass is defining an elliptical orbit while the other 50% is rotating at a fixed distance about the axel that this alone will alleviate the need for it to swivel in order for it to cant sufficiently to harness precession in this way.

I have only taken one observable characteristic of precession (canting at the top and bottom) and suggested an application to shift mass. There are other characteristics and applications that are worthy of consideration.

All Good Thoughts to all of You

[path_finder]

Dear Unbalanced,
Most of the experiments on the wobbling COG are difficult for analysis and deduction, because often (almost) a major point has been forgotten:
we must take in account the mass of the frame in the calculation of the wobbling COG.
IMHO it was the first reason of the no success until today of Mr Würtz and Mr Greg Smith also.
The practical mechanism you are proposing could be finally difficult to fix.
(note: I just posted a link in another thread to a greek design in relation: see here again: http://www.tsiriggakis.gr/sm.html#1)