Basic OB vs RPM regulation

[MrVibrating]

OK i realise i'm getting into over-simplification territory; the key point is simply that there's nothing at all technical about the speed and power regulation properties - they just fall out automatically from the weighted wheel's natural keeling tendency - thus any further complexity must pertain to the N3 break when accelerating the weight.

The fact that it is the center of mass of paired weights that's gravitating and causing the OB torque doesn't necessarily imply they can be substituted by a single weight, as while this makes no functional difference to the output power delivery, it is how that power's generated in the first place that matters, since this is where the exploit and gain occurs. It may be that the exploit depends upon independent angular-to-linear planar folding linkages as in earlier MT examples, alternating their actions every 180°, in which case the above over-simplification is based on misplaced priorities and represents a developmental cul-de-sac..

We'll just have to see how the options pan out for applying reactionless accelerations to that inner rotation, because if we can break unity there, happy days.. the FoR-within-an-FoR aspect obvs fertile ground for manipulation..

[MrVibrating]

..stuck a vMoI on each rotor, counter-balanced via a reduction pulley. Result is chaotic but conservative:



Executive toy perhaps..? (yup, won't be tripping over meself on way to the patent office)

If any resonant modes are possible, i'll hazard they'll be no more useful.. still, was only a doodle..

Obvs, i'm still considering possibilities for adding reactionless momenta to the inner rotor - peripheral weight levers via some kind of ratcheting mechanism perhaps, dunno for now, need to work more angles to get more of the basic necessities to line up, not least the static torque issue:

• Bessler's earliest one-way wheels were under static torque whilst tied-off stationary

Upon releasing the ground anchor they immediately spun up to speed, their statorless operation implying OB torque was the source.

From what's been established thus far, it seems their stable speed was attained when the center of mass of the OB weights approached the keeled position at BDC, rising back up the descending side when the applied load increased, and up the ascending side when forcibly over-sped; this takes care of the noted load-matching behaviour, but leaves a glaring question:

• OU depends upon reactionless acceleration whilst already in motion (ie. fixing the unit energy cost of AM to an RPM-invariant value)

• latent OB torque whilst stationary might superficially seem to imply a stationary symmetry break - ie. that a lesser weight has been dropped to raise the OB weight, thus an effective GPE asymmetry / violation of the law of levers

To put a finer point on it: if OU depends on being in motion already then how can the static wheel exhibit 'the superior weight', in Bessler's lingo?

Thus why i'm considering ratcheting-type mechanisms as a potential means of transferring and accumulating momenta in discrete impulses - perhaps the OB weight in the one-way wheels was remnant gain stored from when it last ran? Thus the rig would be starting up on some degree of stored PE before it began gaining energy with rising velocity..

Ultimately the weights have to remain outside the center of gravity, yet that can't in itself form the modus of energy gain.. and the resolution there has to be something simple, presumably..

Give it another week eh, summink's bound to come up..

[Fletcher]

• Bessler's earliest one-way wheels were under static torque whilst tied-off stationary

Upon releasing the ground anchor they immediately spun up to speed, their statorless operation implying OB torque was the source.


To put a finer point on it: if OU depends on being in motion already then how can the static wheel exhibit 'the superior weight', in Bessler's lingo?

FWIW .. I've always had my doubts about the accuracy of the reports concerning the one-way wheels "always" having a positive torque in "ANY POSITION" when "STATIONARY" and restrained.

What is generally referenced is B's. own talk in AP of observers being able to screw in and out a bolt to the axle to slow and stop the wheel, and then start them again by unwinding it IINM. Presumably he is describing a simple friction stop and start system. But afaik there are no detailed witness descriptions that give a more full description of the exact method. I mean, we all know that ordinary OOB wheel mechs have both positive and negative torques on each side of the keeling position (position of least System GPE) which mean it will rotate back to the keel position of each sector.

So to me it seems unlikely that a happenstance screwing in of a bolt could stop the wheel at any position which then had positive torque. I can understand it if the axle were say notched and the bolt found a notch to give it positive torque at. But I don't think anyone describes this as what happened.

Anyhoo .. as I've postulated maybe there is a secondary OOB system that gives the initial motion, thereafter the Prime Mover mech generates the excess momentum (torque) once the wheel is in full dynamic mode ?

To busy to look up the relevant quotes atm so take with a grain of salt.

[Fletcher]

pg 270 .. RE : Gera One-Directional Wheel .. XXIV. Evenings and mornings alike, God has constantly taken great care of me, and brought good fortune and blessing to my life's work. During these times I was frequently consorting with princes, counts and other high-ranking people. Well-known to all was my little house in Gera, for it was there, at the home of my cousin, Herr Detter Langen that I, as a now serenely happy married man, once more set about the great task of constructing the Perpetuum Mobile. Almost immediately I found that luck was with me. Unfortunately, none of the rooms in the house were of suitable dimensions for what I had in mind, so I took a lease on another house which had really fine large rooms - just what I wanted especially as I could stay there alone and undisturbed. So it was that at the house of the Richters (On the hill called Nickelsberg) in the year 1712 I achieved the discovery of the wondrous device that has amazed the world so much. My industry was spared the curses which accompanied the earlier efforts. The machine stood 3 [4'6"]feet high, and was mounted in such a fashion that anyone could walk all around it. On unfastening a bolt, the wheel immediately began to revolve...

pg 272 .. RE : Draschwitz One-Directional WheelI made a firm resolve that as long as I was in control of matters no wheel would ever turn an inch on Sunday. My enemies got to hear about this, and began to congregate in ever greater numbers on Sundays outside my house, hooting and jeering. It got so bad that, finally, in a rage, I smashed the machine into a thousand pieces, and vowed to seek peace and quiet elsewhere. I soon found all I was looking for at a place called Draschwitz, on the Knights Estate. Here I eventually did construct a 5 ell high wheel, and anyone who wished to could come and see it, revolving between two narrow wooden beams. The bolts which regulated the motion were screwed into and out of the axle by many people, for I allowed all my friends to operate it.

RE : Kassel Two-Directional Wheel[/b]..The Second Figure of the Perpetual Motion at Weissenstein

1. A view of the whole wheel or perpetual mobile.
2. Around the transmission shaft is would a rope.
3. The path of the rope runs under a little wheel.
4. The rope goes through the existing window.
5. The rope passes over a small wheel.
6. The box of stones is drawn upwards.
7. The bolt (triangular lock), when the machine is not running.
8. The pendulum, on the end of which are three weights.
9. Mechanism that gives movement to the pendulum.
10. Above and beneath open to view, so that the machine can
be freestanding and run in a different position.

Witness Letters ..

RE : Draschwitz One-Directional Wheel ...I have some very important news for you. A man of the medical profession, called Orffyreus, has constructed an alleged perpetual motion machine in the nearby village of Draschwitz, to which he recently moved. This machine was shown to Mr Buchta and I. It is a hollow wheel of wood, ten feet in diameter, and 6 inches thick. It is covered by thin wooden planks in order to hide the internal mechanism. The axle is also wooden, and extends one foot beyond the wheel. It has three teeth which are for moving three wooden stamps similar to those used in pounding mills. The stamps are quite heavy and are lifted and dropped continuously. The iron journals move in open bearings so as to show that neither deception nor an external energy supply are necessary to the machine's motion.
Having made an appointment with the inventor, we approached the machine and noticed that it was secured by a cord to the rim of the wheel. Upon the cord being released, the machine began to rotate with great force and noise, maintaining its speed without increasing or decreasing it for some considerable time. To stop the wheel and retie the cords required tremendous effort. The inventor is asking for one hundred thousand Thalers to reveal the mechanism or sell the machine.' - Letter from Teuber to Leibniz, 19th January, 1714

...............................

Note that the translator for AP and DT uses the word "bolt" which can also mean lock.

B. says about the Gera one-way wheel unfastening the bolt.

B. says about the Draschwitz one-way wheel that bolts screwed in and out "regulated the motion". Does not expressly say stopped and started the wheel.

B. lists a "bolt" to secure the Kassel two-way wheel when not running. The illustration clearly shows the bolt as being a triangular lock.


Letter from Teuber to Leibniz, 19th January, 1714 re the Draschwitz one-way wheel he says "it was secured by a cord to the rim of the wheel" i.e. not an axle bolt for stopping and starting or hinting at positive torque in any position stopped at. This conflicts with what is translated from AP about what B. says about the Draschwitz wheel.


IMO there is no express evidence to suggest that axle friction bolts were present in the earlier Gera and Draschwitz one-way wheels to stop them in any position, which then always had a positive torque from that position.


** Unless my memory fails me and someone else can provide further detail in support of this operational assumption for the one-way wheels which often gets print-space ?

[ovyyus]

FWIW .. I've always had my doubts about the accuracy of the reports concerning the one-way wheels "always" having a positive torque in "ANY POSITION" when "STATIONARY" and restrained.

I think the one-way wheels probably exhibited a constant positive torque in any position when stationary and restrained:

There are witness reports that Bessler's later two-way wheels required a push start from their zero torque stationary position. There are no reports of the earlier one-way wheels requiring any starting conditions other than release of a restraint.

Wagner's replication of Bessler's one-way wheel describes a mechanism that exhibits constant torque in any position when stationary and restrained. I doubt Wagner would leave himself open to easy criticism by getting such a basic attribute wrong.