top

Riding the Wave

Post new topic Reply to topic FizzX.org Forum Index | WhipMag Discussion/Development Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next   Page 3 of 5

Sat Mar 12, 2011 7:09 am PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 360
Location: Harrow, England

Reply with quote

I wouldn't want you to head off in the wrong direction, Harvey.

It is like the rubber band motor to the extent that the RBM action has an adiabatic component - not the CG shifting aspect.

It is that the vertical gravitational wind effectively blows less strongly on the left hand side than on the right. It's action is shunted off into the high inertia wheel so the net acceleration produced on the left hand side is much less that 32ft/s. Gravity is pushing down harder on the right where a low inertial wheel allows nearly all the gravity wind to act on the transferred weight, than it does on the left where the unbalanced weight left by the hole in a high inertia wheel is situated.

Try it for yourself.

Attach a weight to a low inertia wheel at 3 o'clock and attach the same weight to a high inertia wheel at 9 o'clock. You will see that the first wheel accelerates much faster than the second. There is an asymmetry in the action of gravity on the two wheels. On the right hand side most of the action is going into linear motion (Newtonian Gravity). On the left hand side most of the action in going into rotation of the high inertia wheel (Ersatz Gravity).

One has the essential components of a propeller, an anemometer type windmill. All one needs to do then in to devise the mechanisms to torque tube, ratchets, whatever to make the thing work on a continous basis. I have done this crudely. I'm sure you could do this a lot better.

Thank you for your reply and interest. It's a real treat to talk to someone intelligent enough to understand (potentially at any rate providing cognitive dissonance doesn't kick in Very Happy ) what I am saying.
_________________

instaurare omnia in Christo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Sat Mar 12, 2011 12:18 pm PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

Ah, I see.

This is a very close relative to my balance beam illustration. It has much to do with time, force and distance.

Imagine a balance beam with several tons of mass on each end in perfect balance. Now suppose a mouse drops onto the beam at the fulcrum and chooses to run to one side or the other. Gravity has the same force on the beam at all locations, so the only differential is the mass of the mouse. However, as the mouse begins to be pulled toward the Earth, it applies that force to the beam, which is related to your high inertia example.

F=ma

The force is the gravitational acceleration on the mouse. As the mouse overcomes the inertia of the beam, it begins to accelerate. Now this is where time plays an important role. How long must this force be applied to get the balance beam to accelerate at 9.8 m/s ? Given enough time, and provided enough distance (a very tall fulcrum and long enough beam) there should be a point where this does occur. All that energy is stored in the angular momentum of the balance beam. Both masses at each end contribute to that momentum. When the beam finally strikes the ground, it will have the energy of all that mass in motion, tons accelerated at 9.8 m/s. The impact force will be far greater than that of just the mouse.

What is more, is if the mouse runs to the top of the beam now in the air, the process starts over with even higher energy do to the increased distance. The energy expended to move the mouse is much less than that gained from the impact. At least that is how it seems to me and I have not had it proven to me otherwise.

We are thus converting time and gravity into kinetic energy. Note also, that by virtue of the fulcrum and leverage, the mass that is moving up adds to the force of the mass that is moving down even though gravity is pulling on it. So momentum is in balance and additive and only the pressure of the mouse is needed to drive the system.

The secret to this working, is that the mouse must reach full acceleration.

Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat Mar 12, 2011 5:51 pm PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 360
Location: Harrow, England

Reply with quote

Harvey wrote:
Ah, I see. ...

Congratulations. You're the first person who has. Wink

It'll encourage me to repost other stuff on this forum.

I'll have to give your mouse some thought too. I'm sure there are many different ways to achieve the same end.
_________________

instaurare omnia in Christo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Sat Mar 12, 2011 7:18 pm PostPost subject:
cloud camper
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 207

Reply with quote

See Frank - I told you Harv was a straight up dude!

I read everything you post except when you wander off the subject sometimes! Very interested in extracting jerk energy. It seems difficult but doable.

Harvey - I really appreciate your input. Nice to have you post once in a while! You make difficult problems easy to understand with your real world examples. Have you been hanging out on the Energetic Forum? I read all your posts on What is Electric Current and am fascinated!

So in regards to my major brain fart yesterday (I do have an excuse - I have brain encephalitis - mild tho) I would like to restrict all movement to the vertical plane. I am heartened to note that you agree the geared pendulums would remain in whatever vertical position they were placed with no effort even tho they are both being pulled upon by gravity.

I was disheartened but now totally agree that the geared pendulums would still place a torque on the vertical supports but after thinking it over, it actually makes the job easier! Now we can ditch that dorky looking parallelogram shown in MT143!

I think you agree that the effort to spread the pendulums apart is minimal if nothing else is moving. There will be second order acceleration and deceleration forces but no first order lifting forces as the pendulums are counterbalanced through the gearing against gravity.

Soooo what I am envisioning is a stone age simple long teeter totter with the fulcrum centered an inch or so above the Bessler wheel axle - totally unconnected to the wheel axle at this point (later yes). The teeter totter beam itself is totally balanced and lightweight. Then immediately adjacent on either side of the fulcrum we mount to the teeter totter beam two pairs of long geared and counterbalanced pendulums of the type shown in MT143 with the weights extending clear to the ends of the teeter totter beam. The pair on the left open up into a wide V with the V laid over like this > staying in the vertical plane, the pair on the right side of the fulcrum open up into a wide V like this < again in the vertical plane. The V's open up very wide to an included angle of nearly 180 degrees. Pairs of pairs in Bessler speak.

Now we have two lightweight cords going out the left side of the teeter totter beam from the fulcrum point all the way to the end around a pulley. One cord goes around the pulley up to the end of the upper pendulum of the >. The other cord goes around another pulley at the same location down to the lower pendulum of the >. These cords will pull the pendulums together at the appropriate times (with minimal effort).

Two more cords are necessary. One goes up from the fulcrum point and over a pulley at the upper end of a long straight vertical support mounted at right angles on and to the teeter totter at the fulcrum and then route down to the upper pendulum of the >. The last cord goes down from the fulcrum point and around a pulley at the end of a long straight vertical support mounted at the fulcrum of the teeter totter at right angles on and to the teeter totter underneath (facing down) and then route back up to the lower pendulum of the >. These two cords when pulled open up the > at the appropriate times with minimal effort. The lower vertical support facing down from the teeter totter beam would have to skirt around the Bessler wheel axle discussed later so as not to contact it.

Now this whole arrangement is repeated on the right side of the teeter totter, with four more cords controlling the spread of the right side pendulums from being directly together at the right extremity of the teeter totter beam to being spread vertically to an angle nearly 180 degrees apart. This is one pendulum swung almost straight up and the other almost straight down. We have to mount the teeter totter fulcrum fairly high so the bottom pendulums on either side do not strike the ground on either side.

So now what do we have? We have a simple teeter totter with long sideways V shaped geared pendulum assemblies on either side of the fulcrum with eight cords to open and close the V's. None of the cords require any significant effort to pull although when the teeter totter is oscillating there will be some work expended due to momentum changes in the pendulums but ALL FIRST ORDER FORCES ARE ELIMINATED. Or we can say that CEMF is counterbalanced to zero except for second order forces.

The eight cords could be reduced to just four but by using eight cords pull forces on the pendulums are better equalized. There are actually four pairs of two ropes with the individual pairs being pulled simultaneously. Basically a pair of cords for opening and a pair for closing the V, then repeated for the other side.

We can spread open either pendulum V until the pendulums are nearly straight up and down very near the vertical axis. We can also close them down to where the pendulums lay flat against the teeter totter beam again with minimal effort - one laying on top and the other up against the bottom side of the beam. There will be change in momentum (second order acceleration and deceleration) forces if the cords are pulled quickly so this could be an issue although if pulled slowly it should be minimized. There will be some work expenditure here. This could be the one pound must move four pounds that Bessler talks about.

We can now create a huge CoG transfer with minimal effort by spreading open the pendulums to a near vertical position first on one side and then the other. While the left side is spreading to full vertical extension, the right side is closing. Then the cycle reverses with the right side opening to full vertical extension and the left side closing, with the overall CoG experienced by the teeter totter shifting dramatically for each cycle. This of course creates massive alternating torque impulses around the teeter totter fulcrum point.

All we have left to do is come up with a simple cam arrangement with four lobes to pull each pair of cords at the appropriate times (a large lightweight wooden drum encircling the device supporting the cam arrangement comes to mind) and attach some reciprocating arms from the teeter totter to drive the wheel and what do we have? Hmmm --- could this be Besslers' secondary oscillation system? The dipole created by the massively translating CoG is only indirectly affected by the load.

Another huge clue is in Besslers' woodcut of the entire device where he shows the vertical axis being bolted to both the floor and the ceiling. That would seem to be an unnecessary measure unless large CoG transfers were occurring within the device.

Besslers' large wheel turned at a maximum rpm of 26 unloaded and a loaded rpm of 20 while lifting 70 lb bricks. This tells me if the machine went faster, more work would be consumed in the momentum changes of the pendulums and thus the machine would decelerate to a sustainable rpm. At 26 rpm there is no additional work available and all available energy is being used up to overcome operating losses.

The device follows all the normal rules of sizing motors. Large diameter to create large large torque at a lower rpm, small diameter to allow a much higher rpm and then lengthen the crankshaft with more arms and weights - like an inline six or V8 IC engine for more power. Besslers' wheel was very thin so he only had one or two of those eight cylinders going. It might take a unit the size of a small shed in the backyard to provide enough power to run the average home but so what? Huge improvement over having a large ugly shrieking windmill tower that only works erratically 25% of the time and still requires dependence on the grid.

With todays' computer controlled technology the pendulums could be opened and closed with electronic linear actuators much more efficiently than the rope and pulley system Bessler used. Programming could be used to increase or decrease the output by modulating the pendulum spread for varying power demand conditions. Or banks of "cylinders" could be shut down during low demand. Would prolly have to run at full output while you recharge your plug in hybrid or just recharge at night. Another plus is that the nasty, expensive and toxic storage batteries necessary for windmills and solar panels are eliminated if the output is large enough to meet peak loads. Power on demand only when you want it and need it.

Here's Besslers' statement on the operating theory of the device:

"The inward structure of the wheel is of a nature according to the laws of mechanical perpetual motion, so arranged that by disposed weights once in rotation they gain force from their own swinging, and must continue their movement as long as their structure does not lose it's position and arrangement. Unlike all other automata, such as clocks or springs or other hanging weights which require winding up or whose duration depends on the chain which attaches them, on the contrary, these weights are the essential parts and constitute perpetuum mobile itself; as from them is retrieved the universal movement which they must exercise so long as they remain out of the center of gravity; and when they come to be placed together, and so arranged one against another that they can never obtain equilibrium, or the punctum quietus which they unceasingly seek in their wonderous speedy flight, one or other of them must apply its' weight vertically to the axis, which in its turn will also move."

Well this is totally crazy. Hours after posting I found some of Besslers' clues I had never seen before. This is nuts! These clues are from Besslers' book Poetica Apologia:

"a work of this kind of craftsmanship has at its basis of motion, many separate pieces of lead. These come in pairs, such that as one of them takes an outer position, the other takes up a position nearer the axis. Later, they swap places, and so they go on and on changing places all the time"

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

"If one weight is giving an upward impetus, another one, at the same time, is giving an equal downward one"

"On one side it is heavy and full; on the other empty and light, just as it should be"

"If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in my machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself at all but on the contrary, when I arrange several bars, pulleys and weights, the machine can revolve much faster"

"The internal structure of the wheel is designed in such a way that weights applied in accordance with the laws of Perpetual Motion, work once a small impressed force has caused the commencement of movement to perpetuate the said movement and cause the rotation to continue indefinitely"

"For this concept, my "principle of excess weight" ---- "these weights are themselves the PM device, the essential constituent parts which must of necessity continue to exercise their motive force (derived from the PM principle) indefinitely - so long as they keep away from the centre of gravity"


Were Fred and Wilma using this device to power the family flivver? I say yes undoubtedly! All you need to extract more power is to widen the wheel. Two wheel drive for the steepest of hills. Way ahead of their time! Cool

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Mar 15, 2011 1:03 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

Bessler wrote:
"The inward structure of the wheel is of a nature according to the laws of mechanical perpetual motion, so arranged that by disposed weights once in rotation they gain force from their own swinging, and must continue their movement as long as their structure does not lose it's position and arrangement. Unlike all other automata, such as clocks or springs or other hanging weights which require winding up or whose duration depends on the chain which attaches them, on the contrary, these weights are the essential parts and constitute perpetuum mobile itself; as from them is retrieved the universal movement which they must exercise so long as they remain out of the center of gravity; and when they come to be placed together, and so arranged one against another that they can never obtain equilibrium, or the punctum quietus which they unceasingly seek in their wonderous speedy flight, one or other of them must apply its' weight vertically to the axis, which in its turn will also move."
(Bold Mine)

So they are positioned in such a way that only one can apply it's weight to the vertical axis at any point in time. Also, it would seem that they are in continuous motion trying to reach the center of gravity of which they are not allowed to reach.

Now, when looking at Bessler's wheel, where would this vertical axis exist?

This whole thing requires more thought than I have to devote at the present time. But if you can draw an image of your concept I would like to see it.

Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Mar 15, 2011 3:18 am PostPost subject:
cloud camper
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 207

Reply with quote

Hey Harv, the way I read Besslers' statement is the upper pendulum weight lays down flat against the teeter totter beam at the outer extremity and the bottom weight sweeps up from the bottom to meet it, just like the weights are depicted in MT143. This puts the weights directly together where they then apply a maximum leverage force ALONG the vertical axis to the horizontal teeter totter beam effectively moving the CoG far towards the side with the most weight at the horizontal extremities.

Please note that Bessler says that the weight is applied vertically to the axis and not against the vertical axis. This was all translated from old Deutsch of course so there are probably some translation glitches and no one really understood what he was talking about anyway! The way I would read it is that the weight is applied vertically to the (horizontal) axis. In one of his clues he actually mentions using a cross bar, which pretty much gives it away I think.

Simultaneous to this action, the geared pendulums on the other side of the teeter totter fulcrum have spread near vertical, bringing their effective CoG very close to the fulcrum point which is located on the central vertical axis of the machine. This results in a minimal leverage force on the teeter totter beam. Maximum leverage on one side, minimum on the other, then they trade positions just like he says. Meanwhile the teeter totter goes WHUMP WHUMP.

Hate to complicate it further but actually whats really happening here is the pendulums are fully cantilevered from their geared pivot point just as shown in MT143 (except the parallelogram structure is not used) and are applying a great torque to the horizontal teeter totter beam right at their pivot point immediately adjacent to the central fulcrum of the teeter totter. This is what you corrected me on. But if you do all the math, the overall CoG shifts in the direction of the horizontally placed weights and away from the vertically placed weights on the other side.

The actual teeter totter beam only needs to support the geared pendulum pivot mounting points as the swinging weights do all the work moving the CoG. Basically the teeter totter KNOWS where the weights are laterally whether they are cantilevered or not. The numbers work out the same whether you calculate the leverage simply from the lateral distance of the weights from the fulcrum or if you do the math figuring cantilever torque forces at the pendulum pivot mounting point. The only real reason to extend the teeter totter beam outside the geared pendulum pivot mounting points is to support the rope pulleys at the outer extremities in order to bring the pendulum weights together (one side at a time of course).

Sorry I don't have any drawings yet as I am graphically challenged. I am working on a WM2D simulation first so that should be interesting! Also started my machinist on a 6 ft physical replica. Bessler said his design was so simple that a carpenter boy could build a working unit in about a week but it will take way longer than that for us because we have to fight over every detail! He is really into kinetic sculpture so this is right up his alley.

Really appreciate any input Harv - your opinion means a lot. I will email the WM2D sim to you when I get it done if you're interested. You too Frank! Wish there were some impact, jerk or strain we could discuss in this scenario but I don't really see any - it all seems to run pretty smoothly. Would be really cool to work up a Carnot diagram for this concept tho. I know you love doing those! Mr. Green

Later dudes!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Mar 15, 2011 9:57 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

Ok, you are correct - it does not say "vertical axis" Smile Thank you for that keen observation! Since the body of the material is centered inside the wheel, "the axis" must be the wheel axis itself, is that how you read it too?

In that case, the weights must have some vertical motion which gets translated to axial torque and it evidently happens in sequences, one or the other - perhaps both, but never none (or always one).

There were reports of some sort of sounds like weights dropping or rolling IRCC. So perhaps there may have been some 'Jerk' in there somewhere.

I still can't get my brain settled down long enough to ponder your assembly with the ropes and pulleys just yet. You no doubt have it played out in your mind well and I guess I'm too fatigued to get it from the text. But if you forgo the top beam, you lose the mechanism which keeps the planes from tilting. The imaginary line drawn through the adjoined gear axles will not stay parallel to the gravitational force unless they are both mounted to a common pivot embedded in the cross bar and that pivot is connected via linkage to keep the imaginary line vertical.

But I will try and give this some thought Smile

And yes, the WM2D - do I need something to read that file?

Frank, don't let us take away from your thread here - were sort of working together but in different directions perhaps. I want to better understand what your doing too. Wink

Harvey
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Mar 15, 2011 6:36 pm PostPost subject:
cloud camper
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 207

Reply with quote

Harvey wrote:
Ok, you are correct - it does not say "vertical axis" Smile Thank you for that keen observation! Since the body of the material is centered inside the wheel, "the axis" must be the wheel axis itself, is that how you read it too?


Yes absolutely! Very Happy This thing basically looks like a clock! (what a surprise from a clockmaker) A clock with four identical hands, the two hands on the left spreading out and closing down in the left hemisphere of the face and the two on the right spreading out and closing down 180 degrees out of phase with the left side. Those hands are heavy but counterbalanced against gravity thru the gearing so it takes no effort to spread them out and close them down with the ropes. But the CoG of the whole device knows the weight is there and where they are laterally with relation to the fulcrum so the teeter totter responds with authority! The pendulums never move at any velocity high enough to create significant centrifugal forces but will generate change in momentum forces so at some rpm the secondary forces will overtake the output energy of the device and the unloaded rpm will stabilize.

Quote:
In that case, the weights must have some vertical motion which gets translated to axial torque and it evidently happens in sequences, one or the other - perhaps both, but never none (or always one).


Yes absolutely! Very Happy Yes, it's just a teeter totter: when the weights on the left side go vertical (one straight up, the other straight down) this completely unloads the left side of the teeter totter. When the weights close down nearly touching each other on the horizontal axis, this loads the left side of the teeter totter to the maximum. At the same time, the right side pendulums are doing exactly the opposite, creating a massive CoG transfer on the teeter totter beam. The main thing to comprehend here is that the weights are not falling, they are just moving the lateral CoG felt by the teeter totter beam. Bessler says "If one weight is given an upward impetus, another one, at the same time is given an equal downward one".

You can think of the vertical CoG of the pendulums as well. When the pendulums spread on the left side, the upper pendulum rises at the same time the lower pendulum descends, so the vertical CoG never changes. Well, just a tiny bit. When the teeter totter rocks up on the left side, the upper weight travels a bit higher than the lower weight descends but when it rocks down, the lower weight descends a bit further than the upper weight, so these offset as well.

Quote:
There were reports of some sort of sounds like weights dropping or rolling IRCC. So perhaps there may have been some 'Jerk' in there somewhere.


Maybe so but it doesn't fit this proposal too well. This Bessler quote is telling: "He can rack his brains and work his fingers to the bones with all sorts of ingenious ideas about adding extra weights here and there. The only result would be that his wheel will get heavier and heavier - it would run longer if it were empty!"

And this one:"Many would be Mobile-makers think that if they can arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the centre than the others, then the thing will surely revolve. A few years ago, I learned all about this the hard way. And then the truth of the old proverb came home to be that one has to learn through bitter experience"

One more: "The clattering noise you refer to is, I assure you, a phenomenon caused by the real motive power of the machine, and nothing else" Seems safe to say he did not mean falling weights.

Quote:
I still can't get my brain settled down long enough to ponder your assembly with the ropes and pulleys just yet. You no doubt have it played out in your mind well and I guess I'm too fatigued to get it from the text. But if you forgo the top beam, you lose the mechanism which keeps the planes from tilting. The imaginary line drawn through the adjoined gear axles will not stay parallel to the gravitational force unless they are both mounted to a common pivot embedded in the cross bar and that pivot is connected via linkage to keep the imaginary line vertical.


Yes absolutely Very Happy This has offsetting factors as discussed above so the parallelogram structure is not necessary. I think I figured a simple way to pull the ropes at the correct time. Basically just tied the ropes to various points on the outer wheel with only a couple additional pulleys. The outer wheel was the camshaft and was it's only function except to hide the mechanism. Hope I can duplicate that in WM2D.

Quote:
But I will try and give this some thought Smile

And yes, the WM2D - do I need something to read that file?

Frank, don't let us take away from your thread here - were sort of working together but in different directions perhaps. I want to better understand what your doing too. Wink

Harvey


The Working Model 2D evaluation version is a free download from here:

http://www.design-simulation.com/WM2D/index.php

I hope I can do this in the 2D version. A little worried about stacked components but we'll see.


Last edited by cloud camper on Tue Mar 15, 2011 11:19 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Mar 15, 2011 7:50 pm PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 360
Location: Harrow, England

Reply with quote

That is sooo....funny. Very Happy

I'm pleased to see that I'm not the only one to make the clock connection.

Last month I started the following thread on the Bessler forum.

I don't usually use caps for naming threads but on this occasion I made an exception and headed the thread:

Idea IT'S A CLOCK! (11 TO 11)

Grimer wrote:
... a clock driven by the inexhaustible spring of gravity ("spring of gravity" brings up 137 hits on Google. I thought there'd be more).

How on earth has this been missed?

After all, it's not as though Bessler hasn't given us enough clues. For starters there's that ruddy great pendulum in front of the Kassel wheel.





...... and the fact he was a clockmaker.

Gravity as an inexhaustible mainspring.

Ratchets (free wheels) to introduce differential inertia on the inner and outer wheels and you're half way there already.

Add a balance spring in the form of a torque tube and you've got a Bessler/Keenie clock.

_________________

instaurare omnia in Christo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Tue Mar 15, 2011 9:40 pm PostPost subject:
cloud camper
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 207

Reply with quote

You are way ahead of the curve my man. It would make a great clock if you left it unloaded. Or a clock that can do endless work. Amazing! That big pendulum with the WIDE crossbar on top could be the biggest clue of all. Seems like he was basically shouting "It's a clock folks!"

Hard to imagine how history could have evolved differently if Johann had just released his secret. People would have listened a lot closer to Tesla and other visionaries!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Mar 15, 2011 10:15 pm PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 360
Location: Harrow, England

Reply with quote

When I reread my last post I had a strong feeling of dj vu .

Sure enough when going through the thread I found that I had submitted the clock post earlier.

Ah well, nothing like puffing off one's own commodity, eh! Cool - to use a good old expression.
_________________

instaurare omnia in Christo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Wed Mar 16, 2011 12:06 am PostPost subject: Brain Fart
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

Ok Guys,

Here is my brain fart:

Larger Resolution

When the weights contact the plank, the CoG is immediately transferred to that position.

The weights do not have to move more than 1/8" apart from each other to cause the transfer to occur.

Notice the trigger mech. than opens them when at the top of the swing and closes them at the bottom.

What do you guys think?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Mar 16, 2011 12:55 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

Oh my . . . forget the actuators ratchets completely,

This is way way way more simple than it seems!!!

The plank rotates 360 around. On the left, the top weight is a few grams heavier than the bottom weight. On the right, this inverts and the bottom weight (which is on top on the left) is now on the bottom and this opens the arms.

The system just keeps rotating like that - ingenious!

Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Mar 16, 2011 3:11 am PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 360
Location: Harrow, England

Reply with quote

@ cloud camper

I think you're absolutely right about the ball rolling from one side to the other.

I can see why you're right and what path the ball must take.

If you take the graph I posted here at:

http://fizzx.org/viewtopic.php?p=12210#12210

and invert it thus:



Then the outward driving path is the full green line and the return path is the dotted green line.

The full green line has more energy than the dotted green line. It has more jerk energy, more dx/dt energy in other words.

Another way of looking at it is that you have three pendulums. A fast one which is putting the energy in (baby bear), a middle one Bessler's exterior pendulum (mummy bear) and a slow one which resets the system (daddy bear).

Somewhere on Utube there is a video which shows a model car racing down and up a steep hill which beats a car rolling down a straight. I'll have to see if I can find it.

More later.
_________________

instaurare omnia in Christo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Wed Mar 16, 2011 3:15 am PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 360
Location: Harrow, England

Reply with quote

@ Harvey

I only saw your posts after I posted the above.

It's the middle of the night here so I will have to think about your stuff in the morning.

It seems to me there is more than one way of skinning a cat, eh! Very Happy
_________________

instaurare omnia in Christo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Wed Mar 16, 2011 5:11 am PostPost subject:
cloud camper
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 207

Reply with quote

Harv - real late here - my brain is in mostly park mode. Looks very interesting but I can't see how the CoG changes any significant amount yet. Are you saying the CoG changes significantly just because the weights touch the plank? Why would that be? The cantilever stress moments would suddenly change but I don't see why the CoG would change. The CoG is only determined by lateral positioning of the weights
in other words, it doesn't matter how the weights are supported to calculate the CoG. Just like calculating the CoG of my experimental airplane it doesn't matter how various items are attached inside the plane, the overall lateral weight distribution is the only determining factor.

Frank again very interesting, can you explain how these curves are generated? You show that acceleration is f(x)^2 + 1. That's just a steady acceleration isn't it? The ball starts to roll down a very shallow track. The further it rolls, the steeper the track until it hits the stop. Wouldn't that be a changing acceleration rate (3rd order equation)? Right before it hits the stop the ball is rolling down a 45 deg incline (approx). Seems like this would be similar to the path taken by a roller coaster off a crest, then accelerating faster as the hill steepens. A ball rolling down a shallow hill will take much longer to reach the bottom than a ball that is simply dropped, right?

Another factor is as the track steepens, the ball is applying more leverage to a track that is steepening AND accelerating downward. Is that a fourth order equation? Thats way above may pay grade! Sad


Last edited by cloud camper on Wed Mar 16, 2011 6:01 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Mar 16, 2011 5:46 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

cloud camper wrote:
Harv - real late here - my brain is in mostly park mode. Looks very interesting but I can't see how the CoG changes any significant amount yet. Are you saying the CoG changes significantly just because the weights touch the plank?

Frank again very interesting, can you explain how these curves are generated?


Yes, precisely. I'm convinced this is Bessler's secret, it is so simple I keep telling myself it must be an illusion.

Put a weight on the end of a ruler and let your fingers hold the other end. Now lift the weighted end off the desk while keeping your fingers on the desk at the other end. When does the torque go away? As soon as the weight touches the desk and become supported by it.

Your fingers are the gears and the desk is the plank. The axis of the plank is just the other side of the weights, while your 'gears' are out at the end as in the drawing above where the 'arms' intersect.

Here is a quick test I did showing the torque differential:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAAn9tZZJAo

Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Mar 16, 2011 6:41 am PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 360
Location: Harrow, England

Reply with quote

Thanks to google and remembering the posh word for a cycloid (brachistochrone) I found the video I was thinking of in 10 seconds flat:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlSv_IlXmBg

Of course, if he had let the cars travel down two cycloids, a shallow one and a deep one then it would have been obvious that the two cars were simply pendulum bobs held in position by compression from the curved track instead of being held in position by tension in a traditional arm.

It would have then also been obvious that the high curvature track is a shorter period pendulum than the low curvature track and that the swing speed must therefore be faster. Also, using brachistochrone tracks means the the period is independent of the swing amplitude. This is not true for a traditional pendulum with a circular arc swing which is why the arc swing of a traditional pendulum has to be kept small.
_________________

instaurare omnia in Christo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Wed Mar 16, 2011 7:25 am PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 360
Location: Harrow, England

Reply with quote


_________________

instaurare omnia in Christo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Wed Mar 16, 2011 5:45 pm PostPost subject:
cloud camper
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 207

Reply with quote

Harvey wrote:
cloud camper wrote:
Harv - real late here - my brain is in mostly park mode. Looks very interesting but I can't see how the CoG changes any significant amount yet. Are you saying the CoG changes significantly just because the weights touch the plank?

Frank again very interesting, can you explain how these curves are generated?


Yes, precisely. I'm convinced this is Bessler's secret, it is so simple I keep telling myself it must be an illusion.

Put a weight on the end of a ruler and let your fingers hold the other end. Now lift the weighted end off the desk while keeping your fingers on the desk at the other end. When does the torque go away? As soon as the weight touches the desk and become supported by it.

Your fingers are the gears and the desk is the plank. The axis of the plank is just the other side of the weights, while your 'gears' are out at the end as in the drawing above where the 'arms' intersect.

Here is a quick test I did showing the torque differential:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PAAn9tZZJAo

Smile


Yes Harvey, when the weight contacts the plank the torque goes away, but the overall mass distribution has not changed. That torque you feel in your fingers would be applying that same downward torque to the plank if it were rigidly attached to it. When the weight contacts the plank, strain energy in the plank replaces the cantilever torque moment to support the weighted ruler. There is no change in overall CoG. This is just basic stress analysis. After the weight contacts the plank and the weighted ruler is resting on the plank, you could let go of the ruler and then pick up the plank at the end you would feel the identical torque forces as you started with. A little more actually because you're now supporting the plank as well as the weighted ruler.

But now if you hold that weighted ruler in your fingers and rotate it straight vertical you notice all that torque goes away. This is what I believe is occurring in the Bessler mechanism. The CoG of the weighted ruler now goes right thru your fingers and does not require cantilever torque moments to support the ruler.

If you had the identical setup with another weighted ruler on the opposite side (mirror 180 image) and were holding it up at a 30 deg angle with the other hand you will notice that you have no torque on one hand and significant torque on the other. That produces major torque moments at the center. WHUMP WHUMP


Last edited by cloud camper on Wed Mar 16, 2011 6:36 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Wed Mar 16, 2011 6:14 pm PostPost subject:
cloud camper
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 207

Reply with quote

Frank wrote:
Thanks to google and remembering the posh word for a cycloid (brachistochrone) I found the video I was thinking of in 10 seconds flat:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jlSv_IlXmBg

Of course, if he had let the cars travel down two cycloids, a shallow one and a deep one then it would have been obvious that the two cars were simply pendulum bobs held in position by compression from the curved track instead of being held in position by tension in a traditional arm.

It would have then also been obvious that the high curvature track is a shorter period pendulum than the low curvature track and that the swing speed must therefore be faster. Also, using brachistochrone tracks means the the period is independent of the swing amplitude. This is not true for a traditional pendulum with a circular arc swing which is why the arc swing of a traditional pendulum has to be kept small.


OK Frank thats fantastic, so we can approximate the motion with a cycloid
motion. That simplifies the math(s) enormously. Really well done! Very Happy

So let's move on from that. How can we calculate the kinetic energy attained by the rolling weight right before it hits the stop? Of course the stop is moving at some velocity as well so this will reduce the impact speed. The weight will transfer half of it's KE to the swinging pendulum, then recoil back with the other half. The only way we can achieve an energy gain here is to increase the velocity of the pendulum to try and achieve a squared KE increase in the pendulum from the KE formula KE= 1/2 MV^2.

Actually I lost some interest in this concept when I noticed the pivot point of the pendulum was directly along the horizontal arm where the V track would be. So I couldn't see how much additional momentum could be transferred, so the recoil off the stop would be more like bouncing off a solid object. That is the impact force against the stop is really not at a very helpful angle to transfer momentum to the pendulum. The V track would have to be displaced vertically to start transferring momentum. What do we do next?

I think we could model this in WM2D very easily and then change parameters in minutes to explore options. That would be my thought.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu Mar 17, 2011 7:59 pm PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

Hi CC,

Hmmm - your post to me did not show all day yesterday, but your post to Frank did and now your post to me is inserted in the middle there. Rolling Eyes

Ok, the principle is sound that I have presented and I am convinced that this is how Bessler did it. I built a crude physical apparatus and it did work, but there was too much play in it and my weights flew off too. So I turned to Phun and was finally able to get some results there too, but the bearings (hinges) in Phun are too elastic and the bottom weight does not want to stay in contact with the plank - I've added a spring there to help it. Also, the weights bounce too much when they hit the plank so I have been experimenting with different materials. It needs a lot of fine tuning.

The CoG is definitely shifted exactly as if you had two kids with a combined mass greater than yours on one side of a teeter-totter with you on the other side, and then one of the kids ran up to the center of the teeter-totter. Their mass is spread evenly across that arm, but the leverage is reduced and a positive torque is applied. You can prove this to yourself with a rigid ruler, a fulcrum and four pennies. Balance it, then slide one penny to the center.

I may not have the ratios exact at this point, but I am certain this is the Bessler Solution.
Very Happy


Last edited by Harvey on Sat Mar 19, 2011 12:38 am; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu Mar 17, 2011 8:06 pm PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

Oh, and I have a question regarding Bessler's RPM - IIRC, it was said to run at 15 RPM.

My models show this to be too fast. If I exceed 6 RPM the time lag of the weight shift is sufficient to place the system in counter productive place. This may have something to do with my ratios. The thickness of the plank to the length and the mass to leverage.

Also, as I work on this, I think the external pendulum and crankshaft may have been required to offset the vertical transition of the internal perpetuum mobile. This could possibly be excluded by tuning the angular momentum to take its place, but thus far it seems to be a null zone in my Phun model which I am not real happy with due to all the elastic connections.

Neutral
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu Mar 17, 2011 9:56 pm PostPost subject:
cloud camper
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 207

Reply with quote

Well thats great Harv, I certainly hope that concept is valid. I just don't see how to achieve significant CoG change - maybe you could try explaining it further. I thought of another example. When an airliner touches down on the runway, does the CoG change just because the wheels are now supporting the plane instead of the wings? It was being held up by Bernoullis' law instead of cantilever torque moments from the ground but once the wheels hit, don't we have the same configuration?

Also, in your drawing if it does rotate, wouldn't it rotate CCW not CW as shown?

Besslers' small 3' wheels turned around 40-50 rpm unloaded, the 12' wheel turned 26 rpm loaded and 20 rpm while lifting 70 lb bricks!

I have figured a simple camshaft arrangement from a 60" wheel which will double for a
flywheel. Also came up with a simple arrangement to convert the teeter totter motion to circular motion to drive the output shaft. I want to build a unit large enough to drive a small windmill alternator I have. If I get really lucky, WM2D will tell me the output torque and rpm.

Your concept sounds way simpler! KISS it baby! Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Fri Mar 18, 2011 7:46 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

Hi CC,

The wheels on on an airplane are centered near the CoG, just a bit aft for the modern nose gear variety, and just a bit fore on the old tail draggers. But there is still quite a bit of energy left even after touch down, and the nose won't come down until the lift bleeds off. In fact, we keep pulling the stick back to use up as much as possible for air braking.

Now, when we land on an aircraft carrier, the carriers center of gravity follows the position of the plane. It is just such a small amount, the effect is negligible.

I'll try and do a video of the principle for you - I have to start over in Phun because there is just too much play in this stuff. The gear teeth and the hinge connections are not being cooperative to the exercise. But I can do a small demo that I think will get the point across.

I have to ponder the speeds. I'm missing something there and I'm concerned it may be some type of transmission to maximize the torque. At least the weights and ratios I have tried do not offer that type of velocity from gravity. Phun offers all the Torque, Angular Velocity and even Joules in the info tab while its running.

Cheers,

Harvey
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Fri Mar 18, 2011 10:47 pm PostPost subject:
cloud camper
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 207

Reply with quote

OK Harv - good luck on that. Is Phun very user friendly? I'm struggling with WM2D but I've got one pic out so far.

I've got 30 lb weights dialed in right now. The actual teeter totter will only extend far enough to support the linear actuators just past the gearing and will have just lightweight rods extending out to support the rope pulleys. Note the position of the right side lower weight. My machinist says he has a way to get that weight straight up and down vertical with the upper weight. Not using gears but back to back cables with different track lengths to get the lower arm to extend more. Now we have serious CoG differential! He wants to go to electronic linear actuators right away - very low current and completely tunable. Bessler would have killed for these! A 18" actuator good for 22 lb should work fine and only uses 5A at full load, 350 mah at idle! The only time they should be at near full load is during the directional (momentum) changes. This can be programmed to ramp arm velocities down then back up again after the directional change minimizing current drain.

So Frank - looks just like a clock!

http://www.firgelliauto.com/product_info.php?cPath=114&products_id=234

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat Mar 19, 2011 12:19 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

Hi Guys,

So much for my Brain Fart - excuse me. Embarassed

I was flat wrong on the force vector involved. The force does not get transferred to the pivot as I thought I was seeing. Sadly, the force and thus the CoG relative to a perfectly horizontal plank, are directed to that point on the plank where the gravitational normal intersects all three- the top weight, the plank and the bottom weight. This moment is evidently impartial to the distance between the weights and the plank as long as a path exists for the force to be transferred - i.e. the pivot. Therefore the CoG shifts by virtue of the translation of the weights along the plank length. Where the plank is not horizontal, the force is the gravitational vector sum of the weights and plank which then gets converted as a torque via the radius from the axle to the vector sum moment.

My entire conviction was premised on the concept that the force was transferred to the pivot - it is not Rolling Eyes

Thanks for indulging me on this.

The observations in my models that led me to thinking this was working, were driven not by the translation of that force, but by the arc of the weights that changed the CoG. So while my models were quasi-working, it was for the wrong reasons and not perpetuum mobile.

Neutral
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:11 am PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 360
Location: Harrow, England

Reply with quote

I've found that the important thing in research is to be one's own worst critic and to find the holes in one' theories before other people do.

You've succeeded in this at any rate. Wink
_________________

instaurare omnia in Christo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Sat Mar 19, 2011 3:27 pm PostPost subject:
cloud camper
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 207

Reply with quote

Hey Harv - I'm your biggest fan so I know you will immediately come up with a dozen better ones!

Bessler said there were many ways to execute his concept so I'm sure you will brainfart it! We gotta be smarter than this 300 yr old dude, right? Mr. Green

Here's and interesting woodcut Bessler made - MT34. I don't get all of it but he's using his favorite pair of pair of pendulums to change the CoG of the drum and flip it over. The long levers seem to rotate with the drum and lower the CoG at the same time the lower pendulums are raising it. Is he trying to change the MoI? Anybody want to take a crack at it? I had to blow it up to full page size before printing it to see all the detail.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun Mar 20, 2011 5:34 am PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 26 Oct 2006
Posts: 360
Location: Harrow, England

Reply with quote

The following is something I posted last December on the BesslerWheel forum. For people who like theory it might help understanding of what jerk energy is and why it is conserved.

Grimer wrote:
The conservation of Jerk is simply D'Alembert's Principle of Least Action applied to the third derivative of position with respect to time as opposed to the second.

Force, Jerk, Jounce, Snap, Crackle and Pop are simple convenient names applied to higher and higher derivatives of position with respect to time.

It is the derivatives that are important, not the names.

It is clear that D'Alembert's principle of Least Action applies to all these derivatives, all these actions, not simple the second. It not only applies to the action of Force. It also applies to the actions of Jerk, Jounce, Snap, Crackle, Pop and higher actions.

It also explains something which has been bugging me since the sixties. The ubiquity of power laws in material science.

I could see that these laws must be the ratio of large integrals but could not understand why the constants of integration disappeared at each step. In the light of D'Alembert's principle of Least Action it is clear that the quasi-Fluid (phase in tension) and quasi-Solid (phase in compression) components of a material which have vast numbers of independent particles are simple exhibiting D'Alembert's Principle of Least Action, a principle which applies to all actions, not simply force.

So more specifically we have:

D'Alembert's principle of Least Energy

D'Alembert's principle of Least Jerk

D'Alembert's principle of Least Jounce

D'Alembert's principle of Least Snap

..... and so on and so forth.

(I've not included Crackle and Pop since they are not officially recognised names for the 6th and 7th derivatives.)


I deliberately used force for the second derivative rather than acceleration to draw attention to the nature of Force, (acceleration/unit mass) x mass.

In other words specific force is simply acceleration.
_________________

instaurare omnia in Christo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Post new topic Reply to topic FizzX.org Forum Index | WhipMag Discussion/Development
View previous topic
View next topic
Display posts from previous:   




You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum