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 4 of 5

Sun Mar 20, 2011 5:50 am PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


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

Reply with quote

cloud camper wrote:
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.


I think the pendulum approach is probably the easiest way into the problem. If you think about it my transfer of a weight to a balanced wheel is simply creating a pendulum. With a low inertia wheel you have a short period pendulum and with a high inertia wheel you have a long period pendulum. So by transferring a weight from one balanced wheel to another balanced wheel you are creating at one and the same time both short and long period pendulums.

I believe that by using the terminology of pendulums it will be a lot easier to understand what is going on.

A pendulum is thought of as something useful and desirable. An unbalanced wheel (on one's car for example) is thought of as something destructive and undesirable.

As Stafford Beer said. "It is all a question of using the right language."
_________________

instaurare omnia in Christo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Sun Mar 20, 2011 6:48 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

cloud camper wrote:
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.



Do you have a link to a better image?

I see the side view of his wheel with a cutaway of what is inside. But it is unclear if the chains cross over in the center or work on their respective side. it would seem that the work on their respective side, but the drawing seems to belie that. It would be interesting to read the text that was associated with the lettering provided. I don't see where the energy is coming from to lift the weights from horizontal to vertical inside.

Hmmmm
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun Mar 20, 2011 12:35 pm PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


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

Reply with quote



This is the image from Collins' book.
_________________

instaurare omnia in Christo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:47 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

Ok, thank you Frank - now I see how it works.


Observations:

There are two upright supports with a central Axle and a hand crank at each end of that Axle (H). The leftmost upright has a base line and a flag labeled [34]

A. This is a dual rectangular frame consisting of 8 parts. The longest 2 of which could be considered to be outer spokes while the second longest could be inner spokes of a wheel and these are represented as the upright portions of A. The outermost horizontal parts of A support a stopping block for Assemblies E and G. The innermost horizontal parts could be dowels or rods or planks to serve as the supports for assemblies E and G. So there is a smaller rectangle inside of a larger rectangle both of which are secured to Axle (H).

B. Hinges. These are hinges at both ends of H for the attachment of Rods C.

C. Weighted rods. These are long rods slightly shorter than and parallel to H. The ends of the rods are weighted. Midpoint of H, Rods C are connected to both Ropes F at point D as a rigid connection binding both ropes together and locking them to C at D.

D. Locking point for Ropes F. See C above.

E. An assembly of two swing arms. The swing arms consist of a pivot radius (near the letter E in the drawing), a rigid arm which can be tubular and a bob weight on the end. The outside of the pivot radius acts as a cam for the rope (F) such that when the arm is pivoted, the rope will tension and act on those identical swing arms in assembly G. So each assembly works in tandem, left and right and in opposition to assembly G such that when E has the bobs to the center against the stopping blocks attached to A, G will have its bobs against the lateral supports of the inner rectangle of A and vice versa.

F. Ropes. Ropes (or chains or cables) can be one continuous length tied to itself perhaps near D. Starting at point D we can follow the path to left swing arm in Assembly G where the rope wraps around the bottom of the pivot radius (the pivots being the larger central circles) and is attached to the arm and either routes through the tube of the arm or is secured to the side of it where it exits at the smaller circle swing arm bob weight. From there, it spans the distance inside A to the bob weight of left side swing arm in assembly E. Routing on swing arm Left-E it routes over the top of the pivot radius and extends down to D for the top bar C and then through the center of H to D and extending to the lower right swing arm pivot in assembly G. Again following this swing arm the same as was done on the left, it exits the bob weight and spans to the top right swing arm bob, enters there to that swing arm, over the top of that pivot radius and down to D in top bar C through the center of H once more and tied back to the beginning at D in bottom bar C. That describes the path of the Ropes, cables or chains (F). Noted that it could be sectioned and attached at the pivots, bobs and points D and D and even a rigid dowel could extend from D to D to minimize the hole diameter in H.

G. This is the counter part of assembly E. See E above for more information.

H. The main Axle of the system. At each end of H there is a support and hand crank. The axle does not need to be round, it can be a plank, a square or any other shape. The hand cranks however would need to have bearings attached to them as they penetrate the supports. So if they were hexagonal bar stock for example, the ID of the bearing would need to accept that shape while the races or sleeves themselves would need to be smooth round. The middle of H has a hole drilled through for the action of F to move the distance as prescribed by the distance D-D and the diameter of the end weights on C and the distance between D and the end weights.

-----------

Operation:
As the cranks are turned a condition occurs where the end weight on bar C is pulled down due to gravity. This produces a force at location D on that rod C in accordance with known laws of gravity and leverage such that a gravitational force is present on the end weight and a leverage is produced by virtue of hinge B. The force at D, is envisaged to be sufficient to action the swing of four bob weights so that all four are lifted along the arc of their respective arm length radii. The distance they must be lifted is slightly less than the difference between A outer frame and A inner frame divided by two. The action is such, that when F is pulled down through the hole in H, this action pulls on the pivots of E and lifts those swing arms. At the same time, those swing arms lift the bobs in assembly G which takes up any slack in F between D and G. The leverage differential (gravitational CoG offset) in the swing arm radii is envisaged to be greater than that needed bring both assembly G and lower Rod C to a topmost vertical position strictly by gravitational force acting on assembly E. With E and G inverted, the process repeats for the other rod C where E is then brought back to the starting point and one cycle has been completed.

There are some obvious ratios that must be adhered to along with timing allowances and associated losses. It should be provable using mathematics in accordance with known laws whether this could or could not work. It is an interdependent structure. The distance C will travel is dependent on the mass and the force involved to produce the force needed at D for the necessary distance, thus work to be done. The work to be done is dependent on the bob weight, swing arm length and losses. The swing arm length and the bob weight are dependent upon the the target torque. The target torque takes us back to the original end weights on C and the displacement of the counter assembly which need to be brought to the topmost vertical position.

E-net-torque 180 (top to bottom) > C&G lift (bottom to top)
C-drop > E & G swing-arm lift.

Now that I have described how it works and what is needed, who would like to work out the forces involved? Mr. Green

Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Mar 21, 2011 8:49 am PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


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

Reply with quote

The simplest way to understand the action of jerk is to recognise that there are different orders of Force. The one we are familiar with is the force that is associated with acceleration. There is also a higher order force associated with jerk.

Fa = a N
Fj = j N


where Fa is acceleration force and Fj is jerk force.
N is the number of unit masses.

Acceleration energy is acceleration force x distance and jerk energy is jerk force x time.

This is shown by the maths as you can see below

Energy = Fa = a N x dx = dx/dt.N x dx = dx/dt.N

Energy = Fj = j N x dt . = dx/dt.N x dt = dx/dt.N
_________________

instaurare omnia in Christo


Last edited by Frank on Mon Mar 21, 2011 1:08 pm; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Mon Mar 21, 2011 9:29 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

Hi Frank,

Here is a c-dot that you can copy and past if you like: [ ]

Or you can get it easily by holding down the alt key and entering 0183 on the numbers keypad.

So your first equation could look like Fa = a N if you want it to Smile

I have found the Character Map useful also for copy and paste special characters. For Windows XP users it is located in the Accessories, System Tools location from the Start Menu - All Programs.

Almost all of the special characters I use are found in the Times New Roman font group and that includes these found down near the bottom of the list: ℓ℮∂∑√⌠⌡∫≠≈∩ among many others.

Also, there is a nice math plug in for this forum that is useful sometimes too Smile but, only those who have installed the plug-in will be able to see what you formulate, so I try to use the font characters whenever possible.

I talked to my son about the drawing there, and he asked me to setup the variable relationships. So I have started working on that. We are going to approach the matter from a falsification position by looking for the optimal configuration of masses and dimensions and see if the curves converge at any point. I'm hoping he can use that brilliant mind of his with his calculus experience and help me provide something useful. We are first going to work from a static condition with E and G at their minimum and the lower bar C at its maximum and then look for that solution where dropping C will produce the best CoG advantage for A that will lift the lower C to the top bar position. The curves should show us a divergence or convergence, hopefully the latter.

Cheers,

Harvey
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Mar 21, 2011 12:20 pm PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


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

Reply with quote

Thanks for the tip. I've amended it accordingly. Looks nicer.

I have a son-in-law whose a Cambridge Wrangler but he is very conventional and would not be suitable to assist me.

My sons and daughters are microbiologist, microbiologist, teacher, monk, lawyer, philosopher, computer science, CEO and pharmacist - so not a lot of use there. The son whose a microbiologist is interested and has some practical skills but is incapable of following my reasoning and therefore wants to plough his own furrow. Rolling Eyes

The trouble with being a genius is it takes one to know one. Wink
_________________

instaurare omnia in Christo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Mon Mar 21, 2011 5:04 pm PostPost subject:
cloud camper
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 207

Reply with quote

OK, now I get it sort of mostly. Thanks Harv for spotting that the ropes were tied into the C levers at point D. That totally eluded me. Now it makes sense! Very nice write up on the operational cycle!

So he's using gravity at the C levers where the MOI is very small to effect a multiplication at the rim of the drum, where MOI is very large. This is very clever! So again he's attempting to counterbalance the first order forces to effect a large CoG shift. And again, once this thing got turning, the secondary forces would "catch up" at some rpm to equalize the gain, putting a limit on maximum rpm.

This whole concept smacks me (in the nose-ouch!) of John Keelys' ideas of the natural center and artificial center. This works for both gravity and magnetism. The idea is to create an artificial center for the device that the devices' natural neutral center is then attracted to. The natural neutral center will always move in the direction of the artificial center. The natural neutral center would be the CoG in the case of a gravity based device, the point that all magnetic forces equalize in a magnetic device.

So to keep the device operating, we must continually displace the artificial center ahead of the natural neutral center. This must occur in a force neutral or counterbalanced zone of the device in order to use the output power of the device to operate the artificial center mechanism. The work required to operate the artificial center mechanism must be less than the work produced at the output to keep the device in operation.

I think we can see from this that the ever popular overbalanced wheel ideas will never work because any change at the input directly and instantly affects the output (and vice versa) so no artificial center is ever created. The input and output are of the same orders. A secondary oscillation system of some sort is required with it's own inertial properties only indirectly connected to the primary system. The primary system needs a period of time delta t over a distance of delta x in which to respond to the oscillations of the secondary system. During this time and distance interval work can be extracted from the primary system.


from this site:http://keelynet.com/gravity/carr3.htm

John Keely says: It works much like a goat harnessed to a wagon....if you hold out a stick with a carrot hanging from it, the goat will follow the stick in whatever direction you so choose.

For anyone interested, there is a commentary on most of Besslers' MT woodcuts here:(but no images) http://www.mikeyned.com
Very advanced site - fascinating!

The MT images are all posted on this site: (but no commentary) http://www.orffyre.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu Mar 24, 2011 2:20 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

Hi CC,

Thank you for those links. If I can trust the data presented there, especially the quotes, then any doubt surrounding the Bessler Wheel should be thoroughly quenched.

I had no idea so much information was saved regarding Bessler's work. I was under the impression that his work was destroyed and we only had fragments to work off of. But this goes well beyond speculation, he has clearly outlined an entire series of progressive thought and systematically has removed all the possibilities until he was left with the truth. And now I must revise my statements which I shared with my Son regarding the dimensions involved. We have real dimensions to consider that play a genuine part in the possible acceleration and the resulting RPM's of the wheel certified by the declaration of Princes where the apparatus ran for 2 months with only a brief stop and restart by the Royals involved.

After carefully reviewing the drawings of the "Twins" as the site author calls them, it is quite evident to me that he had two pendulums working on the wheel in such a way that when one was at BDC, the other was at full swing. These reportedly served as regulators for lowering weights as well as lifting them at safe speeds. Without them, the combined weight and function of the device would send the falling weights into a freefall. Originally I thought that they served to overcome some sticky spots in the design, but I guess I was wrong about that.


I wish I had all of the original works to properly review. I do find it intriguing that the MT images end where they do. It is as if, after that process, he found the solution and there was no further need to do more elimination tests.

I think perhaps he discovered a means to switch between a standard lever and a Roberval Balance at strategic points in the process so that the mass acted vertically on the fall, but radially on the climb with the fall in a vertical tangent line and the climb in a hub-close arc.

I'm not so sure that MT-34 offers any solution - I think it is inclusive of the eliminations but clearly shows the brilliance behind the Man's thoughts and designs.

I learned from that site that he was a man of medicine and chemistry.

One thing that does not make sense however, is that if he fell to his death at the age of 65, what prohibited the Princes from building and selling the devices? Was there some type of legal or political prohibition that forced them to refrain? Perhaps laborers were afraid of losing their jobs to the machinery of 'modern' engineers? It is all very intriguing and probably worthy of more attention than it has received.

I think the solution is beyond the images and text provided - so solving MT-34 will probably lead to one of the systematic eliminations, but a worthy exercise nonetheless.

But it does occur to me, that multiple actions in the same field can act as separate and isolated events and when properly coupled in some way can lead to a nonconservative action. If so, then Bessler may have discovered the means to use gravity against itself in time so that the nonconservative action results in available energy.

Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu Mar 24, 2011 3:09 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

In researching MT-34, we find Bessler's comment here:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index.php?title=MT_21-40#MT_034

Wherein he states that the cords 'lift' C toward the center and that the weights at E move Up and Outward and those at G move Up and Inward.

This seems backwards and I wonder if it is a red herring or an example of inverse logic. But if Bessler is being truthful in the proposed action, then a solution that satisfies his statement would seem to indicate that the inner framework the 'small wheels' are mounted to must move relative to the axle. In that case, it must move upwards and the weights at E and G must only truly move laterally as the small wheels (which I called swing arm pivots) move up.

I see no available force to cause this action. Even if we wind the cords up on the axle we still have problems.

Am I missing anything here?

Confused
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu Mar 24, 2011 5:29 pm PostPost subject:
cloud camper
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 207

Reply with quote

I think you're right on the explanation being off. Could be a translation glitch perhaps.

It seems that the device represented in MT34 has some potential to operate at least initially. This idea was fairly early in the series so it seems likely that he rejected it for a better one.

I believe it has two main flaws. I think Bessler is on the right track as far as creating a secondary oscillation system that then affects the primary but in this proposal, as soon as the drum began to turn centrifugal forces would then unbalance the initially counterbalanced pendulums. This would throw the system into a low energy trough or node that it could not escape from.

The artificial center mechanism becomes severely affected by the primary system (the drum) as soon as any angular momentum is attained. Basically, the artificial center mechanism becomes "bound up" with the primary. The primary system has too much potential to affect the operation of the secondary system. Also, I believe the C rods would tend to center so we really have three inertial systems all affecting each other.

Possibly adding another counterbalanced pendulum system and another pair of C rods at 90 degrees to the first would help smooth out the system but it would have all the same problems.

A secondary oscillation system much more removed from the actions of the primary system is necessary.

The second main flaw IMHO is that there is really not enough CoG change going on here to perform any significant work. Much more mass transfer is necessary than shown here to overcome operating losses.

Peter Lindemann about four years ago became very interested in the Bessler Wheel and developed a potential mechanism that is very clever but I believe it suffers from the same problem, very little mass transfer.

http://www.free-energy.ws/pdf/mechanical_engine.pdf

He's using a series of eight pendulums hinged near the rim that are latched and unlatched at appropriate times using a piano key latch that was invented concurrently with Bessler's device but there is really only one or two weights that are creating the OOB condition at a time and they are very small.

Bessler said that his system wasn't really a wheel at all so I'm sure that MT34 was not the system he used although it still could possibly operate very slowly as long as it did not node lock.

I think your idea of switching from a lever to a Roberval balance mechanism mid cycle is very hot. That deserves some development!

Another thought I had was wondering if the later Bessler wheels counterbalanced the secondary forces as well as the primary. If you were accelerating a pendulum at the same time you were decelerating another one could the forces balance if they were mechanically connected? I don't think so but the later wheels had much more power and could rotate in either direction just by giving a push in the desired direction!

If you had two teeter totters operating 180 deg out of phase and thus had four pendulums per side, could a cam mechanism connecting all four pendulums on one side of the teeter totter balance the secondary forces or would it always be a loss? It doesn't seem possible but if the accelerating pendulum was acting to resist the camshaft at the same time as the decelerating weight was trying to speed up the cam, wouldn't that be a balance? The pendulums are not being driven by the camshaft, they are being driven by the rope and pulley system that Bessler stated he used, so the camshaft would only be a counterbalancing mechanism.


Last edited by cloud camper on Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:01 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu Mar 24, 2011 8:20 pm PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

MT-31 through MT-35 are all related to the same family of designs.

A clue is given in MT-35 that intimates something is out of sequence or the images were altered. If we look at MT-35, we find that Bessler's words of MT-34 would apply to that configuration of swing arms.

In one of the descriptions (I forget which now) Bessler's words were directed at the Princes as if that book were written specifically for them to make them aware of all the different forms of gravity wheels that were being tried at the time, not only by Bessler, but by others too. One of them he even states he saw in a book at a friends house.

And then late in the list there is an addition where Bessler admits it should have been included earlier and has application earlier, but was added for clarity.

All in all, it is apparent that Bessler was both intelligent and slightly disorganized along with some measure of paranoia. However, I find his behavior consistent with that of an honest person who sought out validation by the highest sources and had no fear of displaying all the competing styles of mechanisms because he knew his device was simple and self evident to anyone peering behind the green lacquered cloth. So he was only paranoid of thieves. His secret was a curse to him, and so it also carried a price - one that he felt would set him into a healthy retirement. If he was compensated, then he would give it to the world.

I find it highly unlikely that the secret to his work would be found in these records that were published in his time period. But I had heard somewhere that a coded message was included in the one writing he did after his devices were destroyed, I think it was 'Apolgia Poetica' that bears his alias "Orffyreus" which in itself appears to be a code or scramble. Perhaps French for "Souf Fryer" or even English for "Roy Suffer" who knows, but I don't think it was supposed to be a literal handle, it would seem in character to have some hidden meaning, a message to the persecutionists that they would never get to hear the reality without paying the price.

But perhaps a Sherlock Holmes approach is in order. Bessler did a fine job of telling us what it is not. However, there may be some deliberate reverse psychology involved in his statements, a sort of sarcasm where he seems to openly admit that something does not work when it may be unproven and he feels the reader will not take the time to do the exercise. Eliminate all the possibilities. Approach each aspect with the scientific approach of falsifying the claim. Perhaps the process is a path to the truth that Bessler claims to have found and demonstrated.

Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu Mar 24, 2011 8:36 pm PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

I forgot to mention http://www.theorffyreuscode.com/html/bessler_s_name_code.html

and the phonetic also of Orffyreus sounds like "Or Fear E Us" or "Or Fury Us" if that has any bearing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu Mar 24, 2011 9:47 pm PostPost subject:
cloud camper
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 207

Reply with quote

I just keep learning more about this thing. With just a single teeter totter with two pendulums per side being driven by a rope and pulley system from a single large flywheel/camshaft, we have a condition where all four pendulums accelerate at the same time and then decelerate at the same time, twice per cycle. Two pendulums accelerate open on one side while the other two accelerate into a closed position on the other. This creates a somewhat lumpy/inefficient system as the flywheel is continually accelerating/decelerating (assuming it works at all of course!)

Bessler on his later wheels went to an eight weight system which was a much wider wheel (15-18"). This would be compatible with a two teeter totter system arranged side by side with the flywheel/camshaft being located between the totters. What this allows is the totters to be operated 90 degrees out of phase. This means that the acceleration cycle of one totter occurs simultaneous with the deceleration cycle of the other. While one totter is trying to slow the flywheel down in the accel phase, the other totter is in the decel trying to speed it up. Everything nice and smooth and more than twice the power! I still don't think that would eliminate the secondary forces totally but it would have to help.

The primary forces are already balanced out by use of the geared pendulums. If all primary AND secondary forces could be balanced out, the machine would conceivably accelerate to destruction if it was operated unloaded. And that may be the reason for the large pendulum shown on the exterior of the wheel in the Twins woodcuts. This could have been used as a speed governor. Another mystery is that this large external pendulum was never reported by any observer in a public demo of the device.

Bessler quote: "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"
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Mar 28, 2011 11:28 pm PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

I have not succeeded in producing the MT-34 curves I had hoped to. My son has given me some direction, but he may as well have put a worm on a hook and told me to "Go Fish". I understand that he wants me to learn this stuff myself and I need to have my head in the right place to work it out.

So far, I have created some links between items in a spreadsheet I have started on. Part of the work revealed an interesting correlation between the levers C and the bob weights for E and G. By addressing the matter from an energy perspective I discovered that if the mass of the end weight on C is equal to the mass of the Bob weights, then the lever arms C cannot exist as drawn. In fact, we would need a 10:1 ratio for the distance between B and D (1) and that between D and the end weight (10). I used preliminary values that relate to a drum wheel of 12 feet (3.66 m) in diameter and 18 inches (0.457 m) thick. So even if we move the hinges B close to the drum (0.254 m), the end weights are still ~100 inches (2.54 m) away from D. The pivot radius for each pivot arm is obtained from subtracting the gap between the pivots from the width of the drum, dividing that by two and then subtracting from that the length of the arm from the pivot to the end of the Bob. In this case I set the gap to be 0.203 m and the pivot arm length to be 0.1 m. So, ((0.457 - 0.203) / 2) - 0.1) = 0.027 m pivot radius. The distance that D drops is exactly equal to the (pivot radius * 2π)/4 or 1/4 the circumference and is therefore 0.042411501 m. This gives us a length to drop ratio of 1:5.9889, so we can expect our distance at the end of the travel arm to be 2.54 m / 5.9889 = 0.42411501 m (which is the same as our lever ratio of 10:1 - so D moves 1/10 that of the C end weight).


Why did I use these values? As I said earlier, I wanted to see what was needed if we were going to lift 4 kg with 1 kg in this apparatus. So I set all the weights to 1 kg and this gives a force (F) of 1 kg * 9.8 m/s, or 9.8N for each weight. So the pivot arms represent a force of 39.2N and the lever arm represents (at the end of the arm) 9.8N. To get to the energy, we must factor in the leverage which is x10. W=Fd, so we apply that force for a given distance and arrive at some value in Joules. In the case of the four pivots, the distance in the Y direction is 0.1 m (the length of the arm). So we get 3.92 J. For the lever weight on C we get a 10:1 leverage at D so we get 98N * 0.042411501 m = 4.156327098 J Very Happy

So we get 1 kg lifting 4 kg with 0.236327081 J to spare! (will probably need that for friction and stuff).

Ok, that's half the transaction - and this is where the curves would be nice, because then we could see if there is a mass distance relationship that is optimal. Now I have to find the time (and ambition) to work out the wheel forces. Remember, at this point the lever weight is hanging around 16 inches away from the axle and needs to be lifted back to the top of the axle.

This leads me to another observation. The points at D are not tied solid to the lever arms C. They only work one way. What they appear to be, is dowels fixed to the ropes that butt up against the outside surface of the lever arms. This is a really good thing, and here is why; we want C to retract back against the axle while leaving E and G in their respective places during the drum rotation. When and how do we do this? By putting a torsion spring in the hinge B. When C is lateral the gravitational forces will be perpendicular and we can move C back to the axle without fighting gravity. Of course as the drum rotates eventually gravity will return C to the axle as well, but in both cases we need that disconnect because we don't want to shift the pivot arms prematurely. So, the bottom Lever Arm C can lift away from the dowel, and the upper dowel D can lift up and away from the upper pivot arm C if need be.

Well, my brain needs a break - but next we need to identify the forces at play in the rotation that follows after the setup of MT-34 where A is now top heavy, or at least we hope it is Wink

Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Mar 29, 2011 5:25 am PostPost subject:
cloud camper
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 207

Reply with quote

Nice work Harv! Wish I could help you with the math. Thats gonna get ugly, I just know it!

I've been working hard on my WM2D sim since my math skills are a bit rusty. Maybe you could tutor me in your spare time?

I just have to install the rope and pulley system and we'll see what happens. I tried for days to center the flywheel right on the teeter totter but just kept hitting bug after bug in the software so no dice there but moving it up above doesn't matter for the sim. The ropes don't care where they are being pulled from.

I put a motor function on the flywheel just to get all the linkages close to correct. Still more to do there but gettin close. I'm real happy in the screen shot below that the pendulum weights float in space even tho there is a normal gravity field operating. Those are 5 lb wts on the pendulums and they act just as if they're weightless! (but not inertia less). I have attached small vertical springs to the weights and they easily pull them up! (and the corresponding lower weight goes down an equal amount)

The vertical red bar is to support the opening pulleys. The horizontal red bar is the teeter totter and supports the closing pulleys. These will be lightweight carbon fiber on the mechanical rep along with the pendulum arms.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Tue Mar 29, 2011 8:42 am PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


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

Reply with quote

Nice work you two. It's a pleasant change from some of the really moronic stuff on BesslerWheel.com.
_________________

instaurare omnia in Christo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:36 pm PostPost subject:
cloud camper
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 207

Reply with quote

Thanks Franky - How bout jumping on Working Model and come up with a Keenie Wheel sim? It's really a pretty cool program. I'd be very interested in trying it but just have too many projects going right now! I could see making little spring loaded triggers to shift the weights from one wheel to the other. I know you don't like to get your hands dirty working with actual nasty physical stuff so this should be right up your alley! Mr. Green
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Thu Mar 31, 2011 8:48 am PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


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

Reply with quote

Oops!
_________________

instaurare omnia in Christo


Last edited by Frank on Tue Apr 05, 2011 12:15 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:01 am PostPost subject:
cloud camper
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 207

Reply with quote

Wowzers - I don't think anybody could build one of these things unless they were a clockmaker.

The camshaft timing for the pendulum arms is extremely tricky. The simple plan I had for driving the timing ropes was totally flawed as the arc lengths get all screwed up.

I had to devise a second teeter totter beam with a magnified arc from the main beam to get the right travel. This is just for the opening sequence. Now we have to come up with another mechanism for the closing sequence. No problem for a clockmaker I'm sure!

On the plus side of the ledger, I've changed the gear ratio between the pendulums and am now getting an unbelievable CoG shift - maybe even too much! The lower pendulums are now geared to swing 25% further than the upper ones. The real challenge is to get the vertical CoG to translate straight across the x axis with no humps the flywheel can't deal with. It is possible to add more weight to the lower pendulums to try and keep the CoG curve manageable. There must be hundreds of variables here to manipulate.

I have just inserted springs in the following video to simulate the closing mechanism as that hasn't been attempted yet and we're still motorized here just to explore different cam mechanisms but it does show the radical CoG shift attainable. We'll have to plot a vertical CoG curve across the x axis to see where the lumps and bumps are but it doesn't look that bad.

The horizontal and vertical red supports are very lightweight carbon fiber so 90% of the mass is in the pendulum weights.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Fri Apr 01, 2011 12:52 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

Is there a free version of WM2D, or is it only the evaluation version that is available?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Fri Apr 01, 2011 2:32 pm PostPost subject:
cloud camper
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 207

Reply with quote

Harv I went thru three of the eight day evals, one for each IP address I have. I just ran out of the last eval and then bought the student edition. I don't know if they check at the end of the 30 day period or not for proof of student status. At any rate, I've got 30 days to decide whether to start on the physical rep!

Franky - there is a cool rotational spring function that would be perfect for your torque tube application. I do wish the program had a ratchet wheel and chain/sprocket tool although I don't seem to need them for this project!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:47 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

Hi CC,

Looking at your arrangement there, I think we may be able to dispense with the ropes all together.

If we have two ells "L" inverted vertically with gears at the apex of each interlocked then the solution would be identical.

I'll do a Phun of what I mean here.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NnApu7ZX6QU
==========================

In working out the wheel forces related to MT-34 I discovered that the diameter of the wheel is a non issue entirely once it exceeds the size needed to enclose the swing arms. In fact, they could be mounted right to the axle with the same forces.

The reason for this is clear once evaluated. Since the wheel is balanced other than the swing arms, and each set of bob weights only moves the distance of the arm length, we are always and forever comparing the differential of the two sets of weights with each other regardless of how far they are from the axle. It does not matter where on the axle that differential exists, it always is manifest the same as a "pure moment' to the axle.

I used the Solver tool in Excel to try and find some optimums, but so far it seems it is impossible to find a relationship that allows lifting the swing arms in one mode and lifting the C- rod in the other. I have not evaluated the half way mark of the lift as part of the equation, but it could be that a gain may be there if I can get the ratios in a 2:1 range. There are a lot of interacting variables involved with the pivot radius and pivot spacing being two of the most critical.

IMHO, if Bessler ever got MT-34 to work, it was by shear accident or years of T & E. Also, I'm not entirely sure that what we have drawn for us is the same as what he physically experimented with.

Cheers,

Cool
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat Apr 02, 2011 1:55 am PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

Now, looking at that video I did there - all I did was use a motor on the hinge to move the arms left or right at the appropriate time. And it occurred to me, that perhaps a pendulum could do the same thing with proper linkage. It also occurs to me that the tie point for the crankshaft would need to be at the gear face and that this too would require a hollow in the axle for the gears to mesh. It is all sort of interesting to consider.

=================

Now on the MT-34 diameter of the wheel. Could it be that the diameter is being used for a linear velocity requirement? I think the centrifugal forces are dependent on the angular velocity, not the circumferential velocity. But if I am wrong, perhaps there is a point in the cycle where Bessler hands the energy over to centrifugal flight where weights are disconnected from the device and allowed to 'flight' across the interior to a new landing zone in a disconnected manner. Just thinking out-loud here guys. Wink
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sat Apr 02, 2011 3:58 am PostPost subject:
cloud camper
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 207

Reply with quote

I like it Harv - that looks like a better way to go! I really hate the rope and pulley system! Evil or Very Mad

I am certainly not against using motors to operate the secondary oscillation system although some would be! It looks as though it could operate at much higher rpm's.

I've had a tough time getting the closing sequence ropes to work. The software just locks up when I try to run it with all the ropes. So I just left the springs in to close the pendulums and removed the motor turning the flywheel and placed a 20 lb ball on the edge of the teeter totter and waited for it to roll off. Tried all kinds of combinations and it would only rock back and forth running down not getting a full turn on the flywheel. Very discouraging. Then I must have hit a workable combo as the thing kept on going.

I let it run past 30 sec (1 hr on the computer) and the velocity is holding at about 30 rpm. It doesn't mean anything at this point of course but it would seem there is work being done as the pendulums are accelerating and decelerating. That is momentum change and that is work being done even if there's zero friction in the system.

The big spikes in velocity at the start was when the 20 lb ball rolls off the edge of the totter to get it going. I don't see any run down occurring here so it looks somewhat encouraging. Nothing is optimized at all, it's just a single configuration that might be working. Check out the huge velocity spikes but only on every other power stroke. I have no idea what thats about. Also it's interesting that all the input energy is gone within 6 sec - where does it go? The springs can't be helping at all although they are "perfect" springs. Even tho they are perfect they are resisting the motion during undesirable portions of the cycle.

I will keep working on the closing mechanism then I'll try your dual inverted L idea if thats OK with you Harv. That looks great!

OK now I have run the sim 60 sec (2 hrs) and no run down is occurring.

Let it run overnight and the player filled up at 200 sec but no loss.

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun Apr 03, 2011 11:17 am PostPost subject:
cloud camper
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 207

Reply with quote

OK - I've been thinking too hard here so I better write some stuff down before it all disappears. Frank I think we're right in your ballpark after all!

It's all about managing CoG profiles, both horizontal and vertical. What we get with the four pendulum arrangement is a very wide lateral CoG movement. However if we plotted the lateral CoG movement with time, we would see a relatively flat profile in the center of the travel but towards the extremities we would see a rapid acceleration of the CoG movement right up to the last instant where it violently changes direction. Extremely abrupt reversal. This is second or third order type stuff. The weights are moving across very sedately but as the top and bottom weights come together creating an extreme lateral CoG movement, the weights on the other side have literally disappeared as they are now located directly over the fulcrum.

So we have a wide saddle shaped curve with the ends rapidly turned up at the ends for the horizontal CoG profile with respect to time. This creates a very spiky velocity impulse on the flywheel at the very last instant of travel, at the point of maximum torque advantage to the system. So this is like a two cylinder IC engine with the power strokes occurring in a very narrow time period, creating enough flywheel momentum to survive all the friction losses until the next power stroke. Carnot stuff!

This is and must be combined with a vertical CoG curve for the system that is wide and low enough that the newly gained flywheel momentum can climb out of the hole and overcome. So there is apparently a window of operation allowed by these two curves that enter the Bessler Zone. This is Grimer stuff for sure! This is very weird - there are no actual impacts at the first order level but at the second order we are showing impact like curves at the ends of the lateral CoG profile.

I have been tweaking parameters and have now gotten rpm up to around 42-45. This is right in the same territory that the Bessler wheel attained so thats good correlation.

Harv - on your mechanism would you agree that a single bob weight could replace the two L shaped weights on each gear and thus achieve the same function? It is a fantastic mechanism but would you agree that the lateral and vertical CoG profile are basically semicircular if operated as a teeter totter? Would you agree that the lateral CoG profile with respect to time would show a deceleration of the lateral CoG at the left and right extremities? This would then be the exact opposite curve as what I am experiencing. Thoughts?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:05 pm PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


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

Reply with quote


_________________

instaurare omnia in Christo


Last edited by Frank on Tue Apr 05, 2011 12:16 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Sun Apr 03, 2011 3:11 pm PostPost subject:
Frank
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


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

Reply with quote

Sounds good to me. Keep it up.

I think there are many different ways of approaching the problem. Your background in electronics is evidently invaluable in this respect.

As for me, having realised that conservation of all the different derivatives of position with respect to time are simply momentum seen from different hierarchical platforms, I've looked into viewing the problem in terms of momentum only and realised that one can design a gravity escapement mechanism.

On can view it as a momentum valve, a momentum diode if you like (or as my son, Ben, pointed out, a half wave rectifier) and this will enable one to kill the reverse momentum of interaction between the low inertia and high inertia wheel which leave just the one direction of rotation.

It's very simple when you can see it. But then so is the digital computer which is only a collection of switch-able valves, switch-able diodes, switch-able escapements when you get down to the nitty gritty.

I'm preparing a post on this and will repost it here once I've had reactions (if any) from the Bessler forum and my builder.
_________________

instaurare omnia in Christo
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
 
Sun Apr 03, 2011 4:36 pm PostPost subject:
cloud camper
Regular Contributor
Regular Contributor


Joined: 08 Feb 2008
Posts: 207

Reply with quote

OK Harv - I'm all wet Embarassed I was getting thrown off on your concept by the length of the beam. If the beam was shortened to the throw of the weights, we would have nearly the same concept. I believe we would have the same horizontal and vertical CoG curves. My apologies. I believe this mechanism could be far superior to the one I'm using. There does remain the problem of actuation however so it would be a bit tricky to do in full rotation mode. Maybe a pair of slip rings to transmit the left/right signal?

In teeter totter mode you would still have to do a linear actuator or a rope/pulley system. I do like the rope system in that there is no tricky energy in vs energy out measurement complications so I'll stick with it for now even though I hate it!

I really like the dual geared L's as a secondary oscillation mechanism as it is very unaffected by the operation of the main beam and yet it has a great effect on the beam! The concept I'm using has the same feature of course.

I will try your concept in full rotation mode with a single rope running thru the hub to rotate the L's with a spring to return them. The rope will be driven off the rotating beam. Johann said not to be greedy but all those pendulums swinging on large arcs really put a limit on rpm I think.

Here's a pic of the start procedure I'm using. I wonder where the ball goes?

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
Mon Apr 04, 2011 11:27 pm PostPost subject:
Harvey
Major Contributor
Major Contributor


Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Posts: 1927

Reply with quote

GRRRR!!!

I'm not liking the interference we keep getting on this forum Evil or Very Mad

I notice that Frank ended up with a double post - and I have not been getting the email updates that new posts have been made.

Regarding the MT-34 beam length, part of the problem for us is that MT-34 is a 3D action device and we only have 2D simulators at our disposal.

We could provide a 90 rotated frame on the Y axis with two views of the machine to show the aspects of both actions-
1. Lifting the 4 bob weights while dropping one lever arm (C) weight and holding the other C weight.
2. rotating the drum with all 6 weights rigidly locked in place.

But if we want a dynamic transition of the weights in action #2 we are sunk as that requires a 3D modeler. Sad

Rotating MT-34 on the Y axis (vertical) 90 so that we see the circle of the drum we then can evaluate the CoG location with respects to differing diameters. Assuming the swing arms with the bob weights on the end remain constant for each of the diameters (since the swing arm length is dictated by the thickness of the drum) we will see that the CoG remains constant for all possible diameters and that the minimum diameter would be that which matches the twice the swing arm length plus one pivot radius (the pivot being the pulley attached to the end of the swing arms opposite the bob weight).

So there are two arcs. An outer arc for the bob weights falling and an inner arc for the bob weights rising. The bob weight CoG is midpoint between these two sets, the falling and rising sets. But the drum CoG remains balanced at the axle so the only CoG that can drive the drum is the CoG of the bob weight sets which remains constant through all possible diameters. The arc get larger or smaller, but the force remains constant. Key point - W=Fd - so the distance (arc) the bob weights travel is greater as the diameter increases. However the net W done is the difference between the two, because negative work is done by the falling weights (energy supply) and positive work is done to lift the lifting weights (energy expended) so that the difference between the two is the amount of energy that can be put to other use, like turning the balanced drum etc.

Now for a mind-blower - time = energy. The larger the diameter, the longer we are able to apply a small force to overcome the moment of inertia of the wheel. The MOI remains constant for all time frames. But the longer we apply a force, the better our chances of bringing a mass from zero velocity up to 9.8 m/s. We know that if we drop a weight that it will accelerate from zero to 9.8 meters per second the first second it is allowed to fall. But if you attach that same weight to the circumference of a big drum, it will not accelerate to 9.8 m/s because it is fighting the MOI of the drum. So there is a specific ratio between the time the force is applied, to the time that the desired velocity is reached. And that ratio is determined by the circumference of the arc the applied weight must travel. That's how you convert time into energy using gravity - by allowing the small force to be applied to the long lever for a longer period of time we can get a huge balanced mass to turn and store the energy in its angular momentum.

Smile
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
 
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