Gaining Force

[amateur]

I think there are some significant differences in those two translations -

1)In the first, it seems that one or the other of the swinging weights is expected to apply force to the axis, while in the second, it appears the force applied to the axis is thought to be the load it is raising.

2)In the first, the "structure"/"arrangement" of the swinging items is spoken of as requiring maintenance of the arrangement's integrity, while the second seems to interpret that as being a framework. While these items are not necessarily in contradiction or opposed, the second would imply more when trying to conceive the mechanism.

3)The second puts forth the notion of "velocity proportional to their mass" and "the dimensions of their housing", while I see nothing I can interpret similarly in the first. Again it may be so, but that would seem to be much more a paraphrase, than a translation.

4)The first seems to have the notion of the two weights having the possibility of coming close together ("they come to placed together" - is that quoted correctly?), whereas the second, again, doesn't seem to have this notion.

5)The first version seems to pretty clearly indicate that the "weights" themselves are in rotation (what's that in AP, here comes a wheel, but not a normal rim, resplendent as a peacock [I didn't look it up]), whereas the second version does not clearly provide this notion, but the "rotation" could be the entire wheel mechanism, and not the weights.

1, 4, and 5 in particular could make a significant difference, I think, in trying to conceive a mechanism. 2 and 3, maybe not as much.

Ouch.... Interested to see what Stewart comes up with.

Slightly different topic - I find interesting the notion (in both versions) that the weights "remain out of the center of gravity"/"keep away from the centre of gravity" - I at least have thought of the weights as _shifting_ the center of gravity, and those phrases don't convey that notion to me - its more like the weights would be expected to remain away from some 'primary' center of gravity (which might be in some balanced mode, thus not actually shifting it??? But in some fashion maintaining it as was...?)

[graham]

Thanks so much for all the inputs to this thread ,I find it interesting to get all these different interpretations to just a few words Bessler wrote loosely describing the principle behind how his wheels got their power.
In the end it boils down to seeing what makes sense to you from these writings .
I think I'll stick to the swinging weight idea for now , I have a partially completed project based upon swinging weights (not the pendulum idea) that I have to finish in order to satisfy my curiosity. You will hear about it when I have an answer , runner or not.

Graham

[ken_behrendt]

graham...

Here's my interpretation of Bessler's immortal words:

...so arranged that certain disposed weights once in rotation, gain force from their own swinging, and must continue their movement as long as their structure does not lose its position and arrangement...

The "certain disposed weights" refers to the behavior of a SINGLE pair of weights inside of the drum. The total number of drum weights would always be EVEN in number and could be considered to consist of an EVEN number of PAIRS of weights. Thus, a drum with 8 weights would have them arranged into 4 pairs of opposed weights.

Each PAIR of weights will, due to the shifting of ONE of its members during a 180 deg. rotation, produce a "pulse' of angular momentum which acts as a torque to perform external work through the axle of the wheel. The SWINGING refers to the shifting of a single weight within a pair due to motion of the lever to which it is attached. This motion is repeated for a single pair of weights during EVERY 180 deg. interval of rotation and will continue to do so as long as the individual weight assemblies inside the drum do not break away from their various restraints such as limiting stops or lever pivots.

I tried the pendulum approach to Bessler's wheels many years ago...it was a dead end that I eventually had to abandon. I now accept that his drums were solely activated by PAIRS of opposed lever mounted weights with the most likely number of pairs being 4 and the total number of individual weights therefore being 8.

ken

P.S. I am now of the belief that his one-directional wheels were a modification of the MT21...

[graham]

Hi Ken MT 21 is interesting and I sort of like it but that weight at "C" seems to be a problem . In swinging back against its stop there will be an impact contra to the desired movement.

I like the MT 18 idea also, with flexible arms. Not of course arranged as in that drawing but the concept of accellerating a weight with flexible arms appeals to me and that is what my current project is based upon.

Thanks for your input.

Graham

[bluesgtr44]

The "gain force by their own swinging/motion"...Could it be the swinging/motion that happens between the 4 or 5 o'clock position until it reaches the 7 or 8 0'clock position (CW rotation)? This is the theory I am looking at now as opposed to the swinging of the individual weights themselves. UGH...here we go again....as with my experiments on the ol' wheel acceleration thread, I find this to be quite a considerable force as acceleration increases...so does this force (we all know that).

After reading AP, I am staying on this track for the time being. There were statements in that book that have led me to take a serious look at this avenue. Nothing tried, nothing gained.

I have to prove to myself that the weight CANNOT be contained to one side of the wheel. I have tried a good bit of experiments to see what factors are involved and have had some success with the idea of "lifting 4 lbs with 1 lb." I had incorrectly stated in one post that I had gotten 7 rotations and that was incorrect...I had gotten 3 and 7/8 rotations before it stopped and started going the opposite direction...I posted a graph of the velocity with that post. The speed may have reached about 4 rpm's at its highest point (LOL)...but it is the principle of what is happening that I am looking for when I do these.

What was interesting was the fact that even though I had permantly set the one lb weights to favor a particular rotation...it still made all the revolutions (3 7/8), but the slopes you see in the velocity posted were when the offset weights came to the downward side....basically, it was still able to overcome it to a point. Oh, yeah...that point...stop and reverse.

I am still trying to disprove the acceleration theory I talked about earlier. Even in this experiment, there is no way that the device could reach a maximum rpm within a couple to three turns. But, you know? It sure was nice to watch something make a few good rotations!

"...the past has been repeated."

Steve

[jtolan]

looks like there is a lot of talent here, I'm impressed.

question. Have these translation been done with a dictionary from that time period(Besslers time?)

If one is not available, I suggest comparing other writings from that era, Leibnitz, etc.

Translation can't be that tricky for a 300 year old German document (for Egyptian hieroglyphics maybe)

The problem I see is understanding "technical" terms. If Bessler babbled like some of us even tend to do nowadays, in his original tongue, then forget about getting a precise meaning.

Personally, I wouldn't read too much detail into it, just the basics, "weights rotate...force exerted by (swinging, snaking, slapping or whatever), wheel keeps on turning due to maintaining of position...) I think that's it, if we can't agree on the details. I'm glad Bessler specifically addressed the fact that his wheel is not like a clock that uses internal weights or springs to store energy and then give it back slowly.

[winkle]

I've worked out where it comes from with a bit of help from Ed. It's from John Collin's book "Perpertual Motion: An Ancient Mystery Solved".

if you take the time to look at what i have said in other posts ....you would see that the weights themselves do rotate..........weight at2:00 rotates in opposite direction than one at 8:00..........also one moving in as other moves out.....one in speeding wheel up other moving out slowing wheel ........nothing lost in prosess

[jtolan]

Take a look at the WM2D simulation of a pendulum.

This is what I understand, on face value, what gaining force from a swing is.

Notice the straight line drawn at close to 10 Newtons. That's the force the 1 Kg weight would produce WITHOUT swinging. But because it swings, it gets up to around 30 Newtons right when the pendulum is vertical, so we get THREE TIMES AS MUCH force!

Could this be what he meant?

[jim_mich]

We talked about this a while back. If a pendulum starts straight up and swings 180 degrees to straight down the centrifugal force on the pendulum rod at the bottom is always four times the pendulum weight. There is gravitational weight of the pendulum also hanging on the rod.

[Georg Künstler]

only roll a cylinder with eccenterweight over the ground and watch the forces. Look at the pressure on the flat surface. It is variating !!

Light or heavy, with or against gravity ? Maybe swinging ?

the future has begun

Georg

[jtolan]

obyyus quotes John Collins translation

The internal structure of the wheel is designed in such a way that weights applied in accordance with the laws of Perpetual Motion, work, once a small impressed force has caused the commencement of movement, to perpetuate the said movement and cause the rotation to continue indefinitely – that is, as long as the device retains its structural integrity – without the necessity of external assistance for its continuation – such as the mechanisms which are to be found in other ‘automatics’ – e.g. clockwork, springs or weights that require rewinding. For this concept, my ‘principle of excess weight’, is NOT just an external appendage, an ‘added-on device’ which is there in order to cause, through application of its weight, the continuation of the motion (the revolution) so long as the cards or chains, from which it depends, permit. NO, these weights are themselves the PM device, the ‘essential constituent parts’ which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the PM principle) indefinitely – so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity. To this end they are enclosed in a structure or framework, and co-ordinated in such a way that not only are they prevented from attaining their desired equilibrium or ‘point of rest’, but they must for ever seek it, 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.

guys, I took a look at the wheel diagram shown below (from drawings section of this website) and something is starting to click. Don't know if this is new or not but here it is, let me know what you think.

The obvious pendulum has a smaller crank at the center and a larger one at the top.... so... this means the pendulum will never be able to swing past the vertical from where its drawn. I'm starting to think that this pendulum is what does the trick. It gets the wheel past its low torque points, or the place where it would hang up and reverse torques.

Notice from John Collins translation.

..laws of Perpetual Motion..

Bessler mentions "laws" as if there were any. I think Bessler is saying that its some wheel that should perpetuate, could be any of his wheels. That's why the plural form of "laws" meaning many laws not just one.

..without the necessity of external assistance for its continuation – such..

The word "such" is specifying that clock mechanisms are excluded, but the principal is still EXTERNAL. Why are there pendulums all over the place I wonder.

...my ‘principle of excess weight’, is NOT just an external appendage, an ‘added-on device’ which is there in order to cause, through application of its weight, the continuation of the motion ...

Aha, "external appendage", its the pendulum he is talking about. What does it do? I think he tells us in his own words, it causes "continuation of motion" Why would motion not continue and need continuation? Because it hangs up, the wheels are not truly "perpetual" like they're intended to be (no such thing as laws of "Perpetual Motion". The pendulum kicks the wheel through its "hang up" positions, I think that's the trick.

...so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity...

Yes, the pendulum is clearly away from the "center of gravity". And the short crank arm at the botom will always keep the pendulum on the left side.

...they prevented from attaining their desired equilibrium or ‘point of rest’...

"Prevented" he says, sure, the implication is that they DO HAVE AN EQUILIBRIUM POINT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! But something is preventing them from settling down in it, and that is ...... (drum roll)....the freeking obvious PENDULUM" Guys I sincerely hope this is not it, cause its so simple.

However, one thing I can't explain is why the pendulum has two extra weights at the top. They certainly are not needed and one can see their center of mass is the top pivot, so they don't do anything from that point of view. Could they be magnetic and affect the weights inside through the canvas? Could they be there to regulate the period of the swing by changing the rotational inertia? Any other ideas.

[jtolan]

I highlighted the pendulum (red) and the connecting rod or chain (green) and the pendulums main weight (blue) and axillary weights (yellow)

Also, down at the bottom is a curious box(light blue), as if a weight suspended by strings (clock weight?)

[graham]

I think that the extra weights (yellow) were added to give more mass to the pendulum assembly. This added mass would not be influenced by the effects of gravity since the crossbar at the top of the pendulum would in effect be a balanced beam. It would however slow the natural period of the pendulum.
I still don't understand why the pendulums only appear in those drawings and no mention of them is made by observers of the wheels being demonstrated.
Are they irrelevant or not ???

Graham

[jim_mich]

jtolan,

Your light blue box at the base of the support column seems to be a hole for the rope to pass through.

Also I assume that you are aware that the general consensus is that there is no historical information supporting a pendulum as shown in these woodcuts? Remember that these are an artists (Bessler?) rendition and don't have photographic accuracy.


Bessler talks of "laws of Perpetual Motion". Other places he has referred to it as a "principle". He is talking about a unique set of circumstances that will cause weights on a wheel to produce continual torque.

As a separate side note...
I always used the term "concept" to describe any untested wheel ideas. After I used the term "Principle of Perpetual Motion" it seems every concept under the sun is now referred to as the "principle". I think a wheel concept needs some type of proof (computation, WM2D, model) before it gets elevated to "principle".

[jtolan]

that's right graham, I was wondering the same thing, how come they're not mentioned by the witnesses. Its such an obvious thing to notice.

[edited later]
guys, I'm on to something, I previously said the crank is smaller and the top "equivalent" crank larger, and that prevents it from swinging to the right, but that's not true, I measured the length of arms and it looks like the pendulum is intended to swing back and forth across the vertical. But, here's the catch, since the crank is smaller at the bottom, what do you know, we get an ASYMMETRICAL torque profile from it. Apply this torque profile to the wheel at the right indexing to get it past its hangup and that's it! I'll try some calculations later