Part Three is the Charm

[mryy]

Part Three is the Charm

I previously uploaded and discussed the design and operation of the ??theOne$$ and ??theTwo$$, uni-directional and bi-directional self-moving wheel concepts, respectively. In this third installment I will discuss the optimization of the Primer Mover and Movement.

In earlier posts I emphasized the importance of a very fast-moving and light red weight coupled with a powerful lever system. This allows the weight to reach the 2:00 lever with relative ease irrespective of the wheel's velocity. A lever's projectile force is increased simply by loading it with multiple heavy yellow weights in the sub-compartment (and using a properly sized pivot spring). Bessler stated that the weights were raised up "in a flash" and flew with wonderful speed. This is a critical element of a runner imo, certainly in the proposed concepts.

Furthermore, the 2:00 lever needs to swing out early (toward the rim) the moment the red weight hits it. See Figure 1 of upload. The Toys Page (TP) shows the top "V" (labeled B) oddly tilted slightly to the right suggesting a swing motion. The 2:00 swing out achieves the following:

1. It gives the lever sufficient time to cock with optimum range before reaching 6:00, and the pivot spring by then holds optimum tension.
2. The swing out allows time for the colliding red weight to decelerate during momentum/energy transfer, so that it drop neatly and successfully into the cup of the (more upright) lever.
3. The torque on the descending side of the wheel increases because the yellow weights are farther away from the center.

If this 2:00 swing occurs multiple time per wheel rotation, gain in net torque and angular moment follows. This might explain the phenomenon of the wheel quickly gaining speed when Bessler said additional crossbars and weights were added to it.

The question is can a low-mass, very fast-moving flying weight propel the 2:00 lever to swing on impact? Probably not I say. The reason is that at the 2:00 position two forces are pressing down on the lever against the blue guide stops: the heavy yellow weight and the tension of the pivot spring. Hence our little red friend will need some assistance to do its job. The solution is to affix a small torsion spring with free legs at the tip of the lever. See Figure 2. The legs of the spring close in when the lever is pressed against the guide stops by the yellow weight and pivot spring. This tip spring is then set to tension ready to release its energy and swing out the lever. The high-velocity red weight triggers this release when it strikes the lever.

It dawned on me that TP illustrates the bottom pantograph with two twisted figures on opposing sides. I think they represent springs on both ends of the lever. See Figure 3. Hmm

Further examples of the ??theTwo?? matching the AP metaphors (sometimes apply to ??theOne??):

1. Lever - anvil receiving blows [2:00 lever struck by red weight]
2. Lever system (lever pair and guides) - crab, buyer [receives yellow weight on ascent and release same on descent, or holds yellow weight on one side and releases on other side alternating with change in spin direction]
3. Yellow weights - rain, snow, toys/knick-knacks of dog
4. Red weights circulating- children playing with loud clubs [red weight strikes 2:00 lever and rolls down lever arm]
5. Explosive launch of red weight - sulfur, salt, and mercury [gunpowder]
6. Gravity - "greed is an evil root" [ubiquitous force always pulling things downward]

[Fletcher]

Hi mryy .. I haven't had time to read your last 2 posts thoroughly as yet. But just cruising thru todays one I wondered if anywhere you have considered Centrifugal (Centrifical / Centripetal) forces once in dynamic motion.

My initial concerns are similar to what Tarsier expressed in the earlier topic. If you can sort out the timing re : pitch and catch etc, then as you say the lift has to be like lightening i.e. open the catchers glove and take a quick and hard catch - this will waste energy from the impact etc. Nevertheless the energy required to toss the red weight high and fast is quantifiable - can you see your wheel (with Cf's) being able to deliver that amount of hoisting energy (vertical lift equivalent to arrive at destination hard and fast), just from its rotation ?

Ordinary physics would suggest there will be a shortfall available to you to do the job as you see it happening.

Do you use Algodoo or some such program to simulate parts of your design - then you could visually quantify just how much force is required in just one static catch and release episode ? And see if how much force is required to set the system to release (without Cf's) ?

[spinner361]

That is a really creative design.

[mryy]

Spinner, thank you.

Fletcher, I dabbled with Algodoo intermittently. So far it appears user friendly, still acclimating to it.

Thanks for reminding me of Cf. It is a consideration especially from 2:00 to 6:00, and the wheel's mechanism may entail adjustment in response to it. For example if Cf adversely affects the red weight's pre-launch movement down the lever, it would necessitate changes to the design of the lever and weight (moment of inertia, dimensions, shape, etc.).

"Ordinary physics would suggest there will be a shortfall available to you to do the job as you see it happening."

Can you point to me where you think the shortfall might be?


More examples of ??theOne?? or ??theTwo$$ concepts matching the AP metaphors (Collins translation):

1. Gravity powers pm wheel - "The things we eat run through every limb and sinue of our bodies."
2. Unsettling(?) sound from wheel - "Poltergeists wander freely through locked doors." [poltergeists are noisy spirits]
3. Inner 'circle' of levers opens from 2:00 to 6:00 - "A wheel appears - is it really a wheel, for it does not have a normal rim."
4. Select materials used in the wheel - Saturn, Mars, and Jupiter [lead, iron, tin]

[Tarsier79]

Clues are mostly useless when they can be interpreted in a nearly infinite number of ways.

1. Gravity powers pm wheel - "The things we eat run through every limb and sinue of our bodies."
2. Unsettling(?) sound from wheel - "Poltergeists wander freely through locked doors." [poltergeists are noisy spirits]
3. Inner 'circle' of levers opens from 2:00 to 6:00 - "A wheel appears - is it really a wheel, for it does not have a normal rim."
4. Select materials used in the wheel - Saturn, Mars, and Jupiter [lead, iron, tin]

1. Gravity doesn't pump blood through our bodies, pressure does.
2. A poltergeist wandering through locked doors speaks to me of a force from one mechanism being used on another without an obvious connection.

Can you point to me where you think the shortfall might be?

I could, but I don't like to repeat myself. Your wheel has 2 main principles you theorise cause an imbalance (but can be described in terms of energy use)

Test each of the actions your wheel needs to accomplish throughout a complete rotation. You can test in siimulation to begin, but the real test is in the real world.

As Fletcher said in another thread:

1. where does the energy come from to be self-moving ? Ans : non-conservative gravity force.
2. a theory is only a theory until a device is built that proves the working theory is correct - the "do the work and build it" POP supporting the theory with irrefutable proof.

Anecdotally most people can get to stage 1. -- but have trouble completing stage 2.

It could be that building skills are not up to the job .. or .. not too many are keen on stress-testing the theory to a physical conclusion.

[Fletcher]

Fletcher, I dabbled with Algodoo intermittently. So far it appears user friendly, still acclimating to it.

Thanks for reminding me of Cf. It is a consideration especially from 2:00 to 6:00, and the wheel's mechanism may entail adjustment in response to it. For example if Cf adversely affects the red weight's pre-launch movement down the lever, it would necessitate changes to the design of the lever and weight (moment of inertia, dimensions, shape, etc.).

Algodoo, like all kinematic programs takes some practice mryy, then it gets more friendly - some users here are very familiar with it and can probably short-cut any learning curve, once you have an idea of something to build. I use a different program and start by building a single mech etc then static testing it. If it looks good I put it into a wheel for dynamic testing. Then if it still looks good I may put 2 or more mechs into the wheel. Building the house bottom-up from building blocks I guess. I find it the most efficient way to tackle a sim build, and I'd do the same with a real-world build as well, fwiw.

AFAIK Cf's are inertial forces that act at right angles to the radius of swing i.e. tangential to the radius circle. In effect the masses straight line velocity at any given moment. If that is when heading downwards it adds to the weight-force of the mass - when heading upwards it subtracts from the weight-force application (geometry). IOW's, it might actually aid the loading of the torsion spring to catapult the red weight upwards. And it might also act against your intentions when the red weight launches, meaning you require a greater amount of energy input at launch to reach target at a predetermined velocity (the hard and fast of it).

IIRC you were thinking there would be some back-torque advantages to using the stepped return system for the yellow drive weights, rather than a curved run-back track etc. AFAIK whether it is stepped, or soft material (density and elasticity) etc, makes no difference to system back-torque, but that is what experiments are for.

"Ordinary physics would suggest there will be a shortfall available to you to do the job as you see it happening."

Can you point to me where you think the shortfall might be?

The Laws of Newtonian Physics says that most forces are conservative - gravity appears to be one of these (btw frictions are non-conservative because the energy of heat is lost from the system) - and according to conventional thinking the path a weight takes on descent does not factor in its positional energy.

e.g. if a weight starts at a known vertical height (from standing) it has a known GPE - then it transitions to a lower height - it will gain KE, the exact same amount of GPE it lost (not accounting for non-conservative energy losses like frictions). The vertical height is the only important factor for consideration, and not the path it takes down.

Actually Galileo (100 years before B.) did the original experiments rolling balls down slopes (curves and inclined planes) to gather data and that is what he found. It formed a corner-stone concept of Newtonian Physics today with Newton defining what a force was.

What I see it means for you and your design is this .. there is a net torque from the yellow drive weights + the red flying weights. Together they have to have enough torque and RKE to fling each single red flying weight up to be caught at 2.00 o'cl etc. But you want that action to happen very quickly (like lightening). If you were just attempting to only recover red weight height lost then as it gained in GPE it would be losing velocity and KE as it approached catch point. To the point it would be going quite slow (to zero) at top-of-climb - too long to transition ! So .. you have to provide enough energy for it to arrive at its replenishing height still with substantial velocity (hard and fast), lets say 2 m/s for arguments sake .. and it will contact something there at an angle to rim direction and will not transfer all its residual force into a full rotation vector.

Getting the torsion spring to set, and then deliver that much energy is going to be the rub .. IMO !

Hence I suggest static single catapulting tests to see how much energy that actually is for height lost, and can the ball returning downwards cock the torsion spring sufficiently for the minimum job it has to do ? This would be base line, best case. Then how much to arrive at 2 m/s etc.

In my head I sort of see it as a circular pin-ball machine shooting inwards, but obviously more complex than that with the yellow drivers in play and affecting COM etc.

Just My Thoughts ..

[mryy]

1. Gravity doesn't pump blood through our bodies, pressure does.

Hmm. Ok I got a better one: "Weights fill and power the pm wheel." The way food fills and sustains the bodies. Like?

I could, but I don't like to repeat myself. Your wheel has 2 main principles you theorise cause an imbalance (but can be described in terms of energy use)

I think you wrote in my other topic:

"The spring tension required to shoot the ball as high as you are expecting will be problematic. The work required to tension the spring (Yellow ball dropping) will have to equal a greater energy than you will get by shooting the red ball up and letting it rotate down."

You seem to suggest my concept is unattainable. You're right that the real test is in the real world. My wheel is a different animal from what you often see. It free flies (the red weights that is). We are not discussing designs where weights are constantly in contact with the wheel structure (permanently attached to cords/levers or rolling over surface). I call them "tethered" designs over at John Collins blog. The laws of physics are tough on them. No runners from them as of yet. Who knows? Mine may end up the same. Still, it's a different animal and worth a look I feel.

[mryy]

Fletcher wrote:
Algodoo, like all kinematic programs takes some practice mryy, then it gets more friendly - some users here are very familiar with it and can probably short-cut any learning curve, once you have an idea of something to build. I use a different program and start by building a single mech etc then static testing it. If it looks good I put it into a wheel for dynamic testing. Then if it still looks good I may put 2 or more mechs into the wheel. Building the house bottom-up from building blocks I guess. I find it the most efficient way to tackle a sim build, and I'd do the same with a real-world build as well, fwiw.

Thanks for the advice.

Fletcher wrote:
AFAIK Cf's are inertial forces that act at right angles to the radius of swing i.e. tangential to the radius circle. In effect the masses straight line velocity at any given moment. If that is when heading downwards it adds to the weight-force of the mass - when heading upwards it subtracts from the weight-force application (geometry). IOW's, it might actually aid the loading of the torsion spring to catapult the red weight upwards. And it might also act against your intentions when the red weight launches, meaning you require a greater amount of energy input at launch to reach target at a predetermined velocity (the hard and fast of it).

Yes, Cf is inertial albeit fictitious. Centripetal (Cp) is the real force as you know. It will be interesting to see how Cf (or Cp) plays out when the concept is tested.

Fletcher wrote:
IIRC you were thinking there would be some back-torque advantages to using the stepped return system for the yellow drive weights, rather than a curved run-back track etc. AFAIK whether it is stepped, or soft material (density and elasticity) etc, makes no difference to system back-torque, but that is what experiments are for.

As for the stepped guides affixing or even incorporating air cushions (using elastic semi-firm material) to them may work. These cushions have small exit holes. When a yellow weight lands they deform and release pressurized air through the holes. The weight falls to the next step shortly after. Hence the wheel may not have time to sense all the weight. Also the diagonal, rather than vertical, fall of the weight I'm hoping will preserve some of the net gain in torque. Any permanent gain is welcome. I want a wheel that do can real work and not just self-turn!

Fletcher wrote:
Getting the torsion spring to set, and then deliver that much energy is going to be the rub .. IMO !

Yes and that is the gist of it. We can speculate at present on what we think is happening inside the wheel. Ultimately a real-world build will decide its validity. I will say this: IMHO the concepts I have offered so far, on the surface, conform well to the information about Bessler's runners. None of the other designs I've seen "mesh" with the information. It may seem like I'm tooting my own horn. To me the concepts are a different animal as I've mentioned earlier to Tarsier.

[Fletcher]

Kudos to you .. you articulate your positions well, are brave enough to present and defend your ideas (with backup drawings), and don't shy away from the tough stuff that may come your way (we all get that from time to time, and develop a thicker skin because of it, and generally are better for it), while maintaining your composure. Personally I try to attack and defend the idea, not play the man, so for me not making it personal.

Generally I find questions and answers are a good thing. The process of having to layout and discuss a point or two forces me to organise thoughts about it more deeply than I might do otherwise, and I assume it's the same for most of us. If I was to think this a tough crowd (we in the main think B's PM is possible) imagine how those outside these doors would howl and froth with spittled lips lol.

As for the stepped guides affixing or even incorporating air cushions (using elastic semi-firm material) to them may work. These cushions have small exit holes. When a yellow weight lands they deform and release pressurized air through the holes. The weight falls to the next step shortly after. Hence the wheel may not have time to sense all the weight. Also the diagonal, rather than vertical, fall of the weight I'm hoping will preserve some of the net gain in torque. Any permanent gain is welcome. I want a wheel that do can real work and not just self-turn!

I like the idea of air cushions and foam etc - that should be easy enough to test with drop tests to see if it makes any difference, I would have thought.

Fletcher wrote:
Getting the torsion spring to set, and then deliver that much energy is going to be the rub .. IMO !

Yes and that is the gist of it. We can speculate at present on what we think is happening inside the wheel. Ultimately a real-world build will decide its validity. I will say this: IMHO the concepts I have offered so far, on the surface, conform well to the information about Bessler's runners. None of the other designs I've seen "mesh" with the information. It may seem like I'm tooting my own horn. To me the concepts are a different animal as I've mentioned earlier to Tarsier.

Toot away ;7) It is a different animal than most (I have seen shooting projectile ideas previously (e.g. compressed air) but not the same as yours), and definitely worth the discussion and experiments. All good ideas are good until the horse falls at a gate, no matter who you are. One day someone will not fall and why not you.

I do take Tarsier's point tho - just about everybody thinks their designs reasonably match or conform on the surface to the 'clues'. Even my own latest ideas "seem" to have some similarity to what I imagine the clues to mean, figuratively or literally. BUT .. not ALL of them ! It may be that I'm just not on the wave length that B. had when he wrote them (and after translation), or I'm off on a different tangent.

Robust experiments will prove or disprove the 2 main facets of your concept. And that'd be an excellent start.

All The Best.

[Tarsier79]

Hi Mryy

I know I keep mentioning energy, but putting aside my thoughts on it working:

If you can shoot the red ball up with less energy than you drop with the yellow balls (or effectively creating a more positive torque, you do not need a zig-zag return path to lessen the back torque.

Alternately: If your zig-zag path does create a less negative torque on the rising side, you will not need a shooting light weight.

The flip side is: Whatever doesn't perform a positive role in rotation should be done away with or redesigned. If both do, then use both.

[Fletcher]

For those following and interested ..

I mentioned I'd seen other 'similar' concepts - spring propulsion of a projectile, to propulsion by compressed air (the one I remember most).

The one that sticks in my memory banks is one from around 20 years ago - it was discussed over at OverUnity.com at length IIRC. And the owners had an internet site with animations etc. I think they were applying for a patent and were after investors ?

It was called the "Warraneck (sic) Wheel" or some such. I remember trying to find it a few years ago but no luck. Those with better computer and internet skills may be able to find it again, maybe on the waybackwhen (sic) (archived) search engine ?

Anyways, it was about the most efficient design using this technique I could imagine at the time.

It was a wheel frame with a series of cross diameter pipes at regular intervals (4 or 6 IIRC). A projectile (bullet) was loaded inside each pipe. This was the torquing mass. When the mass (turning CW) reached 6.0 o'cl a compressed air piston shot the bullet up to the opposite rim position at about 1.0 o'cl where it was captured and rode the wheel - it swung down to rinse and repeat. So pistons at each end shooting the bullet back and forth in 1/2 of the wheel.

The interesting thing was that the bullets only occupied the rhs (1/2) the wheel. The other side was 'empty'. I remember that I thought it could not work because ..

1. it was too easy / should already have been done re "steam power".
2. it would take more energy to compress the air cannons than the wheel could return to drive a compressor (with or without losses) re : Conservation of Energy Law.
3. the wheel did not stand still when the bullet was fired i.e. the shaft pipe kept rotating, therefore, the bullet inside the pipe would rub against the sides of the pipe resisting rotation. IOW's its own inertia (resistance to a change in direction) would provide inertial back-torque. The bullet was forced to follow a curved path by virtue of the rotating platform in motion.

** It fit B's.1/2 full and 1/2 empty quip, and peacocks tail descriptions, and lifted like lightening - like mryy's does also by all accounts.

[mryy]

Hi Mryy

I know I keep mentioning energy, but putting aside my thoughts on it working:

If you can shoot the red ball up with less energy than you drop with the yellow balls (or effectively creating a more positive torque, you do not need a zig-zag return path to lessen the back torque.

Alternately: If your zig-zag path does create a less negative torque on the rising side, you will not need a shooting light weight.

The flip side is: Whatever doesn't perform a positive role in rotation should be done away with or redesigned. If both do, then use both.

I should have mentioned early on that the zig-zag return is not necessary! I don't think Bessler used it. I simply wanted more net torque, if possible, so incorporated it. This concept should work with smooth curved guides as well -- just less power output.

The flying red weights are critical to the concept! They are part of the Prime Mover/Movement. Without them the concept reduces to the class of "tethered" designs I talked about. Most if not all the drawings in MT are tethered designs (and non-runners). I feel many here do not understand the inherent flaw of tethered designs.

[mryy]

Fletcher,

I will combine your last two posts in this reply.

I have laid out what I *believe* is a plausible and true-to-Bessler concept. I hope others may be inspired and even improved on it. This planet definitely needs more in the way of clean energy.

Karl the Landgrave of Hesse said the wheel was very simple. It could be built by a carpenter's boy. He was amazed that it hadn't been invented before. Bessler himself said no one would buy his contraption for the asking price if they saw its inside.

I judge all designs by the above statements. Some may argue that simplicity is a subjective matter. They say what is simple to one person may not be simple to another. Dunno. In light of those statements by Bessler and Karl I would say that a wheel is simple if the average young person, say the age of 16, can look at it and understand its workings (and build it if the person is an apprentice carpenter especially of the 18th century German kind). Yes, I'm being blunt here. Can an apprentice understand and build the ??theOne?? and ??theTwo$$ -- of course! :)

Furthermore none of the other designs that I've seen even adequately address the "hung together" principle (prefer it over the term "connectedness") or the clue about 1 lb dropping and 4 lb rising (4:1 clue), if they even address it at all. It goes without saying that the more a design fits the documented information the more likely the *possibility* of it being a Bessler wheel. Between a concept that appears to conform to 80% of the information and the other 50%, the former is the better candidate. Is this the dark side of Ockham's razor? :)

The Warraneck Wheel from your recollected description doesn't appear so simple in its use of a compressed air piston. The piston seems like it could be complicated/high precision unit to construct if I'm not wrong. Bessler did mention that his wheel employed "hoisted" and "hoisting" weight types the latter being heavier. I do not see it here. It isn't a Bessler wheel not that it ever claimed to be. The good side is that ??theOne$$ has a found a long lost kin (of the projectile class). :)

[Fletcher]

Reference :

The flying red weights are critical to the concept! They are part of the Prime Mover/Movement. Without them the concept reduces to the class of "tethered" designs I talked about. Most if not all the drawings in MT are tethered designs (and non-runners). I feel many here do not understand the inherent flaw of tethered designs.

>>>>>>>>>>>

My wheel is a different animal from what you often see. It free flies (the red weights that is). We are not discussing designs where weights are constantly in contact with the wheel structure (permanently attached to cords/levers or rolling over surface). I call them "tethered" designs over at John Collins blog. The laws of physics are tough on them. No runners from them as of yet. Who knows? Mine may end up the same. Still, it's a different animal and worth a look I feel.

The Warraneck Wheel (WW) is by your definition a "tethered" design because it is in constant contact with the wheel parts. As discussed I thought then, and do today, that the process of firing the bullet across a moving wheel will result in inertial back-torque (tethered). An easy example to visualize is say you have a hypothetical 6 foot pipe held in front of your body at the middle by yourself, and you rotate it with both hands at a constant speed - at 45 degrees from vertical you shoot a projectile from that middle held position. The projectiles inertia means it wants to travel a straight line (45 degs) - but the moving pipe barrel is forcing it to follow the sweep speed and angle (because it also has inertia). You would feel the pipe resist your sweep movement input (you'd have to Work harder to maintain sweep speed) i.e. projectile in transition inertial back-torque working against you, and slowing the swept angle rate of the pipe, IINM.

IOW's, if they are tethered (to use your term) there is inherent back-torque because they are in some way physically connected. And back-torque issues can kill many a wheel design.

If it could be reduced or mitigated then there might be a net advantage to be had operationally. I guess the question is .. is there a mitigated back-torque advantage in catapult release and catch systems in reality ?

[Tarsier79]

The Warraneck Wheel (WW) is by your definition a "tethered" design because it is in constant contact with the wheel parts. As discussed I thought then, and do today, that the process of firing the bullet across a moving wheel will result in inertial back-torque (tethered). An easy example to visualize is say you have a hypothetical 6 foot pipe held in front of your body at the middle by yourself, and you rotate it with both hands at a constant speed - at 45 degrees from vertical you shoot a projectile from that middle held position. The projectiles inertia means it wants to travel a straight line (45 degs) - but the moving pipe barrel is forcing it to follow the sweep speed and angle (because it also has inertia). You would feel the pipe resist your sweep movement input (you'd have to Work harder to maintain sweep speed) i.e. projectile in transition inertial back-torque working against you, and slowing the swept angle rate of the pipe, IINM.

If the WW only suffered from the "bullet" scraping around the containing tube, this could be minimised or designed out, or it could be an advantage in itself if the bullet were a ball bearing. Accelerating the ball in a particular path could accelerate it, like if you dropped one in a pipe and swung it around in a circle. I guess it depends where you theorise the extra energy comes from... It sort of reminds me of Peq.s theories on energy creation.

Mryy, I don't think the reason "tethered" wheels don't work is due to them being tethered. Also, does your definition of "tethered" only apply to something that flies through the air and leaves the wheel, or could it include each mechanism moving at a different speed to the rest of the wheel for part of the rotation?