Bellows Build
Moderator: scott
-
Jim Williams
- Aficionado
- Posts: 734
- Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:08 pm
- Location: San Francisco
re: Bellows Build
Jim Randall:
Glad to know I can still gather your attention.
It was Kusmer's patent that did me in. I once talked to an attorney's aide to obtain the attorney for myself and I used the Kusmer patent to prove I was sane.
They wouldn't even let me talk to him as they showed me to the door.
Jim W.
Glad to know I can still gather your attention.
It was Kusmer's patent that did me in. I once talked to an attorney's aide to obtain the attorney for myself and I used the Kusmer patent to prove I was sane.
They wouldn't even let me talk to him as they showed me to the door.
Jim W.
Last edited by Jim Williams on Sat Jul 06, 2013 5:38 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: re: Bellows Build
Jim W.,Jim Williams wrote:The enclosed patent is well known on this board.
www.google.co/patents/us3934964
It also uses weights to shift the difference between containers full of water and ones full of air. What makes it different is the connecting hoses allowing pressures to balance between containers.
Imagine placing an invention of either Kusmer or Diamond constructed small enough to be placed in a transparent sided vat of some kind, like some large aquarium. Now imagine that vat has been set up in the middle of the desert, filled with water, the device located in it, and clearly visible to someone standing beside the vat and the device. Now imagine that the device is rotating in the vat. If it can be caused to rotate, then it should potentially rotate forever? Where is the energy coming from to cause it to do that rotation?
That's the question I asked me. I have yet to answer it.
Jim W.
These links might help.
http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae27 ... ention.jpg
http://i979.photobucket.com/albums/ae27 ... ntion2.jpg
The weights would work together to move air from one balloon to another. Bellows might work also. What the "secret" would be is that by changing the volume that an object displaces in water, it's density relative to water changes as well.
And by knowing the density of water, one cylinder could become heavier while the other becomes lighter than water. And by using something like a torpedo shape, it's movement through the water would be about the same as another that has been extended because of it's bellow/balloon being filled with air.
Of course, it wouldn't be necessary to have one lighter than water when it is filled with air but is an sample of how the buoyancy can be changed.
@cloud camper, Thanx !!
-
Jim Williams
- Aficionado
- Posts: 734
- Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:08 pm
- Location: San Francisco
re: Bellows Build
smith66:
I can't recall how long I argued here for the Kusmer patent, or some other patent, worked. For me, I was unwilling to believe someone could receive a patent on something that didn't work as advertised. I thought they all had to work to receive that patent.
The same problem that exists with any unbalanced wheel exists underwater as well. I do understand why it looks like it should work. It just doesn't.
Good luck with it anyway. I hope you learn something from your build. Having been in the same place as you are right now; you'll have to excuse me if I get a chuckle.
Jim W.
I can't recall how long I argued here for the Kusmer patent, or some other patent, worked. For me, I was unwilling to believe someone could receive a patent on something that didn't work as advertised. I thought they all had to work to receive that patent.
The same problem that exists with any unbalanced wheel exists underwater as well. I do understand why it looks like it should work. It just doesn't.
Good luck with it anyway. I hope you learn something from your build. Having been in the same place as you are right now; you'll have to excuse me if I get a chuckle.
Jim W.
re: Bellows Build
Jim W.,
>> Good luck with it anyway. I hope you learn something from your build. Having been in the same place as you are right now; you'll have to excuse me if I get a chuckle. <<
I'll be working on the wheel I think Bessler built. With what I showed you, timing is important. After all, if something is not as dense as water, it floats, right ?
And if something rotates to quickly, then there won't be time for the weights to move to continue the cycle. A good example of this is your car. if you change it's timing by 20 degrees, it might not run at all.
It's pretty much the same with any machine that has parts that work together. Properly timed then they can work as advertised and if not, it'll look like it should work but won't.
And I think what everyone misses on an idea like this, if it works, then people who own aquariums would probably want one. Outside of that, probably wouldn't be much use for one. So realistically speaking, this is something that could be worth about $50 to $100K. It's a crap shoot to see who buys one.
edited to add; with what jim_mich posted, the small tubes would restrict flow which would keep it from working. I guess everyone misses the concept that by trying to squeeze x amount of volume through an area 1/10th the volume basically requires 10x's the force if not more. Other wise it's flow will really, really slow down. Then the next thing you is it's balance is all wrong. A little something I learned in Propulsion Engineering school.
That's something I am keeping in mind with what I am working on.
Still, for the money, my counter balanced arm would probably have the most worth because it could always sit on a desk or table and be a conversation piece.
I think I'll work on that again once I get my shop set up which will be less than 2 weeks away. Maybe then I'll teach ya'all something about converting linear momentum (gravity) into angular momentum (spin/rotation).
Kind of why I like Mt 24. if you notice where the mass is, it creates a diminishing potential as the wheel rotates, ie., conserving momentum. :-)
>> Good luck with it anyway. I hope you learn something from your build. Having been in the same place as you are right now; you'll have to excuse me if I get a chuckle. <<
I'll be working on the wheel I think Bessler built. With what I showed you, timing is important. After all, if something is not as dense as water, it floats, right ?
And if something rotates to quickly, then there won't be time for the weights to move to continue the cycle. A good example of this is your car. if you change it's timing by 20 degrees, it might not run at all.
It's pretty much the same with any machine that has parts that work together. Properly timed then they can work as advertised and if not, it'll look like it should work but won't.
And I think what everyone misses on an idea like this, if it works, then people who own aquariums would probably want one. Outside of that, probably wouldn't be much use for one. So realistically speaking, this is something that could be worth about $50 to $100K. It's a crap shoot to see who buys one.
edited to add; with what jim_mich posted, the small tubes would restrict flow which would keep it from working. I guess everyone misses the concept that by trying to squeeze x amount of volume through an area 1/10th the volume basically requires 10x's the force if not more. Other wise it's flow will really, really slow down. Then the next thing you is it's balance is all wrong. A little something I learned in Propulsion Engineering school.
That's something I am keeping in mind with what I am working on.
Still, for the money, my counter balanced arm would probably have the most worth because it could always sit on a desk or table and be a conversation piece.
I think I'll work on that again once I get my shop set up which will be less than 2 weeks away. Maybe then I'll teach ya'all something about converting linear momentum (gravity) into angular momentum (spin/rotation).
Kind of why I like Mt 24. if you notice where the mass is, it creates a diminishing potential as the wheel rotates, ie., conserving momentum. :-)
-
Jim Williams
- Aficionado
- Posts: 734
- Joined: Thu Jul 13, 2006 7:08 pm
- Location: San Francisco
re: Bellows Build
smith66:
One chuckle is that we are both in the same boat as everyone here. While all have gone different distances towards that build, we are all still the same distance away from it. I'm kind of a Bessler agnostic. I'm not sure how to find it, but there is an elegant proof of why these buoyancy devices won't work. If I find it, I'll post it.
Jim W.
One chuckle is that we are both in the same boat as everyone here. While all have gone different distances towards that build, we are all still the same distance away from it. I'm kind of a Bessler agnostic. I'm not sure how to find it, but there is an elegant proof of why these buoyancy devices won't work. If I find it, I'll post it.
Jim W.
re: Bellows Build
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Problem is some men can't learn.
re: Bellows Build
Tarsier79,
>> Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Problem is some men can't learn. <<
Who did you learn from ? With me, it was 2 brothers named Wilbur and Orville Wright from my home town. Also, when Nikola Tesla invented the alternating current generator while working for Thomas Edison, it was considered as impossible as flight because he had to run current 90 degrees out of phase. Couldn't be done they said.
Of course, I probably have more schooling and experience working in places where they did some amazing things and taught me some about how they did it. After all, you know a plane flies because of the vacuum above it's wings and not the wind beneath them, right ? If not, you haven't been taught properly.
But I guess to say it is impossible is to show how smart you are, not sure where it shows it considering only vague reasons are given while I'm giving more explicit reasons why it's possible, kind of why ab hammer wants me to give him something, But I didn't let my disability keep me from trying like he did. Nope, I was the idiot who went to the library and checked out books on mathematics and engineering while reading my father's books on engineering. Of course, there's also what the US Navy taught me as well as the Boeing Airplane Co.
By the way, there are 2 reasons why the Wright Bros. were successful. The first is they had a custom engine built using aluminum which was expensive at that time. It was so rare that in 1884 they capped the Washington Monument with a pyramid made from it. They also had their engine put out more horsepower than people thougth an engine should have.
The second is they realized the concept of ailerons of which allows for powered flight. Somehow all of the experts missed those 2 things.
What did they do differently ? They bought a fish scale for weighing fish. Talk about a technological breakthrough. This allowed them to do wind tunnel testing as well as test the conditions at Kitty Hawk, N.C. So basically, they engineered their plane to fly in the conditions that existed at Kitty Hawk, N.C. and not some other place. And guess what ? Their having tunnel vision worked. After all, if they would've tried flying their plane where you live, it probably wouldn't have taken off because they did one other thing first. they contacted the National Weather Bureau and asked them where the windiest place was that had sand and the answer was kitty hawk, N.C. They did research and lots of it and of course, they had many doubters like Wagner and his friends or some of you guys. After all, your credibility is based on explaining why something can't work, not why it could.
and with me, I am thankful I am not in your position. I have a 50% hearing loss in one ear which has basically ruined my life because we all know that smart people can hear well and speak clearly. And with my hearing loss, it interferes with my speech. Kind of why I plan on changing the veteran's Administrations policy that a hearing loss is not a ratable disability. If it were, I would've gotten a hearing aid and help going to school so I could work in a field where my hearing loss does not put me at an advantage. As a result, I have to consider what it takes to make things work because people think I need their help when I've had opportunity in hand. And with pm, wouldn't mind working with people but then people can't get past the idea that it violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics of which it doesn't. Gravity which could be considered linear momentum is not of the object that needs it's angular momentum maintained.
it'll be kind of funny when some of you Wagner's find out that I actually know what I'm talking about. I think maybe having a gal waiting for me to be successful is a good reason to stay positive and stay motivated :-)
Ya'all enjoy your laughs while can and cloud camper, get ahold of me when all is said and done :-) Wouldn't mind sayin' hi to you.
>> Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime. Problem is some men can't learn. <<
Who did you learn from ? With me, it was 2 brothers named Wilbur and Orville Wright from my home town. Also, when Nikola Tesla invented the alternating current generator while working for Thomas Edison, it was considered as impossible as flight because he had to run current 90 degrees out of phase. Couldn't be done they said.
Of course, I probably have more schooling and experience working in places where they did some amazing things and taught me some about how they did it. After all, you know a plane flies because of the vacuum above it's wings and not the wind beneath them, right ? If not, you haven't been taught properly.
But I guess to say it is impossible is to show how smart you are, not sure where it shows it considering only vague reasons are given while I'm giving more explicit reasons why it's possible, kind of why ab hammer wants me to give him something, But I didn't let my disability keep me from trying like he did. Nope, I was the idiot who went to the library and checked out books on mathematics and engineering while reading my father's books on engineering. Of course, there's also what the US Navy taught me as well as the Boeing Airplane Co.
By the way, there are 2 reasons why the Wright Bros. were successful. The first is they had a custom engine built using aluminum which was expensive at that time. It was so rare that in 1884 they capped the Washington Monument with a pyramid made from it. They also had their engine put out more horsepower than people thougth an engine should have.
The second is they realized the concept of ailerons of which allows for powered flight. Somehow all of the experts missed those 2 things.
What did they do differently ? They bought a fish scale for weighing fish. Talk about a technological breakthrough. This allowed them to do wind tunnel testing as well as test the conditions at Kitty Hawk, N.C. So basically, they engineered their plane to fly in the conditions that existed at Kitty Hawk, N.C. and not some other place. And guess what ? Their having tunnel vision worked. After all, if they would've tried flying their plane where you live, it probably wouldn't have taken off because they did one other thing first. they contacted the National Weather Bureau and asked them where the windiest place was that had sand and the answer was kitty hawk, N.C. They did research and lots of it and of course, they had many doubters like Wagner and his friends or some of you guys. After all, your credibility is based on explaining why something can't work, not why it could.
and with me, I am thankful I am not in your position. I have a 50% hearing loss in one ear which has basically ruined my life because we all know that smart people can hear well and speak clearly. And with my hearing loss, it interferes with my speech. Kind of why I plan on changing the veteran's Administrations policy that a hearing loss is not a ratable disability. If it were, I would've gotten a hearing aid and help going to school so I could work in a field where my hearing loss does not put me at an advantage. As a result, I have to consider what it takes to make things work because people think I need their help when I've had opportunity in hand. And with pm, wouldn't mind working with people but then people can't get past the idea that it violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics of which it doesn't. Gravity which could be considered linear momentum is not of the object that needs it's angular momentum maintained.
it'll be kind of funny when some of you Wagner's find out that I actually know what I'm talking about. I think maybe having a gal waiting for me to be successful is a good reason to stay positive and stay motivated :-)
Ya'all enjoy your laughs while can and cloud camper, get ahold of me when all is said and done :-) Wouldn't mind sayin' hi to you.
re: Bellows Build
@ab hammer,
Thanks for letting me know that cloud camper sent me a pm.
If you must know, he was asking me to be nice to you. With you posting off topic like that, not sure why I should.
Thanks for letting me know that cloud camper sent me a pm.
If you must know, he was asking me to be nice to you. With you posting off topic like that, not sure why I should.
-
primemignonite
- Devotee
- Posts: 1000
- Joined: Sun May 22, 2005 8:19 am
re: Bellows Build
Jim "smith 66" (or, any others),
Any bellows (pneumatics) I can construct with virtuoso ease to-specification, to-order, pro-rata.
This discipline was part of what I used to do.
Your being able to specify as to what might be required technically, would be the only question involved.
If you or any others might have such a need, PM me.
James
Any bellows (pneumatics) I can construct with virtuoso ease to-specification, to-order, pro-rata.
This discipline was part of what I used to do.
Your being able to specify as to what might be required technically, would be the only question involved.
If you or any others might have such a need, PM me.
James
Cynic-In-Chief, BesslerWheel (Ret.); Perpetualist First-Class; Iconoclast. "The Iconoclast, like the other mills of God, grinds slowly, but it grinds exceedingly small." - Brann
re: Bellows Build
primemignonite,
Since buoyancy as a means of building a basic pm device, it might be possible for a group build to be done by members of this forum.
Your offer of helping with the bellows is what got me to think of it. A basic
4 weighted/bellow type design might work. What would need to be found out is if the air in the bellow needs to be pumped out. it is possible that just collapsing a bellow with air in it will allow the buoyancy to be sufficiently changed.
and the easiest way to go about something like this is by testing one weighted bellow to see if it can work by itself. Myself, I can make lead weights for testing. And with pvc pipe like raj used, it could be cut to be a see through housing.
Who knows, if it all works out, maybe Raj would be willing to do the final assembly and demonstration to keep individual egos out of it and try to keep the emphasis on the members in here working together to build a working perpetual buoyancy device.
And of course, maybe Dwayne or anyone else willing to work with him and the others to go over the math. It would need to be known what the density of water is and lead as well. Then a test weighted bellow could be built to see if it floats when open and if it descends when closed.
And when I get my shop set up in a couple of weeks, I can get a wood lathe to be able to turn better shapes for moving through water.
And the picture is a basic idea of how a 4 weighted bellow device might work.
Smith66
p.s., by the way, epoxy could probably cement lead to itself so that would be one way to secure a weight to a bellow and seal it at the same time.
And all, think about how squids and octopi move through the water. Similar to have a bow at the stern. Helps to reduce drag.
edited to add; I think it was Gill's friend Ricki that wondered why we didn't work together. also, with something like this, if there is a trick to it, it is that the buoyant bellow rising from 45 degrees below the axle to 45 degrees above it would be the source for rotation. Gravity would still be the force changing the buoyancy of the bellows. and with 4 weighted bellows, one would always be working.
Since buoyancy as a means of building a basic pm device, it might be possible for a group build to be done by members of this forum.
Your offer of helping with the bellows is what got me to think of it. A basic
4 weighted/bellow type design might work. What would need to be found out is if the air in the bellow needs to be pumped out. it is possible that just collapsing a bellow with air in it will allow the buoyancy to be sufficiently changed.
and the easiest way to go about something like this is by testing one weighted bellow to see if it can work by itself. Myself, I can make lead weights for testing. And with pvc pipe like raj used, it could be cut to be a see through housing.
Who knows, if it all works out, maybe Raj would be willing to do the final assembly and demonstration to keep individual egos out of it and try to keep the emphasis on the members in here working together to build a working perpetual buoyancy device.
And of course, maybe Dwayne or anyone else willing to work with him and the others to go over the math. It would need to be known what the density of water is and lead as well. Then a test weighted bellow could be built to see if it floats when open and if it descends when closed.
And when I get my shop set up in a couple of weeks, I can get a wood lathe to be able to turn better shapes for moving through water.
And the picture is a basic idea of how a 4 weighted bellow device might work.
Smith66
p.s., by the way, epoxy could probably cement lead to itself so that would be one way to secure a weight to a bellow and seal it at the same time.
And all, think about how squids and octopi move through the water. Similar to have a bow at the stern. Helps to reduce drag.
edited to add; I think it was Gill's friend Ricki that wondered why we didn't work together. also, with something like this, if there is a trick to it, it is that the buoyant bellow rising from 45 degrees below the axle to 45 degrees above it would be the source for rotation. Gravity would still be the force changing the buoyancy of the bellows. and with 4 weighted bellows, one would always be working.
- Attachments
-
-
re: Bellows Build
@All,
With something like buoyancy, 1 lb. of lead is 2.44 cubic inches or about 454 grams and is 39.98 cubic centimeters. The mass of the air would really be meaning less as air has a density of (and mass has units of pounds-mass ) 0.0745 lbm/ft^3 or in metric, 1.196 kg/m^3.
Possibly on Wednesday, I'll make 2 tubes using pvc and weight each one down with about 1 lb. of lead weights. The object will be to show that even though they'll have similar dimensions, one will sink slowly (hopefully) while the other one floats.
And one nice thing about pvc is that since it is piping, the axle can function as manifold so if all works out, as one bellows closes, another opening will siphon the air in maintaining the same air pressure. This means that when the weights move, they would have minimal resistance.
With something like buoyancy, 1 lb. of lead is 2.44 cubic inches or about 454 grams and is 39.98 cubic centimeters. The mass of the air would really be meaning less as air has a density of (and mass has units of pounds-mass ) 0.0745 lbm/ft^3 or in metric, 1.196 kg/m^3.
Possibly on Wednesday, I'll make 2 tubes using pvc and weight each one down with about 1 lb. of lead weights. The object will be to show that even though they'll have similar dimensions, one will sink slowly (hopefully) while the other one floats.
And one nice thing about pvc is that since it is piping, the axle can function as manifold so if all works out, as one bellows closes, another opening will siphon the air in maintaining the same air pressure. This means that when the weights move, they would have minimal resistance.
re: Bellows Build
@ cloud camper,
PM recieved. If it was about the money, then someone with deep pockets would've already built it. It's like Bessler said, without sulfur, mercury and salt it will not work.
His statement may have been metaphorical as well as literal if a person is literate.
edited to add; the 3 elements that Bessler reverenced, salt, mercury and sulfur can have slightly different meanings. Sulfur can mean fiery. In a person, this would be passion. And salt would be substance, a person who stands on belief. And with mercury, they would be like the fleet footed messenger.
And this could be the difference between being literate and in being literal.
PM recieved. If it was about the money, then someone with deep pockets would've already built it. It's like Bessler said, without sulfur, mercury and salt it will not work.
His statement may have been metaphorical as well as literal if a person is literate.
edited to add; the 3 elements that Bessler reverenced, salt, mercury and sulfur can have slightly different meanings. Sulfur can mean fiery. In a person, this would be passion. And salt would be substance, a person who stands on belief. And with mercury, they would be like the fleet footed messenger.
And this could be the difference between being literate and in being literal.