Part Three is the Charm

[johannesbender]

This is the crux of the matter IMO , Bessler build his wheel on an axle with a bolt preventing the axle from rotating , and he wrote that , when he untightened or removed the bolt , the wheel immediately began to revolve .

The one directional wheel had to be held down in place with a cord to prevent it from revolving , which is the same thing with the bolt on the axle .

That means , there was a force regardless of whether the wheel was in motion or not , there was an immediate permanent force .

With one cross bar or mechanism it would go slow and appear like it could hardly rotate itself , and with more added it would speed up etc .

What can be described in terms of mechanics or physics , that would result in the wheel having an immediate permanent one directional force when the wheel is not moving , and to top it off the more of it you add the better it worked .

I'm sure the common tried and tested ideas and principles can be called up to answer the question for the initial immediate force , but its actually the mechanism's resetting requirements that breaks the usual theory , the same thing that breaks MT13 .

I think we might be left with , either solve the reset for free or find extra energy , or find a principle that needs no reset .

Hey jb .. I'll try and keep it short .. Your observations are valid as it was something that always perplexed me also, for a long time.

I had to reconcile it somehow ..

Either the records and/or translations were inaccurate and it stopped at favoured positions with immediate torque, or the records and translations were just as they read i.e. it started with immediate torque from any position stopped.

Going back to my go-to MT's, 44 and 48. They are SO NOT runners ! But B. says with different applications added to 44 and structures added to 48 they will give a motion. Side note .. in MT48 B. actually says 'the principle is good' in both the Digital and Hard Copy translations - this means the OOB principle is good i.e. a good example of a mechanical principle of OOB that doesn't work.

Both these "wheels" astound me because they are SO unworkable, so they are good examples to tease us with.

When extra structures (applications) are added to them they can accelerate and be self-moving runners etc.

3 possible contexts here for one-directional wheels, with extra's added ..

1. with the extra's from ANY position they start and have immediate torque and acceleration because the wheels are faked with pre-wound springs (in the general sense) in place - I don't consider a real possibility.

2. with the extra's from ANY position they start and have immediate torque and acceleration that continues to operational speed.

3. with the extra's they start ONLY from favourable torque positions and then continue to accelerate etc.

4. once B. installed the extra's he hand primed them (ONE TIME) with his muscle energy (activation energy) to be released and get an immediate start from any position. And this muscle activation energy was replaced by energy from motion once rotating. In effect excess momentum was gained from a supply of energy within from the motion of the OOB host and the extra's.

IOW's it had to be primed at its very first start-up after the extra's were added. If B. just added extra structures to MT48 and they were NOT pretensioned to be released as a temporary spring then it's hard for me to imagine the wheel doing anything but gently move to keel position, or stay keeled, imo. Certainly not boost away with force from the get-go as reported !

I think this is where we could possibly be getting in to the working force of the wheel , I don't know if the wheel was capable of providing its full force from start , or the wheel was only able to provide its full force after it accelerated up to a certain speed.

IMO it would be important and more telling , knowing if the max force was available from start or not , if it was available from start it would lead us to conclude the working output force of the wheel did not come from a gain or a build up of larger momentum , and it is this that would help immensely in determining what the initial immediate rotational force from standstill was about.

[ovyyus]

IMO, Wagner's wheel design (internal spring wound weight hanging from axle) was an attempt to replicate the performance characteristics of Bessler's wheel. If Wagner's wheel attempt did not replicate Bessler's wheel attributes then it would have been easy to argue that he was wrong. Therefore, the performance characteristics of Wagner's wheel might tell us something about the performance characteristics of Bessler's wheel.

[agor95]

This is the crux of the matter IMO , Bessler build his wheel on an axle with a bolt preventing the axle from rotating , and he wrote that , when he untightened or removed the bolt , the wheel immediately began to revolve.
...

Well these are the key points you have posted.

immediate permanent one directional force.

I have the notion for some time the torque present in the device
is a by product of the wheel being stopped from rotation in a previous run.

For example a pendulum on a stand with a ratchet pivot CWW.
So accelerate the stand by sliding it along the table and then
decelerate to a stop.

You will recognize there is a immediate permanent one direction force
present in the torque on the pivot.

mechanism resetting requirement.

When you have this acceleration/deceleration from left to right.
The torque is CW in the top right quadrant.

What about an acceleration/deceleration from right to left?

Does that also leave a CW torque in the bottom left quadrant?

finding a no reset principle.

What goes down also goes up.

However the combined effect results in
mitigating the individual reset requirement.

additional components; 'just turning' to 'turning with more power'.

The device is not a pendulum moving from left to right and then right to left along a table.

Note the pendulum is moving up and down at the same time.
Also the pivot point is in rotation CW during the side to side movement.

These extra points reduce the torque power available and limits it range of action.

Therefore extra pendulums add to the torque as the advanced pendula is coming to the end of it's range of action.

Regards

[johannesbender]

Concerning the notion of the one directional wheel possibly only starting from a certain orientation because it needed some sort of exact torque or wind up or action to complete or such .
The bidirectional wheel certainly seem to have been able to start from any orientation , so I think that some exact orientation could not have been a end all requirement for the function of the wheel to start from .
Which means the type of principle that the one-directional wheel used , to have had an immediate rotational force when the wheel was released , seems less likely for certain types of principles than others.
However the bidirectional wheels had some sort of mechanical activator that seem to have been activated in to the direction of spin when the force/speed of the spin passed a certain threshold , perhaps a centrifugal type of activator mechanism perhaps something else , but this muddies the waters back up again...

[agor95]

Only two distractions.

The active stopping of the one direction wheel
is independent of where the wheel is in it's rotation.

The bidirectional wheel is not part of my post nor any agreement to my analysis. That agreement is absent.

Anyway the key feature of a bidirectional wheel is the inertia bias imparted by the small push. There is a requirement to keep pushing for a period of time.

I am imagining a swinging pendulum like event where the small push needs to last until the swing creates forward torque.

forward torque in torque in the desired direction.

[johannesbender]

Only two distractions.

The active stopping of the one direction wheel
is independent of where the wheel is in it's rotation.

The bidirectional wheel is not part of my post nor any agreement to my analysis. That agreement is absent.

Anyway the key feature of a bidirectional wheel is the inertia bias imparted by the small push. There is a requirement to keep pushing for a period of time.

I am imagining a swinging pendulum like event where the small push needs to last until the swing creates forward torque.

forward torque in torque in the desired direction.

oh I was thinking and replying further on what Fletcher wrote :

3 possible contexts here for one-directional wheels, with extra's added ..

1. with the extra's from ANY position they start and have immediate torque and acceleration because the wheels are faked with pre-wound springs (in the general sense) in place - I don't consider a real possibility.

2. with the extra's from ANY position they start and have immediate torque and acceleration that continues to operational speed.

3. with the extra's they start ONLY from favourable torque positions and then continue to accelerate etc.

4. once B. installed the extra's he hand primed them (ONE TIME) with his muscle energy (activation energy) to be released and get an immediate start from any position. And this muscle activation energy was replaced by energy from motion once rotating. In effect excess momentum was gained from a supply of energy within from the motion of the OOB host and the extra's.

[agor95]

OK I will run with option 2.

And for the distraction member - stuff your face with a 'Big Mac' and get the napkin.

I appreciate Fletcher has the extra add-on concept.

A concept I also follow is 'Linguistics programming'. A bit of a curve ball.

So I try not to uses language that causes us to follow an inappropriate train of thought. Also making check the language is in line with our understanding.

Were does that get me; Well it simplifies the dynamics a lot.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toki_Pona

Regards

[Fletcher]

We know with confidence that the two-way wheels needed activation energy to start revolving and gain in momentum.

IINM this energy input had to be over a threshold wheel speed else the wheel did not accelerate and came to a stop (they could be started from any position they were placed in i.e. they were balanced while static and when moved forward or backward slowly, with no torque bias). This input could have been a large but short duration force applied (short and sharp), or conversely a long duration small force applied, inferring the speed was critical rather than the distance moved. This energy input (priming) was required each and every time the wheel was stopped and started again.

We don't know so many things with confidence about the one-way wheels.

IIRC B. allowed his one way-wheels to be stopped and started again. And they gathered speed quickly and forcefully i.e there was a strong torque bias where they were stopped at during the demonstrations. What is not known is whether B. needed to first one-time prime (pre-load) the wheel behind closed doors, prior to the demonstrations, or not. And after the initial one-time input (if the case) it did not require any ongoing manual priming after being stopped and restarted.

The regulating bolt at the axle seems to suggest it could be stopped and started at any position, and if so always had available torque at any position. While rope or chain tie-downs if used on the one-ways (were used on the two-ways) would naturally hold the wheel at certain positions and not much could be inferred from that.

My take away is that the one-ways probably did require a behind the scenes one-time manual prime first demo of the day. Because he says in DT 1717 when describing the two-ways that the weights must keep out of the Center of Gravity (when rotating) etc etc and need an impressed force to cause first movement. And I am one who believes he had just ONE PM PRINCIPLE (embodied in the Prime Mover structure i.e. imo bolted-on to most OOB wheel principle hosts), that he developed for one-ways and reworked for two-ways. I think it likely that he did have twin back-to-back one-way wheels in the two-ways.

Here is the dilemma .. if a one-way always had torque in any position and was paired with a twin engineered to revolve in the opposite direction (also with torque) then the 2 torques would cancel. Suggesting a push start was required for one to overcome the other with a torque bias generated and maintained thru rotation etc. Tick ! Or .. both twin one-ways had no torque bias primed into them and once given a push one then overcame the other etc. Tick ! IOW's pre-loading wasn't an issue like it possibly was for one-way demos if I am correct on that.

What I can't imagine is a one-way bolted together for the very first time, and as the last piece is installed in its new home it suddenly has a strong torque bias and immediately wants to just start perpetuating a rotation. I can imagine it if something is tensioned or strained etc to facilitate a rotational force and thereafter the PM Principle of not being able to find CoG takes dynamic effect, imo.

** If anyone has further conclusive info about the screw in bolt speed regulator used to stop the one-ways in ANY position then I'm all ears. Only if pre-loaded I think, and that solves the dilemma for me.

John Collins DT pg 190 digital ... The internal structure of the wheel is designed in such a way that weights (page 20) 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 cords 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 (page 21) in a structure or framework, and coordinated 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.

[Tarsier79]

i don't think they necessarily had to be 2 back to back mechanisms.

I suspect Bessler made his one way wheel sort of like MT10 or 13. I believe his mechanism lifted 6-12. A two way wheel, providing we keep getting the lift up to 12 doesn't matter which way it runs.

If the wheel preloads at 12, once it was "primed" it would keep running the same direction. Bessler would have to build in an energy loss mechanism for it to stop producing torque. eg. if we lift the weight up at 12 and it latches, it will always be primed. If we lift the weight at 12, the latch is something like a leaky gas strut. It is enough to hold the weight up temporarily, but collapses after a short time (probably 1-2 seconds). It is difficult to speculate without knowing the mechanism that creates the OU.

[eccentrically1]

The Draschwitz turned 50 times a minute. The Merseburg 40 times either direction . So the D wheel’s weights were going 6-12 in almost a half second.
The M weights went 6-12 in less than a second. What mechanism would you need to control ( if that’s the right word) weights moving that fast?
Springs? Possibly. I’m just wondering given the rpm, how small the window of time was for the weights to do anything at any point in one revolution.

[Fletcher]

I agree T that B. could have used just 1 type of wheel in his two-ways - something like you say MT's 10 or 13 - in-fact just about any MT.

Funnily enough fwiw he says of MT10 that it is a good principle (where have we heard that before) - he has said that about a few MT's and they are nothing alike but must have something he likes or thinks they share or are good for. And it might be not what we think.

The point you are making is a good one - that ordinary OOB wheels may look like they prefer or ought to turn in one direction but would turn just as well in the opposite direction because there is no NET asymmetric torque i.e. they have equal amounts of forward and then backward torque thru each sector. So they can turn either way just as well with the extra's.

If he had just 1 type of OOB host in his two-ways then perhaps he needed double sets of Prime Movers, one for each direction once the direction was confirmed and that was what took some working out.

[Fletcher]

The Draschwitz turned 50 times a minute. The Merseburg 40 times either direction . So the D wheel’s weights were going 6-12 in almost a half second.

The M weights went 6-12 in less than a second. What mechanism would you need to control ( if that’s the right word) weights moving that fast?

Springs? Possibly. I’m just wondering given the rpm, how small the window of time was for the weights to do anything at any point in one revolution.

Not enough time to move anything a significant distance - just a short distance at best I would guess (maybe just inches) - hence why they had little working torque and energy density for their size.

My theory in the past is that the Prime Mover required the internal area and volume to operate properly, and I think that's still a valid theory.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Might I point out, that ring and rollers are capable of driving a wheel in either direction. The ability to do that simplifies things quit a bit. I.E., There is no longer the question, or need for a double wheel.

ecc1 is right. Time is critical. The ring / roller can shift from lifting to driving the weights, in either direction, in a a few millie seconds, which is probably the only way that, that could be done, as far as I know--------------------Sam

[SHADOW]

Bonjour Sam,
Une idée pour utiliser votre principe de rouleau:
Utiliser une balancelle excentrée au lieu d'un plat fixe sur l'anneau pour forcer le déplacement du rouleau et peut être ajouter une butée.
J.B

Hi Sam,
An idea to use your roller principle:
Use an eccentric swing instead of a fixed plate on the ring to force the roll to move and can be added a stop.
J.B

[agor95]

Bonjour Sam,
Une idée pour utiliser votre principe de rouleau:
Utiliser une balancelle excentrée au lieu d'un plat fixe sur l'anneau pour forcer le déplacement du rouleau et peut être ajouter une butée.
J.B

Bonjour SHADOW,

Avez-vous calculé la position de chaque centre de masse?
Ensuite, additionnez-les et voyez où c'est.