Besslers prime mover and its enabler.

[Roxaway59]

Roughly it doubles the amount of blocks as far as I can tell. Have a look and see what happens with yours.

Graham

[Roxaway59]

I'm not sure its worth doing because in Algodoo if you make objects too thin things tend to pass through so when I build in 10 I usually don't have the thickness too small anyway. Very often beams are 2 cm or more.

Graham

[Robinhood46]

Absolutely, it's a big problem with the programme. Intricate mechanism in the real world don't exist on the planet Algodoo.
I'm more concerned with the position of objects being finely adjustable than the dimensions of the objects.
I think maybe we shouldn't be too concerned about our different grid sizes, until we are on to something interesting, or promising, that we do all want to work on.

[Roxaway59]

Ok well at least if we keep the wheel size at 2 metres diameter we can then easily swap ideas on them.

Graham

[Roxaway59]

I just want to post a few thoughts that have been going through my mind.

As I have said in recent posts there are some key things that I now believe to be true about Besslers prime mover.

Because positive feedback is one of these main things I have been racking my brains trying to come up with mechanisms that shine a light on this problem.

I am experimenting with an idea at the moment in Algodoo that is proving difficult to configure the way I want but I will keep trying.

One thing that I looked at recently in MT has convinced me that I know at least one of the components of Besslers wheel and maybe two. I will post my thoughts on this later.

This issue of positive feedback is proving to be as interesting as it is illusive. I believe this is because the prime mover mechanism or idea is the positive feedback mechanism and the moment this is realised Besslers secret is revealed. So as I grapple with the illusive positive feedback mechanism I am grappling with the prime mover.

Certain thoughts keep going through my mind on this. How relative they are remains to be seen but I don’t mind sharing these thoughts I'm just basically thinking out loud.

I keep picturing the positive feedback like a dominoes effect where one small action say near the centre of the wheel is amplified in kinetic energy as it makes its way to the rim where the large weight is then pushed into position and feeds back some of its energy to the centre of the wheel.

One thing this is reminiscent of is the jacobs ladder.

Another thing that I keep thinking is that there are phase differences between the centre mechanisms and the ones leading out towards the rim.

Graham

[Roxaway59]

I decided to look at MT to see if there was anything in Besslers comments that could back up what I have been saying about frameworks and about wheels that look overbalanced. These are some of the most positive things that Bessler wrote and its worth just observing the wheels that he is talking about.

No. 9. Because experience shows us that the ball-driven wheels like those seen in the present figures and diagrams were of no avail, people speculated on another principle, namely: on weights. To be sure, in all the weight drawings that I have found, these weights appear simple and are not connected together with belts or chains, even in Leupold, but nothing is to be accomplished with any device unless my principle of movement is activated; but here I neither wish to show nor discuss the figure for the time being.

No. 10. This is just the same as the previous model, except that the weighted rods are more curved and longer. The principle is good, but the figure is not yet complete until I illustrate it very differently at the appropriate place and grasp the correct construction.

No. 11 This figure is doubled, as one can see, and the design does not look too complicated, but there is more in it than meets the eye, as will be seen when I pull back the curtain and disclose the correct principle at the appropriate place, as mentioned previously.

No. 14. This invention is somewhat more speculative, and the internal cross-tensioners with the weights are movable; therefore, when one weight raises up another one, the cross-tensioners are pulled up with their weights too. But what is possible and what is not possible about this design of wheel will appear in their proper place at the end.

No. 15. This ratchet-wheel derives from the previous model, except that the tensioners are somewhat longer and have an additional special weight at the outer ends. From this drawing alone, however, nothing of the prime mover's source can be seen or deduced although the figure shows the overbalance

No. 18. This is similar to the previous spring-model, and it seems to be good, but seeming is different from being. At the same time, however, the principle is not to be scorned or disregarded, for it tells more than shows. I however, will show more than I tell about it in the proper place.

No. 22. This lever-devices seem to look good. The large levers, B, hang from the centre, A. Pulleys are attached at C, and over these pass cords to the levers’ weights, D, which are pulled, thus supposedly making side E heavier. I have misgivings about many of the intentions in this, however and as for the rest I do not yet wish to make my thoughts known

No. 24. This invention should not to be scorned. It consists of special weighted levers and some hinged iron rods that close between the levers and can fold inward. There is, however, more to explain about it before you will grasp and correctly understand its good qualities.

No. 25. This is similar to the previous model except that it is drawn somewhat differently and with longer rods; there is something misleading about the diagram, because the folding rods should not project so far out but must bend further inward. There is more to this than one might think. Mark my words.

No. 37. This invention belongs among Nos. 14, 15 and 16 above and is inserted here, having been accidentally omitted. Connected to each other with belts, AA are movable levers, which have an oval spring attached to the heavier side at their hinge point. With this spring the lever can pull other oval springs toward it and extend them away from itself by the same method. These springs should be considered a question rather than a fact.

No. 38. This is based on the previous principle but instead of oval springs it has stork's bills or student’s forceps. At A the stork's bills pull apart, and at B they draw together into C by means of the levers D, thus making E, the heavier side. There is more to this invention than there is to the previous one, but here the correct application of the stork's bills is not shown.

[Roxaway59]

Here are the rest.

[Roxaway59]

Notice how all these designs have a definite overbalanced look about them.

Most of them use belts to connect the weights together and it isn't until Bessler gets to No 9 that he starts saying something more positive.

No 15 not only has a distinct overbalanced look but is only one of three that is going counter clockwise. It is also the only one where the prime mover is mentioned.

37 and 38 are special in that he forgot to include them and made sure to put them in later on.

Graham

[Roxaway59]

No. 9. Because experience shows us that the ball-driven wheels like those seen in the present figures and diagrams were of no avail, people speculated on another principle, namely: on weights. To be sure, in all the weight drawings that I have found, these weights appear simple and are not connected together with belts or chains, even in Leupold, but nothing is to be accomplished with any device unless my principle of movement is activated; but here I neither wish to show nor discuss the figure for the time being.

No. 10. This is just the same as the previous model, except that the weighted rods are more curved and longer. The principle is good, but the figure is not yet complete until I illustrate it very differently at the appropriate place and grasp the correct construction.

Notice how he hints in 9 that being connected might be important and how he says the principle is good in 10. If 10 is good then so is 9.

11 is exactly the same thing but with a smaller one near the axle and once again he says something positive.

No. 11 This figure is doubled, as one can see, and the design does not look too complicated, but there is more in it than meets the eye, as will be seen when I pull back the curtain and disclose the correct principle at the appropriate place, as mentioned previously.

Graham

[Roxaway59]

If you read the comments on 14, 18, 22, 24 and 25 they all have one thing in common.

He is basically saying that all these designs have something that is good about them. It is for us to decide what those good things are.

Notice how all of them have some kind of connection to the centre of the wheel.

Graham

[johannesbender]

Might i just mention something i mostly don't see mentioned around , most of the drawings are actually not full discs , not that its amazing special , just that that's how its drawn...

[Roxaway59]

Yes and I feel that Bessler drew his figures that way so that the circle going around the drawing acts as a reference point to the shape the mechanisms are making and their relative distances from the circumference.

Graham

[johannesbender]

Yes and I feel that Bessler drew his figures that way so that the circle going around the drawing acts as a reference point to the shape the mechanisms are making and their relative distances from the circumference.

Graham

If the outer circles are like that , then the inner circle would be a thin rim .

My point is , there are spokes from the axle , those spokes connnect to a flat ring , instead of it being a full on disc , so the center area is hollow , according to the drawings , that would change the moment of inertia , but why did he draw them as rings .

[Roxaway59]

I've always thought that his diagrams were drawn in such a way that they convey the main idea without being cluttered when necessary and the main circle was a reference point.

They are in effect not designed to show proper construct in my opinion.

Because this is what I always thought I never questioned it.

Graham

[Roxaway59]

Hi JB, I hadn't really thought too deeply about how Bessler approached his drawings before and I can only say that I think I always viewed them in the correct way as to how he was trying to convey his ideas.

That doesn't mean I always fully understood the drawings or the idea. There are some that confuse me and it would be great if some forum members could elaborate on some of them.

If you take No10 as an example (the real drawing) there is no need for him to show a circle around the mechanism. It does however work beautifully as a frame of reference for the position of the weights and that is how I always thought of it.

The ones that have a circle that is actually being used to attach things to don't need a reference circle. I feel certain that is how he was thinking.

Also it probably has a lot to do with how he went about producing the drawings / prints.

Graham