right angles

[rlortie]

Taken form 'Wiki'

"Unlike all other automata, such as clocks or springs, or other hanging weights which require winding up, or whose duration depends on the chain which attaches them, these weights, on the contrary, 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; and when they come to be placed together, and so arranged one against another that they can never obtain equilibrium, or the punctum quietus which they unceasingly seek in their wonderfully speedy flight, one or other of them must apply its weight at right angles to the axis, which in its turn must also move."

- Johann E. E. Bessler, 1717

Ralph

[jim_mich]

Unlike all other automata, such as clocks or springs or other hanging weights which require winding up or whose duration depends on the chain which attaches them, on the contrary these weights are the essential parts and constitute perpetual motion itself; as from them is received the universal movement which they must exercise so long as they remain out of the centre of gravity; and when they come to placed together, so arranged that they can never obtain equilibrium, or the punctum quietus which they unceasingly seek in their wondrous speedy flight, one or another of them must apply its weight vertically to the axis, which in its turn will also move'.

'Unlike other automata, . . . . these 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; and when they come to be placed together, and are so arranged one against another that they can never obtain equilibrium, or the punctum quietus which they unceasingly seek in their wonderfully speedy flight, one or another of them must apply its weight at right angles to the axis, which in its turn must also move'.

Unlike all other automata, such as clocks or springs or other hanging weights which require winding up or whose duration depends on the chain which attaches them, on the contrary, these weights are the essential parts and constitute perpetuum mobile itself; as from them is received the universal movement which they must exercise so long as they remain out of the center of gravity ; and when they come to be placed together, and so arranged one against another that they can never obtain equilibrium, or the punctum quietus which they unceasingly seek in their wonderous speedy flight, one or other of them must apply its weight vertically to the axis, which in its turn will also move.

[preoccupied]

I think my math calculations were wrong for 20% less lever on the one side, previously posted, because R was distance from the axle when instead Jim_Mich’s example in the link R is radial distance from the axle. In the other example from Jim_Mich the radial distance changed but in this idea the radial distance stays the same so the math should have looked like this for the post about 20% less lever on one side,

On the left the weight pushes down on the long 2 inch bar/arm and is attached to the 1 inch distance lever. On the right the weight pushes down on a 1.1313 inch bar starting at 45 degrees attached to a .8 inch lever.

In the beginning of the lift,
F = Cos(30 degrees)=.866, 1/.866=1.154
T = F(1.154) x R(1) =1.154
( 1.154 )
F = Cos(45)=.707, 1/.707=1.41
T = F(1.41) x R(.80) = 1.1315
( 1.1315 )

At the end of the lift,
F =Cos(20.7) = .935, 1/.935 = 1.0695
T=F(1.0695) x R(1)=1.0695
( 1.0695 )
F=Cos(30)=.866, 1/.866=1.154
T=(F1.154) x R(.8)=.9232
( .9232 )

The distance between the ending unload location for the left side and the starting location on the right side is 1.163-.8=.363. This distance is pushed up along with and added to the height of the lift. .5656+.9797=1.5453 is the height of the lift on the right side. 1.5453+.363=1.9083 is the position the weight was pushed up to. 1.732 is the height of the starting position on the left side and 1.9083 is higher than that so the weight would be pushed up higher than where it fell.

Using radial distance from the axle there is more extra torque than calculating distance from the axle but both ways show positive torque and an overbalanced wheel.

But the calculation for 35% less lever on one side is even better.

In the beginning of the lift,
F = Cos(30 degrees)=.866, 1/.866=1.154
T = F(1.154) x R(1) =1.154
( 1.154 )
F = Cos(45)=.707, 1/.707=1.41
T = F(1.41) x R(.65) = .9165
( .9165 )

At the end of the lift,
F =Cos(20.7) = .935, 1/.935 = 1.0695
T=F(1.0695) x R(1)=1.0695
( 1.0695 )
F=Cos(30)=.866, 1/.866=1.154
T=F(1.154) X R(.65) =.7501
( .7501 )

There is much more extra torque with 35% less lever on the right side.

[FunWithGravity2]

Thank you Jim and Ralph, wasn't sure if their had been some consensus change since those were written or Stewart had offered any alternate possibilities.

IMHO JB is always truthful but loves to mix his frames of reference as well as viewing position to make himself at times seem contradictory and downright confusing. I think he was looking forward to revealing his wheel and hearing people ask him what he meant whe he said "x" and him answering them with " well when you look at it from here".

The right angle comment is typical of the style, as well as 1/4 fall. Without frames of reference or knowing if he is switching them midstream it is impossible to decipher anything from them. Although they easily apply to every design, and everyone validates theirs by them it seems. IMHO his style of writting is based on his understanding of the wheel and is also a very big part of the solution.

IMHO he has 4 frames of reference for the viewer that he varies at will

Heavenly
Earthly
Viewing the wheel from the outside at different positions
Viewing the wheel from within at different positions

IMHO he also mixes

time
weight
mass



Crazy Dave

[daxwc]

FWG

IMHO JB is always truthful but loves to mix his frames of reference as well as viewing position to make himself at times seem contradictory and downright confusing. I think he was looking forward to revealing his wheel and hearing people ask him what he meant whe he said "x" and him answering them with " well when you look at it from here".

I very much agree with your assessment.

[preoccupied]

Jim_Mich,
Am I doing the math incorrectly? The math you corrected me on before seems very similar to the design I have now so I think the same math would work but I could be wrong.

-and I would love to see ideas about right angles in this post. I'm the only person so far to post a picture of an idea about right angles.

[Tarsier79]

Just following on from Crazy Daves post.... If I have two gears in a 3:1 gear ratio, why and how does the smaller gear revolve 4 times each revolution of the larger gear?

Think carefully...

[rlortie]

Edited for context:

Thank you Jim and Ralph, wasn't sure if their had been some consensus change since those were written or Stewart had offered any alternate possibilities.

IMHO JB is always truthful but loves to mix his frames of reference as well as viewing position to make himself at times seem contradictory and downright confusing.
IMHO he has 4 frames of reference for the viewer that he varies at will

Viewing the wheel from within at different positions

Note that in the four contributions above he says either; 'vertically to the axis' or 'at right angles to the axis'... There is no mention of an axle!

We read this and automatically think 'AXLE'... An axis is not necessarily the axle, it can be the center of a vortex created by a straight line about which an object rotates or be conceived to rotate.

In math it is a straight line, ray, or line segment with a line with to which a figure or object is symmetric. A reference line from which distances or angles are measured in a coordinate system.

If the weights worked singular or in pairs then they would or could form their own axis and not have anything to do with the axle of the wheel or drum.

There does not seem to be any doubt in varied translations that he states 'axis' not 'axle'. I also remember reading somewhere about the weights traveling around their own vortice!

Ralph

[FunWithGravity2]

Just following on from Crazy Daves post.... If I have two gears in a 3:1 gear ratio, why and how does the smaller gear revolve 4 times each revolution of the larger gear?

Think carefully...

3.14159.........?


Ralph, Agreed.

Axis is more open to variations and would seem to be consistent with JB's multiple possible meanings style of writing.

Dave

[Richard]

Ralph....thank you for sharing that; Also you Dave ( Frames of reference)

Wow?...(possible reference of vortice) from Bessler?

Force imbalance.

I think sometimes; maybe Bessler did not know how to express himself among academia...perhaps this was a problem, and not a deliberate misrepresentation?

richard

[FunWithGravity2]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicycloid

nice little demo,

Thanks Tarsier, made me think for a sec

[preoccupied]

I'm thinking about going to the arts and crafts store at the mall and buying less than 20 dollars in wires Styrofoam and marbles to try to construct a seesaw. The Styrofoam will be the base and I will stick wires into it. Do you think those materials are sufficient to construct a test model?

[Stewart]

What do you think Bessler meant when he said "weights applied force at right angles to the axis."?

Sorry, I've been away from the forum for a while and I'm just now reading this thread for the first time. Jim_mich has posted some translations of this quote from John's PM-AAMS book and also Dircks' book. The passage in question comes from Bessler's [DT]. All those translations quoted by Jim_mich are not correct, or at least add confusion as to the meaning. Since the publication of PM-AAMS, John had a more accurate translation done by Mike Senior which conveys the correct meaning much better:

"...thereby developing an impressive velocity which is proportional to their mass and to the dimensions of their housing. This velocity is sufficient for the moving and raising of loads applied to the axis of rotation." [from page 191 of John Collins' DT book]

Here is my own translation which is closer to the original Bessler text:

"...and in addition in their wonderful quick flight, according to the proportion of both their own and their housing's size, must also move and drive other loads applied from outside at the shaft or axle/axis of their vertical vortex."

The translation in John's DT book misses some of the details but correctly conveys the point that Bessler is talking about the weights and their housing (i.e. the wheel frame) being able to move loads applied to the axle of the wheel, such as the winch/crate and the stamping mill. It's as simple as that.

I think the confusion only arises over the "vertical vortex" part, but that's easy to explain. A normal vortex (think whirlpool) has particles (water molecules) rotating around a vertical axis. Bessler's wheel has particles (weights) rotating around a horizontal axis and are therefore in a vertical vortex. By describing it this way Bessler gives a clear picture that his weights are circulating around a horizontal axis/axle and that he harnesses their force at their axis (center of rotation). His wheel would not work if it was rotated 90 degrees into a horizontal vortex position as the overbalance weights obviously would no longer be able to fall under gravity and turn the wheel.

Stewart

[Richard]

from Stewart

"...and in addition in their wonderful quick flight, according to the proportion of both their own and their housing's size, must also move and drive other loads applied from outside at the shaft or axle/axis of their vertical vortex."

...regrettably, there exist such ambiguity, as to render these statements, insufficient to design (mechanical) application of a wheel.

The Mts show copious Contrate, Worm and Pinion and vortice / spiral pictures, all of which may apply at right angles to axis and axle..

If Bessler was attuned to nature he'd might have considered both vertical (whirlpool) and horizontal ( hydraulic) vortices.

Regardless, both may sufficiently apply an imbalance of Force that never needs to reset.

As Nature perfectly shows..

As I understand it, We have Three builds currently in progress, by respected members of this Forum....? that is to say, A High Degree Of Confidence...

Stewart...somewhere, someplace..you indicated we need this technology.
I am in agreement sir. The curtain must soon be pulled back, to reveal.

richard

[jim_mich]

His wheel would not work if it was rotated 90 degrees into a horizontal vortex position as the overbalance weights obviously would no longer be able to fall under gravity and turn the wheel.

You are making an assumption that gravity drove the wheel. His last two wheels were balanced. Gravity cannot drive a balanced wheel.