An infamy: the Bessler secret discovered by a troll?

[path_finder]

Could it be the banner of a newspaper front page?

I think you got something there Cristo. You should team up with someone and build it.

Due to the controversial level of the exchanges in the threads opened by christo4_99, I did not participate to this discussion until now.
But the latest data oblige me to correct the design suggested by christo4_99.

I have nothing to think about the proposed shield effect, like a crystal ball for the deciphering of the secret.
On the other hand, taking in account a possible arrangement of some Bessler's drawings, i can explain what could be IMHO the idea of this atypical member.
The first modification: to reverse one of the primemover.
In the drawing below the inner primemover has been reversed (it can be the contrary).
Then the linkage between the two primovers by two couples of gears assumes the mutual counter rotation.
Each couple is rigid, the both gears being soldered to the shaft.
Each shaft pass through the central axle. So far they must be inclined,another way being to shift a little bit the vertical plane within the difference of the gear radii. Therefore their size must be different (one bigger on the outer primemover and one small on the inner primemover), this is the reason why the two primemovers are of different size. And the position of the gears must be at the opposite site of the primemover, instead it will be locked.

Finally this assembly is just a classical (but clever) gear train, like used by the chinese 2600 year BC (see the 'chariot pointing the south' in wikipedia).
Even with some ratchet/clutch there is no chance to work, instead the automobiles could run without oil: an epicycloidal gear train is not able to rotate by itself.

There is still an opportunity to see this device at work: if the value of the weights is different in the two primemovers.
In that case the centrifugal force can make an effect, coming from the difference of the radii. Who knows? The only way is to build one example.

[Grimer]

I doubt there'll be many volunteers.

[rlortie]

Grimer,

I have not volunteered to build it, but I have been playing with the thought of lever/gear indexing based similar to P_f's above input.

As for my statement: 'If grimer sees what I see he will jump on it' I was referring to your morphed 'keenie' thread.

P_F,

Thank you for your input, it confirms that I am not alone in considering the possibilities or augmentation of the design.

Ralph

EDIT: My innovation came not unlike P_F's from the thought of an automobile differential 'spider gears'

[daxwc]

I don’t see any advantage unless you can think of a way to sync them in opposite rotations.

[rlortie]

Dax,

My hypothetical thinking was once again based on the auto differential. Rather than syncing, use a 'hunting' ratio where the same teeth only match after X number of revolutions.

Rather than relying on the ratio of gears, I also am thinking about the different ratios in CF that could be to an advantage if consideration is given to Cp on the inner unit.

Note that MT 9, 10, & 11 are similar with the exception that they vary in lever numbers giving you either a 20 and 23 degree increments.

I am also drawn to the fact that out of all the Mt drawings containing comments, it is these three drawings that Bessler makes statements of in favor.

MT 9: unless one acts out of my connectedness principle

MT 10: Delineate it a much differently at the appropriate place and indicate the correct handle-construction.

MT 11: Pull back the curtain and disclose the correct principle at the appropriate place.

Thanks to Orffyre.com for the excerpts!

Ralph

[path_finder]

I don’t see any advantage unless you can think of a way to sync them in opposite rotations

They are in opposite direction if the main axle is in standby.
If we want the same when the main axle rotates, the only way is to have two different rotation speeds, this effect coming from the difference of the radius of the primemovers (if in the same time the number of teeth is equal on the both gears).
This is what I understood from the Ralph comment. May I be wrong.

[Richard]

..there is the ..hint, of spider/ pinion arrangement in Mt 58 ...beyond that I think Bessler would have employed a contrate assembly ( clock making) such as is exhibited in Mt 62

richard

[daxwc]

Ralph:

My hypothetical thinking was once again based on the auto differential. Rather than syncing, use a 'hunting' ratio where the same teeth only match after X number of revolutions.

We are mostly on the same page without knowing it. By sync I meant only it hunts freefall, one side then the other through gearing counter (opposite rotation) to each other.

It reminds me a lot of Doc's wheel principle also.

[rlortie]

P_F,

You are right, they have t he same number of levers/ alleged sprockets on the inner as the outer, only thing changing is circumference.

I can only recommend that one does not adhere to the drawings but keep an open mind to the comments:

MT 9: unless one acts out of my connectedness principle
MT 10: Delineate it a much differently at the appropriate place and indicate the correct handle-construction.
MT 11: Pull back the curtain and disclose the correct principle at the appropriate place.

To me this sounds pretty liberal as far as number of weights size of wheels, connectivity etc.

The only thing I feel that should be a stable foundation to build from is the basic design itself. There is something in or about this that Bessler felt pertinent/relevant about, to make the above statements.

Ralph

[Richard]

...what would have been the mechanical components of..."Pulling back the curtain"?

[christo4_99]

if i may i give some input:the question in my mind becomes (sorry if i am intruding PF) regardless of the wheels direction can the axle with the gears somehow keep the wheel from keeling?If the apparatus was hanging stationary on a bearing any differential stress between the two weighted wheels would cause it "wag".The wheels spinning in opposite directions would seem to facilitate acceleration of the smaller wheel.But when the tail wags backward does the dog flip over?There is no doubt the design meets the requirement of it's weights being in a position and arrangement that can never reach equilibrium...the inner weights will always be lighter than the outer.The more perplexing requirement is how the weights are made to seek.My original impression was acceleration is what's lifting the weights at the bottom the way they are drawn.The tension in the chain(caused by the weights ahead) is what's lifting the weights at the top...and that to me raises the question:What happens when the weights slow down?

...what would have been the mechanical components of..."Pulling back the curtain"?

I know what you mean Richard but i think he was more or less literal in that he meant the weaving covering the wheel.If i had to interpret it as a mechanical act within the design itself I'd say that we have to assume another weaving was used in the design before we could learn how to pull it back.
P.S. Will someone please define troll inasmuch as i am being referred to as one in this thread so that i can decide to what extent i am supposed to be offended,devalued and unappreciated?

[justsomeone]

Just to be clear, I was being sarcastic with that post. I thought those two peas belong in the same pod.

I certainly have no issue with a discussion about the design or off shoots of the design. I did have a big issue with someone saying " I know how Bessler did it.... I don't know how it works.

Path, I think you are one of the most dedicated and creative members here!

[Ealadha]

I would not be worried at all about christo4 discovering the secret as there is no chance of that happening , IMO .

[christo4_99]

Discoveries don't come from mental constructs,they happen to the observer in the world.Any discovery that is found must be analyzed and reverse engineered approximately to be recreated.When i discovered binaural crosstalk cancellation i did not instantaneously know how it worked but it was happening right in front of me.This is my excuse for making the statements that i made...and having no results to back it up.The discovery can come before the concept as discovery is a mere observation.I am guilty of violating the rules of this board or not following the suggested way to do things,but i have a feeling that in a moment of excitement,under the same type of conditions someone else might have done the same thing.I am also guilty of being proud to the point of self pedestalization (LOL).So everyone please forgive me and let's get on with solving the wheel.

[justsomeone]

Apology accepted here and red dot removed.