Besslers prime mover and its enabler.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Graham, I must be a dunce! I don't see how any thing can move----------------Sam

[Roxaway59]

You may remember I showed this picture earlier on in the thread or one similar.

The gearing is a more sophisticated version made from cone shaped gears and It may even be similar to mechanisms used in clocks.

Graham

[Roxaway59]

Sam knowing me it probably can't lol.

Graham

[Roxaway59]

I will try to write about its action in more detailed.

The blue beams, yellow weights and vertical green beams all rotate and at different speeds as they go round the wheel.

The vertical green beams are attached to where the yellow weights are and to the red sliding bearing.

The horizontal green beams are attached to the red bearings and the orange weights.

The orange weight is in the light grey channel and can only move towards and away from the axle.

There are springs if you look closely to help pull the yellow weights back in.

I hope this explains it.

Graham

[Roxaway59]

Where the orange weight gets closer to the edge of the wheel it would be best to have a stop to prevent the weight from moving any further.

If, and I do mean if this was anything like what Bessler did then that would explain the knocking sound.

Graham

[Fletcher]

Thanks Sam and Fletcher for the clarification, I feel a little less crazy!

Are we sure there was no spring? because the sector wheel makes me think of a barrel that three weights on ratchets would rise permanently.

Hi Shadow .. afaik there was an 'iron-like spring-like' sound heard by 'sGravesande in the Merseburg two-way wheel when weights were put back in the two-way wheel - there is nothing mentioned about spring sounds in any earlier one-way wheel - the circumstantial evidence might be that any spring-like sound could have something to do with latching of weights ( since it was heard when weights were replaced into the wheel ), particularly the weights in retrograde motion in a two-way wheel ..

I think you will have to make a picture to explain the last part of what you said - if I am understanding you correctly you are saying the AP wheel with black and white sectors might indicate to you that 3 weights on ratchets rise and are latched ?

FWIW I think the AP wheel is a simple illustration of the concept of the wheel going thru repeating phases of acceleration followed by immediate deceleration as per my "pump and dump" momentum theory of getting the ring of one-way lws to swing upwards, latch/hold, and gain GPE, thus providing the wheel net torque bias such that the wheel gains in RPM and momentum from the displaced system Com/CoG being majority maintained to one side of the axle ..

[Fletcher]

Fletcher I agree with you that there has to be something or combination of things that we are missing. I believe that these combination of things are simple but when put together and used in the right way something wonderful happens.

Just simply trying to lever something in the way we usually think of is not enough.


There is something very tantalizing about these tried and trusted approaches and for a long time now I think from a psychological point of view I know what it is. They all very nearly work.

So we desperately hang on to them trying what seems like different ideas when in actual fact they are the same flawed ideas packaged up differently.


I’m not saying that we should forget all about levers or anything we couldn’t get away from them if we wanted to. What we do have to do though is start using other techniques and combination of techniques to operate them.


What matters is that we take a new approach to trying to find the exit out of the maize we are in.

Just to get the ball rolling I’m going to put an idea together today and present a picture of it and I will probably do it using Algodoo. It may take me a while to do it.

Graham

Graham .. imo if any idea just uses MA ( gears are leverage/MA ) and gravity force as the motivator, then the result will be conservative ! i.e. no gain in wheel momentum ..

** Springs store Energy, which is a scalar quantity - since energy is usually considered in classical physics and mechanics to be synonymous with Work Done ( f x d ) under the Work Energy Equivalence Principle ( WEEP .. is a Theorem and not a LAW ) then we do indeed end up WEEPing - just as Bessler did for so long ..

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

I'll possibly start a new topic and thread soonish to describe my own "math" and explanation for a loophole/workaround to WEEP, which I believe is the framework for a practical workaround to generating and maintaining a net torque bias, and a wheel accumulating and keeping the gains in momentum and RPM .. I'd like to be around to keep the discussions gaining momentum, like I'd like my wheels to do ..

However, I head off to Fiji in a few weeks, for probably a few months, to do some house prepping and painting etc, so may leave it till I get back so I have the clear time and space to let the thread develop semi-organically but without other things and commitments on my mind ..

ETA .. fwiw this is not a new idea to me, I had it over a decade ago but shelved it as the discussion forum had a wealth of talented and motivated members back then, and I thought solving it was just days away lol ..

[Roxaway59]

Well if you have a link to that discussion Fletcher it would be interesting to read what the talented and motivated forum members had to say.

Was it along the lines of you have still got to lift the weights kind of thing?

Graham

[Fletcher]

Actually Graham I didn't attempt to flesh it out to the same degree back then, or attempt to connect so many dots, as I have been doing recently - just the main bullet points back then, in various topics by many, which centered around where was the weakness in Newtonian Physics and Classical Mechanics likely to be found to allow for a runner gaining acceleration and momentum ? ..

Pressing the point then and now that classical physics is a cogent system that relies almost exclusively on circular reasoning - which makes it almost impossible to find a gap in the logic ( and math that supports it ) to drive a matchbox toy car thru it let alone a bus ..

And that the only apparent weakness I could discern was potentially in WEEP theory, as WEEP attempts to align Work Done ( force x displacement N-m ) with Energy in Joules ( capacity to do Work J ) - therefore they have interchangeable units and one also gives the other for ANY situation of motion of mass - however, a Theorem or Principle has not yet graduated to a fully fledged LAW - meaning that while no exceptions may have been found to date to disrupt the Theory, or demote a Law back to a Theory, Theorem recognises that exceptions may exist but they have just not been found and described ..

And my logic was that since gravity is a conservative force ( always acts ONLY vertically, and can't return more PE than a mass changes to KE in a fall or drop etc ) then B's. wheels were more than an inconvenient enigma - they were proof itself that the exception to WEEP did exist in nature, when only mass, inertia, and gravity, are the only players of note in the game of motion a runner plays ..

introversion hmmm - answers never come with shrieks of "Eureka !" - only in stories about Archimedes and the movies - you stumble towards them, often staggering around at best in nothing more than dim twilight, hoping your hand hits a light switch - a piss-pore analogy but sadly accurate never-the-less - we all hoped back then to find the switch and flick it on, and let light into the dark and murky recesses of classical physics which surely must be there - confidence was high for sooner-rather-than-later success ( either by physical experimentation Proof Of Concept, or iron-clad math - or both ), but while enthusiasm and energy was high, and the pace fast, it never eventuated - tho it seemed at the time like a new claim of success came every month ( told you more about human nature than physics ) - we did however, get better and better at analyzing ideas going forward when we had something to analyze, and more educated and familiar with the details of the B. story ..

Was it along the lines of you have still got to lift the weights kind of thing?

We always have to lift the weights for a reset of system GPE, to have a weight and gravity system that can offset CoG and build acceleration and gain momentum ( aka a runner ) .. Mechanical Advantage ( MA ) is at best a zero sum game ( with no dissipative energy losses to frictions etc ), iow's a conservative game - therefore, imo the lifting method has to involve more than mere MA elements i.e workaround WEEP ..

ETA .. another BD next week .. time for someone/anyone/us to crack this damn riddle wide open ..

[agor95]

I'll possibly start a new topic and thread soonish to describe my own "math" and explanation for a loophole/workaround to WEEP, which I believe is the framework for a practical workaround to generating and maintaining a net torque bias, and a wheel accumulating and keeping the gains in momentum and RPM .. I'd like to be around to keep the discussions gaining momentum, like I'd like my wheels to do ..

We await your "math".

P.S. Spring energy is really a vector.

Regards

[Daniel.R]

I have a hard time understanding your design, Graham.

I understand that it requires 3D, but how are the storksbills operating?

--------------------------------------

Shifting weights in the horizontal plane tends to result in a bottom-heavy wheel.
IMO, for a wheel to be considered overbalanced, weights need to be lifted somewhere around the 6 and 12 o'clock positions. Connecting opposing weights while lifting removes the need to lift against centrifugal forces as the weights' centrifugal forces cancel each other out; only a lift against gravity is needed.

The key is to lift weights with ultra-efficiency, as Bessler famously stated:

"A great craftsman would be that man who can 'lightly' cause a heavy weight to fly upwards! Who can make a pound-weight rise as 4 ounces fall, or 4 pounds rise as 16 ounces fall. If he can sort that out, the motion will perpetuate itself. But if he can't, then his hard work shall be all in vain."

Those words tells us that the lifting method is the prime mover; without it, there is no motion.

If we collectively create a competition to see who can lift 1 kg the highest with the least amount of energy, we might soon discover a mechanical anomaly. Incorporating the lifting technique into a rotational frame is, imo, a later problem.

/Daniel

[Roxaway59]

For the time being I don’t think it matters if a lot of these new or hardly explored ideas are flawed ideas because lets face it most of them are.

What matters is that we take a new approach to trying to find the exit out of the maze we are in.

Just to get the ball rolling I’m going to put an idea together today and present a picture of it and I will probably do it using Algodoo. It may take me a while to do it.

Graham

Ever since the forum began the MT book and its drawings have been debated. The book that was incomplete was wrote over 300 years ago.

There is no one here who believes that any of the designs in it stands a chance.

Does that stop anyone here from debating some of the qualities that some of the designs have?

I have NEVER presented a design here that I actually believed would work without some form of modification.

Even the first serious design I wrote extensively about I knew needed something additional to make it work.

I still believe it is a good approach and I haven’t given up on it.

What I have done is presented ideas that I believe have some things about them that maybe have merit.

When these designs also have features that may relate to things Bessler drew I like to point those out too. There is no harm in making those kinds of connections.

If anyone here is waiting for someone to discover what Bessler did then present it to the forum then what are we going to talk about and debate in the mean time? It could be a long wait.

Pendulums are great Fletcher and the whole reason I have done some more experimenting with them is because you brought it up. I have noticed certain odd things when attaching them to some of my previous designs and if anything really outstanding happens I will certainly post it.

I remember seeing articles about new companies that were starting up based on the pendulum.

Graham

[Roxaway59]

I have a hard time understanding your design, Graham.

I understand that it requires 3D, but how are the storksbills operating?

Hi Daniel, I don't think I have made the picture as easy for people to interpret as I would have liked.

The storksbill just naturally expands as the centrifugal forces act on the yellow weights expanding the tension springs as the mechanism comprised of storksbill, yellow weights and vertical green beams begin to spin faster.

The two balanced mechanisms right and left are geared together so as the right side goes faster the left goes slower. Then as the right side goes past 3 o'clock it begins to slow down and the left begins to speed up conserving angular momentum.

The tension springs conserve their energy and help to bring the yellow weights back in.

The idea (which is almost certainly flawed) is that you give the wheel energy in the first place by turning it and the wheel which is now overbalanced (happy days) conserves that energy whilst being overbalanced and can now be turned by gravity.

Lets face it, even if this idea is too flawed to salvage in principal it is attempting to do what Besslers wheel must have done.

I hope that explains it Daniel.

Graham

[Roxaway59]

I just wanted say a few words on why I presented the last idea.

From Besslers words I always got the feeling that he was talking about weights going much faster than the wheels RPM.

I cant be the only one who's had that feeling. Having said that I've never been happy with complicated mechanisms. Mainly because they add resistance and because the answer is said to be simple.

The levering of the weights is not being accomplished by weight alone but by conserved centrifugal forces.

The main problem is that of the weights always being lifted which is something that lots of designs have in common. That lifting is something that itself needs to be balanced out.

I think when Besslers design is revealed the weights that make a difference we will think of as falling. That's my prediction.

Graham

[agor95]

Hi Roxaway59

...
From Besslers words I always got the feeling that he was talking about weights going much faster than the wheels RPM.

... Mainly because they add resistance and because the answer is said to be simple.

The levering of the weights is not being accomplished by weight alone but by conserved centrifugal forces.

My feeling is the frame rotates at a faster RPM than the weights.
But the weights do move at speed following a non-circular path.

There is a section were the weights in pairs do cause a lifting of one by the other.

However the other active weights are contributing via centrifugal force in a transitional action.

Their centripetal force is used to rotate the frame as an addition to the lifting force stated above.

When you experience a centrifugal force on one end of a rod you also get a centripetal force
on the other which pulls.

Regards