Pair of Pairs

[rlortie]

Want to see something different, Here is what the web translater makes of it.

Nemlich, a piece of art Mub itself do Vo to many Stucken blei separate, That are nunimmer 2 Taking a thing auberlich the place, drive the other to the waving; this soon is here, and that there; And thus wechselt.s away and away. X

Ralph

[jim_mich]

Thanks Rainer, you have answered my question. The phrase, "That are always two and two;" confirms my suspicions. You might phrase it "a pair and a pair."

Slowly the wheel is making sense to me. I try not to get hung up upon any particular design or concept, but let the words writen by Bessler guide me to a solution.

Thank you all.

[Fletcher]

It's starting to sound like interconnected opposing sets (pairs) of O-+-----o & using CF acting on the 'small mass - long arm', to 'stand up' the arrangement vertically at 6 o'cl when cf & g are working in the same direction & then let it flip over on the way up to the top of the wheel when cf & g are no longer combining their influence in the same direction ?

[bluesgtr44]

I have very much thought along these lines also...where he says that, while one is driving on the axis and the other takes up a position closer to the axle...he never says which side of the axle. I am still under some influence that the whole "mechanism" is operating on the descending side of the wheel.


Steve

[winkle]

Slowly the wheel is making sense to me. I try not to get hung up upon any particular design or concept, but let the words writen by Bessler guide me to a solution.

Jim i thought i read somewhere that you had a working wheel but that you were not going to put it togather

are you looking for more than one way to build a wheel



sorry i looked back and that was another someone on this site

[jim_mich]

Fletcher, yes something like that.



PS My PC monitor is dieing on me. I might go silent for a short time.

[amateur]

Might the phrase indicate at least four weights, such as one pair of weights on one side and one pair on the other side, all working or connected together. Does this make sense?

Take a look at the "wallpaper" doodles - there are pairs of pairs there...

On a related note, if one creates a "X" configuration with the pivot closer to one set of ends, weights on all the ends, fix one "leg" of the X, and allow the other "leg" to swing around, according to WM2D, the System and COM follows an offset (maybe even elliptical) path around the pivot - it is not centered.

And has anyone considered that a mechanism might "flip-over", ala one segment of a Jacob's ladder toy... Potential room for that in the wallpaper doodle as well.

****WARNING: WM2D seems to calculate pretty screwy COM's when pinning objects to the background... The presented COM will move based on where on objects a (fixed) PIN joint is positioned within the object - without the actual object otherwise moving or shifting.

So far, seems safe if one draws large centered object and uses that as a pseudo background.

[rlortie]

Winkle,

Your quote edited for brevity:

Jim i thought i read somewhere that you had a working wheel but that you were not going to put it togather

are you looking for more than one way to build a wheel

IMO the person you are referring to is I, Ralph Lortie. To clarify and keep the records straight. I stated that I have a wheel that I believe will run, and I have not assembled it. I have not implied that it will run, as I am a firm believer in a substantial proof of concept with testimonial back up before making any such claim.

And yes I live to help others find other means and ways to produce a working concept.

Now lets get back on Jim's topic "pair of pairs" My interpretation is that there are weights in pairs and that one pair replaces another pair that in turn become flipped. This is the same description that My unfinished wheel uses and was derived from Besslers translation by John Collins, Bacon and Ted from Chicago.

Ralph

[ken_behrendt]

Jim wrote:

I'm leaning toward what Ralph says. I think there may have been two weights on one side of the wheel, probably one heavy and one light. These two weights flip or swing in some manner. Maybe they connect to a pair on the other side.

Once again, Jim, you are exactly describing the mechanism in my latest design, the Carpenter's Boy's Wheel.

In that design, the drum is divided into 8 compartments around the axle of the wheel. Each compartment contains only two weighted levers. A spring is used to laterally shift the drive weight away from the wheel's axle when the mechanism is at the 3:00 position and a "lifter" weight is used to restore or lift the drive weight back against its inner stop and nearer to the axle when the mechanism is at the 6:00 position.

As we consider a single such mechanism rotating from the 3:00 to 9:00 position, it will be seen that the drive weight reciprocates with respect to the wheel's axle. On the descending side of the wheel, the drive weight is shifted away from the axle. And, on the ascending side of the wheel, the drive weight is shifter nearer to the axle of the wheel. Thus, the CG of 8 drive weights in such a wheel must always be kept on the descending side of the wheel.


ken

[rlortie]

Ken,

There is one problem with your comparison of you Carpenters Boy design and Besslers interpretation. Your driver and driven will seek and find balance within themselves.

Bessler's paired weights are constantly seeking but never finding equilibrium, as they are obviously not attached to the wheel. He is referring to the individual paired weights and not the wheel as a whole mechanism.

Regarding Jim's statement; <Maybe they connect to a pair on the other side.> My opinon is no, they do not connect but rather one pair is displaced by a like pair from the opposite side. Which explains the possibility of the two plus two.

Ralph

[Fletcher]

Jim ... paraphrasing Bessler, he said, chasing an unbalanced wheel design was futile & he learn't that the hard way.

'Two by two' kind of brings your 'Center of Gyration' back into the frame ?!

Good luck putting it all together !

[winkle]

This is the same description that My unfinished wheel uses and was derived from Besslers translation by John Collins, Bacon and Ted from Chicago.Ralph

who is this Ted from Chicago
has he written a book on this subject

[pstroud]

Guys,

<two and two> or <a pair and a pair>..... Just like the MT 138 hammer toy drawings, which I think are primary keys to the Bessler Wheel.

I fully support the concept of the pair being two weights working together on the same side of the wheel in the same segment and NOT weights on the opposite side of the wheel.

Based on some of my recent drawings & ideas on shifting mechanisms, I also support Ralph's statements that there is no indication that there is a heavy and light weight in the drive and shifter relationship. They may weigh the same. Their pressure point in the wheel and application of torque will change their value to the COG of the wheel.

However, this does not account for the Bessler statement about using 4 oz to easily lift 1 lb and this leading to achivement of perpetual motion.

Too many clues..... Too few answers.... I'll go to sleep on this one.....

Preston.

[Michael]

Fletcher, my thoughts are, I think that the actual comment meant he repeated others mistakes at first, he also said he found it where others had looked repeatedly. I think it was a true overbalanced wheel but done in a different way, a way that people don't look hard enough at.

[rlortie]

Does Bessler actually say that he could lift one pound with four ounces the same distance that the four ounces falls? Or does he simply imply that one pound can be lifted with four ounces. Is this achievement accomplished in the eyes of the by stander or is it relative to the wheel that is in motion. Four ounces falling in a vertical plane should push one pound up a 25% inclined plane. Add the wheels relative motion to that and see what you come up with. Now do not forget that you will also have inertia and gravity helping that four ounces over come CF and make it's leverage a lot more. Providing that is, that the four ounces is closer to the rim than the one pound.

Ralph