Besslers prime mover and its enabler.

[Roxaway59]

/Daniel

IMO, this suggests that he probably used CF and maybe gravity to dynamically and temporarily lift weights into an out-of-balance (OOB) position. The unidirectional wheel however, I see as having weights actively placed on one side of the wheel with the help of the overunity lifting technique that Bessler discovered.

As I mentioned in my previous post, I believe we should focus on understanding his lifting technique. If GPE is being "created," then it is possible to make various perpetual motion mechanisms, not just a self-revolving wheel. The possibilities are endless if excessive GPE has been created.

It may be in the end Daniel that working out how the unidirectional one worked is harder than the bidirectional one.

Logically if the prime movers work in a similar manner you would think that Bessler had to make things more complicated to make the bidirectional wheels but this may not be the case and it could be that Bessler sacrificed power to make a simpler wheel that could go in both directions.

Its also possible that Bessler already knew how to make the easier bidirectional wheel but developed it into the more powerful unidirectional one.

In any event I too think that understanding his unidirectional wheels is the key to this mystery.

Graham

[Roxaway59]

Here is my third block diagram and on this one I am theorizing that the mechanisms which are all prime movers all have their centre of gravity to the right and this adds together to make the one indicated on the wheel.

Graham

[John Collins]

The Merseberg wheel was two-way and rotated at 40 rpm or more, and lift a weight of 70 pounds. This suggests that the two- way wheels were equally as powerful as the one-way wheels. I have suggested many times that the Kassel wheel was built to withstand the endurance test while still lifting the 70 pound weight, so it was designed to rotate at a slower speed to overcome wear and tear but still be able to lift heavy weights and run the Archimedes pump. To rotate more slowly but still accomplish similar fears or power, it was the same width but six inches thicker.

JC

[Roxaway59]

I would have to say John that if the two designs were equally as powerful then for me that says the bidirectional wheel was more complicated.

Graham

[Robinhood46]

Graham,
If each of the weights are identical in weight, the centre of gravity, relative to the total mass of the weights, would be in the centre of all the weights.
The centre of gravity of the wheel is at the axle, if the wheel is balanced.
How can you accumulate the COG of the two, and conclude that the COG is where you are suggesting?
The only way it is possible for the COG to be where you are suggesting, is if the weight near the COG has far more mass than all the other weights.

You have placed the COG in the right place, with regard it's direction from the axle, but you are placing it much too far from the axle.

The COG is the centre of gravity, also referred to as the centre of mass. It is the centre, you are showing it's orientation, or the direction with relation to the axle correctly, which i agree with, but if you want me to agree with it's distance, you will need to place it much closer to the axle.

[Roxaway59]

Fletcher

To have a feedback system that "gains" we need 3 parts to it, imo - a weight set that when lifted and shifted can cause gravity torque to turn the wheel - a wheel carcass ( axle, spokes, covering etc that do not change radius ) to act as a fly-wheel so that its momentum/inertia is a necessary part of that feed-back system - a prime mover structure to choreograph, order, and coordinate the perturbance and grow the gravity torque imbalance to cause a great acceleration up to speed in 1 or 2 turns - the prime mover also aids the reset and lifting of the "able to swing" weight sets .. imo !

All this sounds logical to me Fletcher and I cant help wondering about the flywheel side of it and if there was a need to keep the framework a certain weight.

Would having the framework too heavy upset the equilibrium of the wheel?

Graham

[Roxaway59]

I've moved the CoG a bit closer to the axle Robinhood. I hope that looks a bit better.

Graham

[Robinhood46]

If you draw a circle where the COG of the total of all the weights, and you draw a circle for the COG of the wheel, The COG of the accumulation of everything, will be between the two circles.
If the masses weigh much more than the wheel, the COG of everything will be nearer to the COG of the weights, than the wheel.
If the wheel weighs much more than the weights, the COG of everything will be nearer to the COG of the wheel, than the weights.
Under no circumstances can the COG of everything be anywhere other than between the COG of the two different masses.

[Roxaway59]

Robinhood I will bear that in mind when I do future ones.

Graham

[Robinhood46]

You have to bear in mind, this is only applicable when there are only two sets of total masses to worry about, as in your image.
If you start adding arms with levers, springs, latches and stops, they all start affecting the overall COG, and the effect they will have will be dependant on how they interact.
This is a common problem with Algodoo, because excessive masses need to be added, for everything to function, which affects the position of the overall COG, in a way it wouldn't happen in the real world.
Another problem is the missing 3rd dimension, because things moving on it don't displace the COG, or only a little bit in certain cases. The effect of something moving on the Z plane can have an incidence on the COG, because of what the movement causes (release a weight for example), but the movement of the mechanism itself doesn't.

[Roxaway59]

When we put mechanisms on a wheel we are designing they can oscillate at lots of frequencies depending on their design.

I am theorizing that the mechanisms on Besslers wheel all oscillated at the same frequency as the wheels RPM.

I am basing this on the idea that the wheel and its mechanisms were all locked together in their operation and because of the positive feedback loop.

In the case of the unidirectional wheel I think this is a bit easier to accept than with the bidirectional wheel.

If I am right then I believe this could help a lot in the search for the answer.

Graham

[Fletcher]

The bidirectional wheel must have had an active/dynamic OOB quality to it. This OOB quality must have been closely connected to the RPM of the wheel, and it seems to have grown out of balance as RPM increased.

Consider a scenario where you start the wheel in one direction. Before the wheel reaches its maximum RPM, you stop it and make it go in the opposite direction. Would you feel more resistance in this new direction due to weights being statically placed in an OOB position from the previous rotational direction? This does not seem to be the case according to witnesses and demonstrations. The wheel could apparently be stopped at any time and then be accelerated from the new position in either direction with the same gentle force.

Hi Daniel .. we can't know because there is no report of anyone stopping it before it had reached operating RPM ( M. 40 RPM ) which happened in only 1 to 2 turns - that's an average of 1.5 seconds per rotation - so in just 1 turn to 40 RPM it might take 2 seconds and if 2 turns might be less than 5 seconds - very quickly up to speed indeed - on the other hand we also know that if not given enough starting momentum it came to a halt and stood still in that new position ( always a new position ) - I am sure the witnesses would have then continued in the same direction until they worked out how hard they needed to push to get the internal mechs to engage and for it to accelerate up to operating RPM ..

IMO, this suggests that he probably used CF and maybe gravity to dynamically and temporarily lift weights into an out-of-balance (OOB) position. The unidirectional wheel however, I see as having weights actively placed on one side of the wheel with the help of the overunity lifting technique that Bessler discovered.

I agree Daniel that he discovered and "overunity" lifting technique to lift and shift the internal weights into imbalance, but imo there are special in-situ conditions ( i.e. imo the perturbation and feed-back excitation by the prime mover ) surrounding the use of the "technique" ..

As I mentioned in my previous post, I believe we should focus on understanding his lifting technique. If GPE is being "created," then it is possible to make various perpetual motion mechanisms, not just a self-revolving wheel. The possibilities are endless if excessive GPE has been created.

There are two possibilities - either a gain in weights GPE for reset was at a very large discount, or it was entirely "free" ..

Either way, what we do know is that methods of lifting internal weights involving mechanical lifts using ONLY Mechanical Advantage ( MA ) techniques are a 100% dead end - that is because MA is a ratio, and nothing more, that allows force amplification so its easier to do Work .. a trade-off of mass and displacement that either side of a fulcrum equal 1.0 when multiplied together ( m1 x d2 = m2 x d1 ) ..

While searching for his special lifting technique ( non-MA imo ) is a major priority, it is also important imo to clear the mind and eliminate the usual suspects and conditions that he, and we, have relied heavily on in the past, but which have yielded only failures to get a discounted lift cost in terms of energy/work done .. that is the purpose of the topic of this thread - to rationalize the prime mover and its enabler - or from my view point, to rationalize the prime mover mechanism and its action, plus how it enables a discounted reset of internal swinging weights to continue the chronic wheel overbalance ..

B. said ..

"anyone who wants can go on about the wonderful doings of these weights, alternately gravitating to the center and climbing back up again, for I can't put the matter more clearly" – AP pg 295

"on one side it is heavy and full; on the other empty and light, just as it should be" – AP pg 363

[Fletcher]

Fletcher

To have a feedback system that "gains" we need 3 parts to it, imo - a weight set that when lifted and shifted can cause gravity torque to turn the wheel - a wheel carcass ( axle, spokes, covering etc that do not change radius ) to act as a fly-wheel so that its momentum/inertia is a necessary part of that feed-back system - a prime mover structure to choreograph, order, and coordinate the perturbance and grow the gravity torque imbalance to cause a great acceleration up to speed in 1 or 2 turns - the prime mover also aids the reset and lifting of the "able to swing" weight sets .. imo !

All this sounds logical to me Fletcher and I cant help wondering about the flywheel side of it and if there was a need to keep the framework a certain weight.

Would having the framework too heavy upset the equilibrium of the wheel?

Hi G .. first off I think RH is dead-on about how to find a system CoM/CoG - the easiest way is to just draw a line between opposite weights and find half-way - do this for all weights "sets" - then find the mid position between these mid points - then the wheel carcasses own mass must be considered and if we assume it is a disk then it is at the axle - so depending on the relative masses of the disk CoM at axle and the weights CoM then draw a line between them and apportion the average position for the new System CoM ..

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

I'd say that the wheel operating top-end RPM is a factor of internal weights chronic overbalance ( where their combined CoM is located ) and the wheel carcass inertia ( a ratio ) - that's simple for me to say because I believe the perturbed system is accelerated and braked in a controlled and repeated pattern [ .. pulsed .. ] - therefore the heavier, i.e. more inertia, the carcass has then that will resist the braking cycle, as well as the acceleration cycle reducing the overbalance - so in short, there is a optimum ratio of wheel mass/inertia to the prime movers input of acceleration and deceleration for a set RPM in my mind model .. and yet B's. wheels had limits to power, I am assuming because of potential for breakage with super-massive weights swinging about inside with wild abandon ..

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

If I get time I will make some more 'magical' sims and post them to show again just how much chronic overbalance is required ( under ideal/magical conditions ) to get a wheel to accelerate from a standing start to 50 RPM in only 1 or 2 turns - it is truly shocking how far right the system CoM is displaced to get that level of acceleration and strength - so I think your first diagram on this page better represents where the system CoM/CoG would lie, even further right imo .. if so, that means your individual prime movers CoM way underestimates where they must be, if there were individual prime mover per weight etc ..

ETA .. 2 cents .. various comments by B. himself in AP and backed up by Wagner in his critiques about the M. wheel say that there were no "weights" in the exterior of the wheels - so you have to think why not ? - obviously the space was for something ! - I'd say it wasn't for extra wheel inertia in the carcass because he could have just added extra mass in or around the spokes etc - but if you have been following my reasoning I have speculated his first prototype had just the one prime mover, being an external pendulum or opposing pendulum sets which pulsed the wheel - which in my thought experiments was changed out for many individual prime movers ( like your diagram suggestion ) i.e. internal rotating with the wheel MOI changing structures that also pulsed the wheel on cue ..

"on one side it is heavy and full; on the other empty and light, just as it should be" – AP pg 363

[Roxaway59]

Robinhood / Fletcher I have redesigned block diagram 3.

It was only meant to be a rough diagram in the first place but I found to my surprise that redesigning it did serve a purpose. I found myself thinking differently about the prime mover mechanism and its weights. This is because of how far the weights have to extend out.

Robinhood I have posted the file that goes with it so that if you feel this latest one needs adjusting you can.

Fletcher I do think that your new sims would be helpful.

Graham

[Robinhood46]

It was only meant to be a rough diagram in the first place but I found to my surprise that redesigning it did serve a purpose. I found myself thinking differently about the prime mover mechanism and its weights. This is because of how far the weights have to extend out.

If we keep everything vague, and don't worry about the accuracy of what we are discussing, it is far easier to agree with each other. The problem is that in reality, we are not agreeing on anything, other than we can both interpret it to suit our opinion.
This is why i shared my view of only agreeing if we are vague enough to say one side or the other of the vertical line.

The position of the COG is the most important aspect of Bessler's wheel being a runner, or any eventual runner in the future, so where we think it is in any configuration is equally as important. We need to understand what we are talking about, when we talk about the COG. We don't need to be absolutely spot on with where we place it, as long as we are in the correct region of the wheel. This is the only reason i waffled on about it being incorrect.

The last image is definitely in the correct region and it certainly doesn't need to be adjusted.
If we want to be specific, for the sake of accuracy and being fussy about details. For the COG to have the position shown, with it's wobbling during operation, the total of all the weights would need to be considerably heavier than the wheel. If i had to guess i would say each individual weight would need to weigh as much as the wheel, or not far off. Which is perfectly plausible.

I have always thought the COG of Bessler's wheel never gets very far from the axle. I would even go so far as to say, i think it is always hugging the axle very closely. This doesn't mean it isn't possible that it was where you are showing it, obviously.