Zeroing in on Bessler's wheel

[JUBAT]

Has anyone created a wheel with little to no back torque? I would assume if they had then they would have most likely found the solution to the bessler wheel.

I think it's utterly critical so much so that we need to focus on movements that don't cause it.

Starting with the toys page, is there any back torque from the 2 hammers guy mechanisms? It looks like they are flip flops with the only back torque being due to the situation they are in prior to flipping over.

Is the trick to have 2 weights each falling in opposite directions so as to cancel the back torque?

[Sam Peppiatt]

Wouldn't that cause the torque to be equal in both directions? ---------------------------Sam

[JUBAT]

Yes it would, but if we cancelled out the torque, then it would open up the potential to allow the wheel to be propelled by making it top heavy where it wants to self-right. I don't think any of us knows for sure the exact reason for the wheel's rotation, but if we assume Bessler was moving 2 pairs of weights...2 and 2...then maybe the wheel operated in a fashion where weights moved into a top heavy position, held their ground for 180 degrees, flipped into a top heavy position, and repeated that cycle over and over.

If you look at my attached diagram, I'm showing a quick and dirty representation of what I mean. If each of the weight mechanisms was set to rotate in opposite directions, then the smaller weights could lift the big weights above the axle. Hold that for 180, release and let the big weights be lifted back up again. Of course how it's drawn wouldn't work due to roberval principle, but maybe that's part of Bessler's trick - some mechanical latching principle that switches a mechanism into and out of a roberval state. While in a roberval state, the weights can self-right, then switch into a non-roberval state to cause the wheel to flip, and then back to roverbal for the flip. That way the wheel, with multiple mechanisms could always be top- heavy.

How to switch from roberval to non-roberval I have no idea, but maybe there is a principle here one could embody in a new design.

Additional thoughts: If we just try to simplify this, we could start with just one of those pendulum arms and figure out a way to get them to flip the larger weight up with rollers on little tracks.

Maybe the trick is in the pivot point where under the influence of the smaller weight, the entire pendulum is kind of lifted up and into a cradle every 1/2 turn. I mean if you make a small version of the hammer toy, the mechanism flops to one side, then as things rotate it eventually hangs inverted, lags behind, then needs to be lifted up and over into the original position. So if we could make a small representation of the hammer toy mechanism and replace the pivot point of these pendulum arms with it, maybe that's the ticket? The small weight would be influencing movement of the larger weight by causing the pivot point to shift around so as to defeat the roberval principle.

Plausible, but lots to have to work out and yet it could very well be another part of the wash of failed designs as they all are.

[johannesbender]

Way back i created this lever , which had a cable and hook on each side , one side of the lever was 2 times longer than the other , a spring was used to cancel the torque of 2 masses hanging on the long end of the lever so that the lever remained in balance with no weight on the short end , when i placed one mass on the short end it would lift up the 2 masses on the long end twice as high as the one mass dropped , but to reset the device would have needed to much extra energy .

It is not impossible to cancel/reduce torque on one side , the issue comes down to how do you cancel/reduce it over and over again without using energy that does not exist.

[johannesbender]

Yes it would, but if we cancelled out the torque, then it would open up the potential to allow the wheel to be propelled by making it top heavy where it wants to self-right. I don't think any of us knows for sure the exact reason for the wheel's rotation, but if we assume Bessler was moving 2 pairs of weights...2 and 2...then maybe the wheel operated in a fashion where weights moved into a top heavy position, held their ground for 180 degrees, flipped into a top heavy position, and repeated that cycle over and over.

If you look at my attached diagram, I'm showing a quick and dirty representation of what I mean. If each of the weight mechanisms was set to rotate in opposite directions, then the smaller weights could lift the big weights above the axle. Hold that for 180, release and let the big weights be lifted back up again. Of course how it's drawn wouldn't work due to roberval principle, but maybe that's part of Bessler's trick - some mechanical latching principle that switches a mechanism into and out of a roberval state. While in a roberval state, the weights can self-right, then switch into a non-roberval state to cause the wheel to flip, and then back to roverbal for the flip. That way the wheel, with multiple mechanisms could always be top- heavy.

How to switch from roberval to non-roberval I have no idea, but maybe there is a principle here one could embody in a new design.

Additional thoughts: If we just try to simplify this, we could start with just one of those pendulum arms and figure out a way to get them to flip the larger weight up with rollers on little tracks.

Maybe the trick is in the pivot point where under the influence of the smaller weight, the entire pendulum is kind of lifted up and into a cradle every 1/2 turn. I mean if you make a small version of the hammer toy, the mechanism flops to one side, then as things rotate it eventually hangs inverted, lags behind, then needs to be lifted up and over into the original position. So if we could make a small representation of the hammer toy mechanism and replace the pivot point of these pendulum arms with it, maybe that's the ticket? The small weight would be influencing movement of the larger weight by causing the pivot point to shift around so as to defeat the roberval principle.

Plausible, but lots to have to work out and yet it could very well be another part of the wash of failed designs as they all are.

Yip , many of us think that it could be doable if a RB principle was switched on and off , but we cant figure out how to do something like that mechanically yet.

[Tarsier79]

many of us think that it could be doable if a RB principle was switched on and off

Once apon a time I looked into this. Now I don't. An RB is not magical. It works just like a 1:1 lever. If you push a weight out into OB and expect to lift it with RB, the RB won't lift it high enough with the same rotation.

Draw any diagram showing how far your RB has to lift vs how far you drop with OB. If you can show a gain, I will design and build you a mechanism to do it.

[johannesbender]

many of us think that it could be doable if a RB principle was switched on and off

Once apon a time I looked into this. Now I don't. An RB is not magical. It works just like a 1:1 lever. If you push a weight out into OB and expect to lift it with RB, the RB won't lift it high enough with the same rotation.

Draw any diagram showing how far your RB has to lift vs how far you drop with OB. If you can show a gain, I will design and build you a mechanism to do it.

If you build a 1:1 lever then a 1:1 lever works like a 1:1 lever , that's pretty basic yes
I don't recall writing about a gain with a lift and drop RB, can you point it out ? , i am also fully capable of doing it myself :)
Jubat was writing about switching the effect of a RB on and off and not about gains of drop and lifts , could you build it too?

[Tarsier79]

If you build a 1:1 lever then a 1:1 lever works like a 1:1 lever , that's pretty basic yes

I don't understand. If you agree an RB works exactly like a lever, why would you think it gives us any benefit in a mechanism?

don't recall writing about a gain with a lift and drop RB, can you point it out ? , i am also fully capable of doing it myself :)

Yip , many of us think that it could be doable if a RB principle was switched on and off , but we cant figure out how to do something like that mechanically yet.

A gain is the only way you will get rotation.

Sorry, I wasn't saying you or anyone else couldn't.

How do you believe an RB switching on and off will help?

[Fletcher]

... Starting with the toys page, is there any back torque from the 2 hammers guy mechanisms? It looks like they are flip flops with the only back torque being due to the situation they are in prior to flipping over.

Is the trick to have 2 weights each falling in opposite directions so as to cancel the back torque?

I'd say that the Toy's Page is a very good place to start an investigation, for the reasons we all know .. since the hammermen toys occupy the center realestate of that page, the geographical placement is possibly deliberate and could be indicative of ranking or importance .. if so it would be logical that they have some real relevance to a mechanical solution imo .. also imo not all things are just randomly placed or unstructured, and some things by design are deliberate ..

[JUBAT]

If you build a 1:1 lever then a 1:1 lever works like a 1:1 lever , that's pretty basic yes

I don't understand. If you agree an RB works exactly like a lever, why would you think it gives us any benefit in a mechanism?

don't recall writing about a gain with a lift and drop RB, can you point it out ? , i am also fully capable of doing it myself :)

Yip , many of us think that it could be doable if a RB principle was switched on and off , but we cant figure out how to do something like that mechanically yet.

A gain is the only way you will get rotation.

Sorry, I wasn't saying you or anyone else couldn't.

How do you believe an RB switching on and off will help?

The advantage to a roberval perhaps is that you can have weights in balance and then rotate them. When you pin certain configurations to the wheel, then regardless of where the weight is at, you can move them all around with no penalty. Suddenly if you can change how they are anchored to the wheel, then you can get an imbalance as the roberval connection is broken.

That's the thought anyway.

[Tarsier79]

Perhaps a diagram would help?

[JUBAT]

I just had a thought about the Bessler wheel. Imagine you have 2 pendulums but instead of the traditional round weights, you have little cups made of lead or something to make sure there is some weight to it. At the base (green dot) is a pivot which is a ratchet and trigger mechanism. The roller gains force after being kicked and it rolls over and impacts the spring-loaded arm on the other side. You would need to have 4 or 8 weight pairs in order to keep things rolling, but the rollers would be going back and forth using their force to spring-load the arms and then as the spring force is released at just the right time, it would encourage the red ball to get a move-on a little bit ahead of the wheel.

It's a paddle-ball game - something the kiddies in the lane could play with.

We would have impacts around 4 o'clock and then the sound of the rollers traversing the wheel could make those wooden dowel sounds as it bobbled across on wooden tracks.

The receiver cups wouldn't even have to be weighted - the rollers might be all that would be needed to maintain the imbalance.

Comments? Hate? Thoughts? How about a failed game of PONG?

[JUBAT]

Perhaps a diagram would help?

download/file.php?id=25332&t=1

Both of those weights are balanced no matter what position they are in.

[Tarsier79]

Agreed.

[johannesbender]

If you build a 1:1 lever then a 1:1 lever works like a 1:1 lever , that's pretty basic yes

I don't understand. If you agree an RB works exactly like a lever, why would you think it gives us any benefit in a mechanism?

don't recall writing about a gain with a lift and drop RB, can you point it out ? , i am also fully capable of doing it myself :)

Yip , many of us think that it could be doable if a RB principle was switched on and off , but we cant figure out how to do something like that mechanically yet.

A gain is the only way you will get rotation.

Sorry, I wasn't saying you or anyone else couldn't.

How do you believe an RB switching on and off will help?

I never mentioned any RB doing any lifting in the text you quoted , but if you are making it the topic then let me at least say this much.

You talk about a RB which is a balance with the roberval principle included , i talk about mechanical advantage plus using the principle of the roberval , i can see advantages to that , but i am not about to try and convince anyone .

The difference here being a balance is typical 1:1 , and something which has mechanical advantage is not , no lever needs to be 1:1.

So the exact law which is responsible is the law of the lever or , mechanical advantage , and as such simple machines too , all of them follow the following ,without losses energy in is energy out .

To state it different , no lever requires an energy gain to function , why would i want an energy gain for a lever though?

Jubat mentions a RB switching on and off , obviously like i said no one knows how yet which you left out of my quote too , but if it could have been done then , swithing the irrelevant position of the weights on and off such that on one side when a weight is further the effect is switched off making it apply torque and then on the other side switching the effect back on its torque due to position becomes irrelevent again , a few of such would theoreticly produce a torque on one side only and no torque on the other .

Of course or you can rather theorize about creating and gaining energy out of nothing.