step #14 of my explanation,
(How to lift up the weights between 4:00 and 6:00, second part)
2.weights lifted by reversing the rods:
I spent a lot of time trying to use the 'maltese cross' used by the clock makers under the name 'geneva stop'.
The 'geneva stop' (wich has FIVE slots instead six like in the picture below) is used to limit the number of turns during the wounding of the clock spring.
(for the fans: Bessler was a clock maker and in german 'Kreuz' means cross. It's there any connection with the 'cross-bar'?)
The idea was to link each rod with it's own 'maltese cross' and to have a fixed finger linked with the ground through the main axis of the wheel (or a trolley like above).
The maltese cross with SIX slots indeed allows a rotation of 60 grades (1/6th of turn as explained above).
If the number of weights is greater, the size of the maltese crosses must be smaller and then the friction increases seriously.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaEqitWKOCM
There are still few questions:
- The big wheel rotates of 60 grades between 4:00 and 6:00 and during this move the rod must rotate of 120 grades.
The apparent difference is well equal to 60 grades, but what must be the rotation real angle of the 'maltese cross' (60 or 120 grades or less)?
If it's 120 grades we need a 'maltese cross' of second class (internal) like here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlBqMLDd ... 1&index=16
- If the rod has been rotated, when we must rotate it counterback?
We need a second finger located more closer with the main axis of the wheel, in view to turn the 'maltese cross' in the opposite direction.
note: for some reason the animation is not clear in the window. Click on the picture, it will be better.
We will be back with the rodw4.gif design in the next post.
We don't care the Bessler wheel, the most important is to build a working wheel...
Moderator: scott
-
path_finder
- Addict
- Posts: 2372
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:32 am
- Location: Paris (France)
re: We don't care the Bessler wheel, the most important is t
- Attachments
-
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...
-
path_finder
- Addict
- Posts: 2372
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:32 am
- Location: Paris (France)
re: We don't care the Bessler wheel, the most important is t
(I'm sorry for the delay, but I'm now in Ivoiry Coast and had not available time for).
I return back on the design rodx8.gif above wich used eight weights.
The following animation rodx2pent.gif uses 24 weights (in 12 pairs of weights).
This design is still unidirectionnal, but does RESPECT the ideal path I described above. For a best detail view, one pair of weights has been colored in red: so you can follow their path.
As remarked by AB_Hammer it needs to build the weights in two parallel planes.
But there are another paths (not optimized but nevertheless efficient) using some lozenge (rhomb) structure like Theo jansen.
The next post will show you a new animation.
I return back on the design rodx8.gif above wich used eight weights.
The following animation rodx2pent.gif uses 24 weights (in 12 pairs of weights).
This design is still unidirectionnal, but does RESPECT the ideal path I described above. For a best detail view, one pair of weights has been colored in red: so you can follow their path.
As remarked by AB_Hammer it needs to build the weights in two parallel planes.
But there are another paths (not optimized but nevertheless efficient) using some lozenge (rhomb) structure like Theo jansen.
The next post will show you a new animation.
- Attachments
-
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...
-
path_finder
- Addict
- Posts: 2372
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:32 am
- Location: Paris (France)
re: We don't care the Bessler wheel, the most important is t
I forgot to show you just another way to lift up the weights between 4:00 and 6:00.
The first way was to attach simply the weights to the opposite bearing on the double cam shown in the animation 2x_cam.gif earlier.
In view to improve the force between the cams and reduce the friction, another way resides in the use of some archimedes levers.
Due to the rotation of the wheel, these levers must be curved, like in the picture legsF1.png. (Unfortunately I did not refind the related animation, I will find it when I will be back at home).
As you can see on the picture the curved levers have been represented, but not all suspension cords (it's easy to find).
This design justifies perhaps the reference made by Bessler to the 'crayfish tail', when the curved levers are well adapted within the size of the cylindrical weights.In that case you can observ an overlaping of the curved levers, building a circle like an iris (diaphram).
The first way was to attach simply the weights to the opposite bearing on the double cam shown in the animation 2x_cam.gif earlier.
In view to improve the force between the cams and reduce the friction, another way resides in the use of some archimedes levers.
Due to the rotation of the wheel, these levers must be curved, like in the picture legsF1.png. (Unfortunately I did not refind the related animation, I will find it when I will be back at home).
As you can see on the picture the curved levers have been represented, but not all suspension cords (it's easy to find).
This design justifies perhaps the reference made by Bessler to the 'crayfish tail', when the curved levers are well adapted within the size of the cylindrical weights.In that case you can observ an overlaping of the curved levers, building a circle like an iris (diaphram).
- Attachments
-
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...
-
path_finder
- Addict
- Posts: 2372
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:32 am
- Location: Paris (France)
re: We don't care the Bessler wheel, the most important is t
Do you see the new red dot here on this updated map (Africa, center west, at Ivoiry Coast, the left one)?
http://clustrmaps.com/counter/maps.php? ... rwheel.com
THAT'S ME!....
I'm really happy to be identified alone on this big planet...
Now there are two guys (Yaounde and Abidjan) interested with the gravitic engines in Africa: me and me.
Apart the South Africa, this subject seems do not have a big interest in Africa.
http://clustrmaps.com/counter/maps.php? ... rwheel.com
THAT'S ME!....
I'm really happy to be identified alone on this big planet...
Now there are two guys (Yaounde and Abidjan) interested with the gravitic engines in Africa: me and me.
Apart the South Africa, this subject seems do not have a big interest in Africa.
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...
re: We don't care the Bessler wheel, the most important is t
I think there is a very basic flaw in this over-balanced wheel design. The basic principle is that of a lever - there is more torque at a greater radius from the centre axle. However, there is also greater distance to be traveled.
This means that if we drop a mass at the outer diameter of the circle, we can't expect to be able to raise the same mass at the inner diameter in the same time. Very obviously, if both diameters are fixed to the same wheel, they have the same angular velocity, and there is no possible way for the weights to be returned in the same amount of time. So the greater torque is only available for a lesser amount of time than is needed - and the wheel can never self sustain.
The idea of changing the path is allowing the mass to move from the outer diameter to the inner diameter - but it does not cure this basic problem of running out of time.
The only way this could work is if there was a corresponding increase in velocity as the mass was restrained into the inner diameter. We know that a spinning ice skater can speed up the spin by bringing their arms in closer to their body - angular momentum is conserved. So as long as the design does not constrain the mass to the fixed speed of the wheel, there is the possibility that the mass could speed up when forced in towards the centre - but only so far as allowing energy to be conserved.
At best, this design could only approach the unity that is best achieved with a simple frictionless flywheel. The complexity of the mechanism just raises friction losses, so it's ultimately doomed.
In short - the velocity that is required to return the balls upward at the inner diameter just isn't available. The velocity that is needed to return the balls in time to replace them just isn't available. The force required for the acceleration required just isn't available for long enough.
This is why we need to search for a basic prime-mover principle that can elevate a mass with less force than is normally required. When this principle is found, it should be something that is easy to prove with a simple experiment. It may not even require a wheel - but once this principle is understood, it should be obvious how to make a wheel to expoit it.
This means that if we drop a mass at the outer diameter of the circle, we can't expect to be able to raise the same mass at the inner diameter in the same time. Very obviously, if both diameters are fixed to the same wheel, they have the same angular velocity, and there is no possible way for the weights to be returned in the same amount of time. So the greater torque is only available for a lesser amount of time than is needed - and the wheel can never self sustain.
The idea of changing the path is allowing the mass to move from the outer diameter to the inner diameter - but it does not cure this basic problem of running out of time.
The only way this could work is if there was a corresponding increase in velocity as the mass was restrained into the inner diameter. We know that a spinning ice skater can speed up the spin by bringing their arms in closer to their body - angular momentum is conserved. So as long as the design does not constrain the mass to the fixed speed of the wheel, there is the possibility that the mass could speed up when forced in towards the centre - but only so far as allowing energy to be conserved.
At best, this design could only approach the unity that is best achieved with a simple frictionless flywheel. The complexity of the mechanism just raises friction losses, so it's ultimately doomed.
In short - the velocity that is required to return the balls upward at the inner diameter just isn't available. The velocity that is needed to return the balls in time to replace them just isn't available. The force required for the acceleration required just isn't available for long enough.
This is why we need to search for a basic prime-mover principle that can elevate a mass with less force than is normally required. When this principle is found, it should be something that is easy to prove with a simple experiment. It may not even require a wheel - but once this principle is understood, it should be obvious how to make a wheel to expoit it.
Anything not related to elephants is irrelephant.
-
path_finder
- Addict
- Posts: 2372
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:32 am
- Location: Paris (France)
re: We don't care the Bessler wheel, the most important is t
I'm back home, and I want first to thank greendoor for it's post, based apparently on energetic considerations.
Greendor gives the example of the ice squatter, the same experiment made at the school with a student sitting on a rotating chair and holding two weights on each hand.
The reason why the student is rotating faster when retaining the weights along the body, is due to the need for any dynamic system to keep the same level of energy.
If you reduce the torque (by reducing the lenght of the momentum) you need to compensate by increasing the rotation speed. We all agree on that.
But it's the same during the opposite action. Here is my difficulty to understand the assumption of greendoor:
If we accept the idea that (for energetic reasons) the speed of the wheel is modified during the travel from outre rim to the inner rim, there is exactly the opposite action when passing from the inner rim to the outer rim. What you win here, you loose it here: the energetic summary is null.
Said with another words: we don't need to know exactly what happens during the transistion phases, because in any case they will mutually self annulate.
Then, and if the energy requested for the transition phases has not to be taken in account, the most important point is the stronger torque between 2:00 and 4:00.
Another way to overpass any eventual slow down coming from the greendoor's idea, is to make a design where there is a substitution simultaneously (during the same time, one weight is going from inner to outer rim, and another is going from the outer to the inner rim). Here the dynamic summary remains also null.
I made myself the experiment on the turntable located at the 'Jardin des Tuileries' in the downtown of Paris (see the picture below). I was sitting on this turntable at equal distance of the axis and the outer rim. By just linking my body outside between 12:00 and 2:00 and back between 4:00 and 6:00, I was able to run for more than five minutes, without any effort. May be the rotation of the turntable has been modified during the different phases of the rotation, but the result was here.
(the kid on the picture is not me, but my grand son)
Greendor gives the example of the ice squatter, the same experiment made at the school with a student sitting on a rotating chair and holding two weights on each hand.
The reason why the student is rotating faster when retaining the weights along the body, is due to the need for any dynamic system to keep the same level of energy.
If you reduce the torque (by reducing the lenght of the momentum) you need to compensate by increasing the rotation speed. We all agree on that.
But it's the same during the opposite action. Here is my difficulty to understand the assumption of greendoor:
If we accept the idea that (for energetic reasons) the speed of the wheel is modified during the travel from outre rim to the inner rim, there is exactly the opposite action when passing from the inner rim to the outer rim. What you win here, you loose it here: the energetic summary is null.
Said with another words: we don't need to know exactly what happens during the transistion phases, because in any case they will mutually self annulate.
Then, and if the energy requested for the transition phases has not to be taken in account, the most important point is the stronger torque between 2:00 and 4:00.
Another way to overpass any eventual slow down coming from the greendoor's idea, is to make a design where there is a substitution simultaneously (during the same time, one weight is going from inner to outer rim, and another is going from the outer to the inner rim). Here the dynamic summary remains also null.
I made myself the experiment on the turntable located at the 'Jardin des Tuileries' in the downtown of Paris (see the picture below). I was sitting on this turntable at equal distance of the axis and the outer rim. By just linking my body outside between 12:00 and 2:00 and back between 4:00 and 6:00, I was able to run for more than five minutes, without any effort. May be the rotation of the turntable has been modified during the different phases of the rotation, but the result was here.
(the kid on the picture is not me, but my grand son)
- Attachments
-
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...
-
path_finder
- Addict
- Posts: 2372
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:32 am
- Location: Paris (France)
re: We don't care the Bessler wheel, the most important is t
As promised in a previous post, in the following animation we can see a wheel with six weights and the lift-up mechanism at the center (the cords are not shown).
You can see the motion of the blue and orange small pulleys, following the outer path of the both cams.
These pulleys must be linked together and to the axis with some springs.
The alternative motion of the couple of pulleys (blue and orange) is correct (OK).
Nevertheless, in that state, this assembly can NOT work. Why?
For the good reason that the rotation of the pulleys assembly is the HALF of the big wheel rotation speed.
What we need is an alternate motion of the pulleys AT THE SAME ROTATIONAL SPEED THAN THE WHEEL.
Let's take your pens and think about (for the convenience I give to you a slowdown version of the same animation)
You can see the motion of the blue and orange small pulleys, following the outer path of the both cams.
These pulleys must be linked together and to the axis with some springs.
The alternative motion of the couple of pulleys (blue and orange) is correct (OK).
Nevertheless, in that state, this assembly can NOT work. Why?
For the good reason that the rotation of the pulleys assembly is the HALF of the big wheel rotation speed.
What we need is an alternate motion of the pulleys AT THE SAME ROTATIONAL SPEED THAN THE WHEEL.
Let's take your pens and think about (for the convenience I give to you a slowdown version of the same animation)
- Attachments
-
-
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...
re: We don't care the Bessler wheel, the most important is t
Thanks path_finder - I don't wish to slow down progress. But progress up any blind alleys won't help us either.
I'm just raising the normal physics textbook objection to your basic principle. We seem to agree that torque is exchanged for velocity, and the energy of the system is always maintained. I accept your point that we don't have to calculate all the forces - it seems fairly obvious that they will all eventually null. Which means that ultimately, we can never extract useful energy out of this arrangement.
Temporarily increased torque by itself doesn't seem to of much value, from what I can tell. The Milkovic beam can create massive overbalanced torque for short periods of time, but it apparantly can't be made to self sustain because ultimately, all forces and energy null out.
I know I keep harping on about it, but Time seems to be the problem.
That turntable experiment looks interesting. Is the turntable on a slope, as the picture suggests, or is it horizontal? I suspect you were providing a lot of muscle energy unknowingly - it doesn't take much to keep a flywheel rotating.
I'm just raising the normal physics textbook objection to your basic principle. We seem to agree that torque is exchanged for velocity, and the energy of the system is always maintained. I accept your point that we don't have to calculate all the forces - it seems fairly obvious that they will all eventually null. Which means that ultimately, we can never extract useful energy out of this arrangement.
Temporarily increased torque by itself doesn't seem to of much value, from what I can tell. The Milkovic beam can create massive overbalanced torque for short periods of time, but it apparantly can't be made to self sustain because ultimately, all forces and energy null out.
I know I keep harping on about it, but Time seems to be the problem.
That turntable experiment looks interesting. Is the turntable on a slope, as the picture suggests, or is it horizontal? I suspect you were providing a lot of muscle energy unknowingly - it doesn't take much to keep a flywheel rotating.
Anything not related to elephants is irrelephant.
-
path_finder
- Addict
- Posts: 2372
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:32 am
- Location: Paris (France)
re: We don't care the Bessler wheel, the most important is t
Dear greendoor,
The turntable is rotating around some bearings (low friction) and it's axis is leaning with an angle alpha of about 15-20 grades with the vertical line.
As you know this is like a gravity of G x cosinus alpha (some experiment at school are using this property in view to observe the effects of the gravity).
If the angle would be 90 grades, the turn table would be vertical and I could not make my experiments.
I understand your scepticism but as I just shifted my body horizontally, from where could arrive the extra energy?
If I stop to apply the process (and remain immobile) the turntable slow down and finally stops due to the remanent friction.
Nevertheless I understand the reticence of greendoor.
Let me ask just this small problem:
an homogeneous spherical ball is rolling without slipping on an leaning plane making an angle alpha with the horizontal plane.
Let's demonstrate that the acceleration of the ball's COG is equal to (5/7)gsin(alpha).
If everybody can understand the gsin(alpha), the 5/7 is much more difficult to explain.
(answer: the 5/7 is coming from the inertial momentum of the sphere, equal to (2mR2/5).
The distance between the COG and the contact point is Rcos(alpha).
The COG of the ball proceeds the contact point within this distance).
But this is not clear, someboby arguing that is true only for bodies rotating around a fixed axis.
But anyway I did not rotate on myself during my experiment.
The turntable is rotating around some bearings (low friction) and it's axis is leaning with an angle alpha of about 15-20 grades with the vertical line.
As you know this is like a gravity of G x cosinus alpha (some experiment at school are using this property in view to observe the effects of the gravity).
If the angle would be 90 grades, the turn table would be vertical and I could not make my experiments.
I understand your scepticism but as I just shifted my body horizontally, from where could arrive the extra energy?
If I stop to apply the process (and remain immobile) the turntable slow down and finally stops due to the remanent friction.
Nevertheless I understand the reticence of greendoor.
Let me ask just this small problem:
an homogeneous spherical ball is rolling without slipping on an leaning plane making an angle alpha with the horizontal plane.
Let's demonstrate that the acceleration of the ball's COG is equal to (5/7)gsin(alpha).
If everybody can understand the gsin(alpha), the 5/7 is much more difficult to explain.
(answer: the 5/7 is coming from the inertial momentum of the sphere, equal to (2mR2/5).
The distance between the COG and the contact point is Rcos(alpha).
The COG of the ball proceeds the contact point within this distance).
But this is not clear, someboby arguing that is true only for bodies rotating around a fixed axis.
But anyway I did not rotate on myself during my experiment.
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...
-
path_finder
- Addict
- Posts: 2372
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:32 am
- Location: Paris (France)
re: We don't care the Bessler wheel, the most important is t
This URL can be helpfull for your brainstorming.
http://www.revetec.com/development.htm
(Don't hesitate to count the sheeps if necessary)
http://www.revetec.com/development.htm
(Don't hesitate to count the sheeps if necessary)
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...
Thanks path_finder. So this design is being used to improve the efficiency of internal combustion engines (ICE). I can't see any over-unity here. ICE have always been very inefficient, wasting approx 2/3 the energy of the fuel as heat. Subject for a totally different forum, but I have an idea about using ICE in stationary applications for heat & power. The heat generated would be used for heating purposes, and therefore not wasted. The ICE could be operated in their most efficient rev range to drive generators. The combined effect could be used to heat & power your house or business - and the efficiency of the engine doesn't really matter anymore, because that heat would be used.
But for extracting energy out of gravity - I don't think we can beat the efficiency of a simple flywheel or pendulum - in other words, minimum friction, approaching unity but zero excess energy.
Excuse me if i'm not understanding you, but when you agreed that energy is conserved you basically blew away an illusion that this could yield free energy ... please correct me if that isn't what you intended.
Any human input device is suspicious. The Milkovic Two Stage Oscillator only seems to work with human input. Fletcher recently corrected me in my understanding about how a bicycle maintains itself upright: the force is provided by the rider, basically subconsciously.
I fear that you are fooling yourself with your turntable too ... can you contrive a pendum or something that would make the wheel spin without human input? I'm fairly sure it will then just behave like a flywheel running down, only with more friction loss.
But for extracting energy out of gravity - I don't think we can beat the efficiency of a simple flywheel or pendulum - in other words, minimum friction, approaching unity but zero excess energy.
Excuse me if i'm not understanding you, but when you agreed that energy is conserved you basically blew away an illusion that this could yield free energy ... please correct me if that isn't what you intended.
I'm not a staunch supporter of conventional physics, as most people here know. I believe Bessler made wheels that turned. I would love to see your idea succeed, but i'm just not seeing it yet ...What you win here, you loose it here: the energetic summary is null.
Any human input device is suspicious. The Milkovic Two Stage Oscillator only seems to work with human input. Fletcher recently corrected me in my understanding about how a bicycle maintains itself upright: the force is provided by the rider, basically subconsciously.
I fear that you are fooling yourself with your turntable too ... can you contrive a pendum or something that would make the wheel spin without human input? I'm fairly sure it will then just behave like a flywheel running down, only with more friction loss.
-
path_finder
- Addict
- Posts: 2372
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:32 am
- Location: Paris (France)
re: We don't care the Bessler wheel, the most important is t
Dear greendoor,
My intent was not to make the promotion of any kind of ICE (Internal Combustion Engine, for the readers).
I just indicated this URL for it's trilobed double cam mechanism (applied in this particular case to the Revetec ICE).
Don't be so much pessimistic and remember that: the experimental physic is ever in advance on the theory (discover then explain).
A mention from Sherlock Holmes to the brave Doctor Watson: 'The most complex problem seems so easy after the solution has been found'
My intent was not to make the promotion of any kind of ICE (Internal Combustion Engine, for the readers).
I just indicated this URL for it's trilobed double cam mechanism (applied in this particular case to the Revetec ICE).
Don't be so much pessimistic and remember that: the experimental physic is ever in advance on the theory (discover then explain).
A mention from Sherlock Holmes to the brave Doctor Watson: 'The most complex problem seems so easy after the solution has been found'
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...
-
path_finder
- Addict
- Posts: 2372
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:32 am
- Location: Paris (France)
re: We don't care the Bessler wheel, the most important is t
Before to continue on the double cam mechanism, I want to go back a little bit on the elliptical path.
Earlier above in this topic I mentioned the elliptic path as an alternative path against the ideal path I used until now in almost of my explanations (and experiments).
Indeed it's exact that the elliptical path can be used too.
Although this is NOT the optimal path (regarding the energetic considerations) it has a big advantage on a strictly mechanical point of view.
The ideal path needs a mechanism where moving parts have to be remaining stopped during the half of the wheel's rotation.
Instead, the elliptic path is just more smoother et don't need to stop on a temporary basis any moving part.
On the other hand, having no horizontal translation path at all, it looses a not neglictable part of the available gravitic energy during it's path.
The attached drawing hereafter shows an elliptic path, where the axis of the wheel is located on the F1 pole.
The red circle centered on the F1 pole is a pretty good approximation of the left part of the ellipse.
The booth parts colored in red/yellow are some lost areas, absolutely not useful (the energy won in the yellow part is dissipated on the red part).
Only the area in green is useful, and again the elliptical path is not optimal (it is loosing the violet areas).
Anyway, let's keep it as a not to bad alternative, and now let's think on what kind of mechanism can be used, forcing the weights to follow this elliptical path.
Note:
(Just for the memory of the Bessler's fans) I retrieved recently the following old post:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... =ramananda
and I extracted this part (wich has to be confirmed):
The design of my machine is analogue to the world system. I have put eight heavy weights in my machine, which represent eight planets of our world. The large axle of my machine represents the sun. Heavy weights in my machine encircle around the axle to form an elliptical path, in the similar manner as planets encircle around the sun. Whilst moving around axle, they recede and come closer to the center. They balance against each other and impart motion to the wheel. Bessler (Ramananda, "Dialogues at the Castle of Weissenstein")
Earlier above in this topic I mentioned the elliptic path as an alternative path against the ideal path I used until now in almost of my explanations (and experiments).
Indeed it's exact that the elliptical path can be used too.
Although this is NOT the optimal path (regarding the energetic considerations) it has a big advantage on a strictly mechanical point of view.
The ideal path needs a mechanism where moving parts have to be remaining stopped during the half of the wheel's rotation.
Instead, the elliptic path is just more smoother et don't need to stop on a temporary basis any moving part.
On the other hand, having no horizontal translation path at all, it looses a not neglictable part of the available gravitic energy during it's path.
The attached drawing hereafter shows an elliptic path, where the axis of the wheel is located on the F1 pole.
The red circle centered on the F1 pole is a pretty good approximation of the left part of the ellipse.
The booth parts colored in red/yellow are some lost areas, absolutely not useful (the energy won in the yellow part is dissipated on the red part).
Only the area in green is useful, and again the elliptical path is not optimal (it is loosing the violet areas).
Anyway, let's keep it as a not to bad alternative, and now let's think on what kind of mechanism can be used, forcing the weights to follow this elliptical path.
Note:
(Just for the memory of the Bessler's fans) I retrieved recently the following old post:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... =ramananda
and I extracted this part (wich has to be confirmed):
The design of my machine is analogue to the world system. I have put eight heavy weights in my machine, which represent eight planets of our world. The large axle of my machine represents the sun. Heavy weights in my machine encircle around the axle to form an elliptical path, in the similar manner as planets encircle around the sun. Whilst moving around axle, they recede and come closer to the center. They balance against each other and impart motion to the wheel. Bessler (Ramananda, "Dialogues at the Castle of Weissenstein")
- Attachments
-
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...
-
path_finder
- Addict
- Posts: 2372
- Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 9:32 am
- Location: Paris (France)
re: We don't care the Bessler wheel, the most important is t
Dear Dr What,
I want NOT to start a polemical debate on a certainly controversial source.
I was just surprised to discover some common parameters with my approach.
In any case, thanks for your post, wich will be useful for the new readers.
The question was: what kind of mechanism can force a weight to follow an ellipse?
The first part of the answer is here (two nails and a cord):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UD8hOs-vaI
The second part of the answer (regarding the lenght of the cord) is in the picture below: (click on it for enlarging).
Don't forget that the cord must be a RING (instead you need some knots and you will be locked after an half turn)
The lenght of the cord must be equal to the double of OC (if O is the first pole on the main axis and C the most right point of the ellipse).
The weights must have a small pulley in the middle ad indicated in the small detail.
In addition we need two other things:
- to pull on the cord (like the operator pulled on the pentel): this can be made with a spring linked to the outer rim of the wheel.
- If we have selected the first pole of the ellipse on the main axis, the second pole must be fixed (at the same level) oriented to 3:00 clock.
this can be made by an horizontal arm, linked at 90 grades with a pendulum (the value of the weight is not critical, it must just be enough heavy for maintaining horizontal the arm supporting the second pole).
CAUTION: this is a theoretical drawing. I don't pretend that the final design will be exactly like that.
But I'm pretty sure somebody will have an idea issuing from this concept.
I will give you a solution in the next post (I go now counting the sheeps).
I want NOT to start a polemical debate on a certainly controversial source.
I was just surprised to discover some common parameters with my approach.
In any case, thanks for your post, wich will be useful for the new readers.
The question was: what kind of mechanism can force a weight to follow an ellipse?
The first part of the answer is here (two nails and a cord):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7UD8hOs-vaI
The second part of the answer (regarding the lenght of the cord) is in the picture below: (click on it for enlarging).
Don't forget that the cord must be a RING (instead you need some knots and you will be locked after an half turn)
The lenght of the cord must be equal to the double of OC (if O is the first pole on the main axis and C the most right point of the ellipse).
The weights must have a small pulley in the middle ad indicated in the small detail.
In addition we need two other things:
- to pull on the cord (like the operator pulled on the pentel): this can be made with a spring linked to the outer rim of the wheel.
- If we have selected the first pole of the ellipse on the main axis, the second pole must be fixed (at the same level) oriented to 3:00 clock.
this can be made by an horizontal arm, linked at 90 grades with a pendulum (the value of the weight is not critical, it must just be enough heavy for maintaining horizontal the arm supporting the second pole).
CAUTION: this is a theoretical drawing. I don't pretend that the final design will be exactly like that.
But I'm pretty sure somebody will have an idea issuing from this concept.
I will give you a solution in the next post (I go now counting the sheeps).
- Attachments
-
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...