Landgraf Karl von Hessen-Kassel

[Sam Peppiatt]

Oystein,

Isn't what you are suggesting, a physical impossibility? Please correct me if I'm wrong but I don't think two ratchets back to back on the same axle will work.

Sam

[Oystein]

Not as impossible as Perpetual Motion :)

If it's not forbidden by physics, it's possible.

Let's rather call it a "ratchet-like function".

But let's focus on the one way wheels..one less thing to invent from scratch.

[Georg Künstler]

The ratchet function is already there

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/download.php?id=19551

I can easily Change it in a two way ratchet function.

[Fletcher]

Not as impossible as Perpetual Motion :)

If it's not forbidden by physics, it's possible.

Let's rather call it a "ratchet-like function".

But let's focus on the one way wheels..one less thing to invent from scratch.

Oystein and Sam ..

And remember that B. was a watch maker, with the prerequisite skills to make gears and ratchets etc. A coaxial set of opposing ratchets would be easy-peasy for a clock maker. And in one sense a relatively thick coopered axle could assist.

Then there are MT's with ratchet devices already. Here I'm going to go a little Oystein on you, Oystein will understand :)

MT51 mentions and has a ratchet-wheel (from old translation in JC's book - not called ratchet-wheel in the later wiki, just small wheel with pawls) and, MT15 just mentions a type of ratchet-wheel...

15 and 51 or i5 and 5i ... or ... 51 (5i) and 15 (i5) - just a coincidence right ?

ETA: Dang, we could really go off the reservation exploring his name change to JEEB or OEEB if we wanted to make a connection with Roman numerals etc.

And another happenstance ? .. I think MT11 supports your observations somewhat Oystein. I've noted this before I think, B. definitely says "there is more in it than meets the eye". Dual (2) OOB mechanisms on the same axle with the number ...

11 or ii.

Two mechs coinciding with the MT number 11 (Roman numbering for 2).

I don't believe in coincidences where Bessler is concerned.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Fletcher,

Two ratchets back to back would work just fine. The problem I see, is that one inner wheel can't be stationary while the other one is turning. Unless you provide some way to disengage one ratchet wheel from the other.

Don't you see, if both ratchets are engaged neither one can be still, as Oystein suggested. Am I wrong? Sam

[Fletcher]

Fletcher,

Two ratchets back to back would work just fine. The problem I see, is that one inner wheel can't be stationary while the other one is turning. Unless you provide some way to disengage one ratchet wheel from the other.

Don't you see, if both ratchets are engaged neither one can be still, as Oystein suggested. Am I wrong? Sam

I think the context is important. Bessler had two types of wheels. First, the one-way wheels that apparently started in any position (had positive torque in direction of rotation and then excess impetus kicked into gear to drive the wheel by B's. accounts). Later, the two-way wheels that were initially stationary (could be stopped anywhere). They needed a slight push in any direction before the excess impetus took over and accelerated them.

Clutches are a type of ratchet system, and they can be centrifugally operated. To either engage or disengage with rotation. Also gears can be made to reverse direction or stop for example with an idler gear. Here I'm thinking of something like a cars differential for example with cone gears.

So it depends on what situation we are talking about. But Oystein is correct that at least ratchets, clutches, and gearing are not precluded by physics even if difficult for the average man to build.

[Sam Peppiatt]

I stand corrected!

[Sam Peppiatt]

FWEIW,

I'm fairly certain that the wheels had swastika style spokes. If I'm right the first two wheels had fixed spokes which insured that they always started in the same direction. On the last two wheels the spokes must have been movable in some way.

When the spokes were straight out the wheel would stop, a neutral position if you will. Pushing the wheel one way would slant the spokes in that direction and the wheel would take off. Pushing the wheel the other way would slant the spokes in that direction. Then it would take off that way.

Just waving my arms around. It's more fun than working, Sam Peppiatt

[daxwc]

It is my belief Bessler used gears. Unmentioned so far is MT 55, also the death header door sign and all the gears in his estate.

[daxwc]

Oh, my opinion also is there is a big difference between being a watch maker and a watch repairman. I might be able fix one but I can’t build one; never underestimate Bessler’s ablility to inflate himself.

[Fletcher]

And yet dax it was so simple that he was afraid a buyer would want his money back. Karl said it was simple and he was surprised no one else had thought of it, IIRC.

Gears are just levers as we know. But gears don't sound as mechanically simple as levers and weights even if they are in most cases.

So I guess I'm saying that levers and weights, or gears, shouldn't make too much difference. Tho if I were B. after discovering the mechanical secret I would likely replace lws with gears and weighted gears. Especially if I thought it was too simple to have value at first sight. And perhaps if I wanted to take less room (volume).

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Daxwc,
here I am with Fletcher.
I have started to develop my first devices with gears,
until I have discoverd that simple levers do the same.

An oscillation with a t-pendulum with weight rolling on the top do the same.
Class top heavy pendulum.

Eccentrical weight do also allow the same function. Self starting always out of balance.
You only must allow the mass to swing.

Many ways to build, but no gears.

[daxwc]

Fletcher:

Gears are just levers as we know. But gears don't sound as mechanically simple as levers and weights even if they are in most cases.

I am not so sure Fletcher, nobody would call two gears and a chain on a kid’s bike complicated. Yet I agree with your argument on the face of it. From a simple mechanical point of view, the gears could have opened up the possibility of the BI-directional Wheel.

[daxwc]

If you think simple things can’t be complicated, then you really should tell scientists that :)

https://arstechnica.com/science/2011/04 ... e-thought/
https://www.newstatesman.com/science/20 ... ycles-work
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/332/6027/339

[ME]

A bike-wheel needs pressure (the bike+driver) to get enough friction with the road. This friction provides a negative feed-back to the wheel just like wind handles a wind-vane.

Sometimes complicated things can be tested very simple:
When you reduce this friction, by lifting the wheel off the ground for example, and let go of that steer it should still keep its orientation when spun and resist minor steering attempt -- at least when, like in that paper, you suspect gyroscopic stability is the reorientation trick... Everyone who ever attempted to bike on ice (at least I did - intermittent and with practice) knows it doesn't quite work that well.

Without this ground-pressure, or enough of it because perhaps that tire broke loose, gravity causes a positive feedback (just topples over) and then needs constant manual correction: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ6F39yveMk - (Hoop rolling)
Or use it to your benefit, Disc-Golf - roller technique: https://youtu.be/vcnomioTwnI?t=51
Disc running of by wind, all things are happening to make it go: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-plix7XMa0