Bessler's Wheel

[James_]

G'day Mates,
This is one project I have ben pursuing and will get back to. It's potential to work can be calculated as torque an work or conservation or angular momentum.
I will be posting more information on this as time goes by. It is based on the work that Johann Bessler left behind.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Bessler

I do have a basic buoyancy design I will be working on until I can return this. With Bessler, 6 rpm's is claimed an I think possible.

Jim from up top :-)

an animation;

https://goo.gl/photos/aL55pPihbpFy34U96


it's the pictures on the left and right, the picture in the center needs to be deleted.

[crowie]

Okay Jim, You've got my attention...lot of work in any animation.... Cheers, crowie

[James_]

Thanks crowie.
With Bessler's work I think this design helps to show what he knew that has been over looked.
I've found a lot of people do not understand how torque is converted into work. A basic example
is if a 1 kg weight 1 meter from it's fulcrum drops 1 m. This work that torque does can lift another
1 kg weight 1 m.
Since this design allows for 2 opposing weights on levers to move 1/2 m closer to center, the work they
require to move to center is 3/4 of the work they perform. This means that 25% of the work that 2
opposing levers do is net force or extra energy.

@All,
The link is to Bessler's Maschinen Tractate (mechanical drawings),
Portal:MT - BesslerWiki (http://besslerwheel.com/wiki/index.php?title=Portal:MT)

[Lappa]

James,
where do you study/where have you studied physics?
Cheers

[James_]

Lappa,
I've Studied physics on my own. While thermodynamics states that perpetual motion is impossible, conservation of momentum does not. The difference is that this design is not powered by heat. With conservation of momentum, theoretically the Earth would slow it's rotation an amount equal to the momentum transferred to the wheel.
With what I have posted, it is basic work calculations. The secret is in how the weights on the 2 opposing levers are
retracted. It is not shown. This is so I can show some of Bessler's work and how it relates to this design.


Jim

[swk]

James,
as you probably know rotational work can be calculated by multiplying torque by angular displacement.

What do you believe the instantaneous torque is for a weight on the circumference of a circle when that weight is at the 3, 4, 5 and 6 o'clock positions?

Regards
SWK

[James_]

SWK,
I have developed a formula for calculating net torque/force. It's ver balance/mass * distance(1) + mass * distance(2) = net force
An example is 1kg * .125 meter/1kg * 1 meter + 1kg * 1.125 meter = NF
9.8 N-m * .125/2kg * 2.125 meter = NF
1.225/9.8 N-m * 2.125
1.225/20.825 = .0588 N-m and if 9.8 * .0588 = 0.576 m/s velocity

With the question you asked, net torque can be multiplied by the radian for 90 °, 120°, 150° and 180°.
At 90° it is .0588 N-m's. 120° is 0.509 N-m's, 150° is .024 N-m's ad 180° is 0 N-m's of torque.

@All,
The 2 links are something to consider. With the Finsrud device, because it uses magnets it is technically a
SMOT device. With the Atmos clock, it uses thermodynamics to work.


Jim

The Finsrud Device (Norway)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOVz1wDFRDI

The Atmos Clock (Switzerlad)
THE ATMOS CLOCK PAGE (http://atmosadam.com/)


p.s., the reason I calculated net torque at 1/2 of it's actual value is because 2 weights would be accelerating.

[James_]

That comes from AP Part I, Chapter XLIII. (43) (page 81)...

.
.
Zur Zeit mag noch ein jedes rahten/
Durch was für wunderbahre Thaten
Diß schwehre nach dem Centro kehrt/
Und jenes in die Höhe fährt. &c.
.
.

Here's my translation of that:

.
.
for the time being may everyone still guess,
through what kind of wonderful actions
this turns/returns heavily towards the centre,
and that shoots/pops up. &c.

This was posted by a guy named Stewart. I believe he is describing a trick of motion.
With this basic animation, all 4 weights would use the same type of levers. This would
mean that all weights would perform work.
The second image shows that as the weights are pulled towards the axle that their
force increases. If a 1kg weight at 1 meter from the axle and is moving at 1 m/s if it is
"pulled" to be 50 cm's from the axle, it's force becomes 1 kg * 4 m/s. It's torque becomes
twice as much. Conservation of angular momentum is often over looked in physics.


added; when weight pops up, a weight is also popping down. They work together and
cancel out gravity. Why they pop "out" is inertia. If the weights have 1 kg * 4 m/s, then
mv^2/r =force. This means 1 kg * 4 m/s^2/.5 meter = f. That's 32 kgf, weights will pop
outward.

[James_]

@All,
I'll simplify the math some. If the path of the weights is 2 meters in diameter, it will rotate about 3 times a minute.
Wile that is slow, it would be a start. If the wheel were 1 meter in diameter then 6 rpm's would be likely. Also, one
important detail has been omitted. While it is a simple detail, the mechanics that would allow it to matter might be
ignored.
When Bessler said "through what kind of wonderful actions
this turns/returns heavily towards the centre", this might be the weights on the short levers. With his clues,
he is IMHO describing different wheels that he built this means that if the specific wheel that he was referring to was
being discussed hen the would be a better match. When h said "heavily", that could be another way of saying slowly.


Jim

my facebook photo album for m perpetual motion page.

https://www.facebook.com/Perpetual-Motion-531429423701405/photos/

[James_]

@All,
Please remember the drawing isn't quite to scale. The quote is from

Das Triumphirende Perpetuum Mobile Orffyreanum

Johann Bessler, Kassel, 1719, pp. 16

Around the firmly placed horizontal axis is a rotating disc (low or narrow cylinder) which resembles a grindstone. This disc can be called the principle piece of my machine. Accordingly, this wheel consists of an external wheel (or drum) for raising weights which is covered with stretched linen. The base of the cylinder is 12 Rhenish feet in diameter. The height (or thickness) is between 15 and 18 inches. The axle (or shaft) passing through the center is 6 feet long and 8 inches thick cross-sectionally

Das Triumphirende Perpetuum Mobile Orffyreanum - Johann Bessler (http://besslerwheel.com/writings/das_triumphans.html)

Got a blank page mostly when editing.

When the top weight pops up, this I because of inertia, mv^2/r. If gravity is 9.8 m/s then a force of 19.6 m/s is needed to make a top and bottom weight
weightless. At a velocity of 1 m/s, 2 weights having their radius reduced by 1/2, r/2, then they have a force of 5.8 m/s acting on them. This reduces the
amount of work that the 2 dropping levers need to do.
With the drum, if it is 0.5 meter in diameter in diameter, then a wheel rotating 180° will retract a weight on a scissored lever 0.5 meter. The drum does
not rotate.


Jim


with the drum rotating in Bessler's quote, possible he said it to confuse literal people.
with his code, becomes O. It's the opposite if the alphabet has both a top half and a
bottom half.

[James_]

with his code, B becomes O and Bessler becomes Orrfyre which is one reason he called his wheel Orrfyreus.


the link is to drawer slide rollers. they should allow or easy movement weights.
32-096 1-1/8" Drawer Slide Roller, Threaded Axle : SWISCO.com (http://www.swisco.com/Slide-Roller-Threaded-Axle/pd/Other-Drawer_Cabinet-Replacement-Hardware/32-096)

[James_]

@All,
With chair's caster, it could ride n a groove as Bessler shows in his Mt 26. A weight could be on both sides of it but using 2 casters
with a weight in the middle will be easier. The drawing I did is to show how basic the frame will be. I may add circular rim when finished. I will b posting dimensions and weights, etc. as I start building it. I may start n it this weekend.
The "drum" as Bessler called it will be 2 pieces, one on each side of the wheel mounted on the stand. I will explain the math, it's not that complicated.



Jim


edited to add;
@All,
I will start explaining the specific mechanics. I will start with the 2 opposing that are lifted by the 2 opposing levers. I will show them retracting together as the
wheel rotates. Then when I discuss how the levers work together, they will work in a similar way. If you look at the picture I added, it's a spool. The line that wraps
around it 1/2 turn is twice as long as the radius. A 0.5 meter radius allows for a line 0.5 meters by a wheel rotating 180°. And this requires NO WORK, highlighting and
not shouting. This is where free energy would be realized.
A lot of what will be posted might not be something new but the way it is used in a Bessler Wheel is.


Please watch the video; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RVyhd3E9hY

[James_]

@All,
The link is to my facebook page Perpetual Motion's photo albums to show some of what I have worked on.
https://www.facebook.com/Perpetual-Motion-531429423701405/photos/

Because of my medical situation, I no longer have that shop. And with what I have posted so far, it would be
an involved build. I am going to try and entice someone into doing a simpler build. It will be 60 cm's in diameter,
dimensions can be changed if desired, the weights will be 250 grams and drawer slides might work for moving
weights. an example https://www.amazon.com/Apexstone-Drawer-Slides-Extension-Rating/dp/B01LXVQMME/ref=sr_1_13?ie=UTF8&qid=1486050502&sr=8-13&keywords=6+inch+drawer+slides

Bessler's wheel is a hobby among other things and hopefully I can show an ingenious design that someone might think would



look good in wood. I have messaged a rare book library (Bart Jaski | Utrecht University - Academia.edu (http://uu.academia.edu/BartJaski)) in the Netherlands who has an actual
book that Bessler wrote in 1719 (?) Inexhaustible energy | University Library Utrecht (http://bc.library.uu.nl/node/139).


Bart knows that I am pursuing a build of this wheel, Bessler's Apologia Poetica (http://besslerwheel.com/writings/apologia.html)
I think displaying it with Bessler's book would be pretty cool and might remind people that wood workers were the original engineers. That last part I kind of lost to/in history.

[James_]

@All,
The 2 pictures are the same except for the "grind stone". To give something like this the best chance of working, the 2 weights at 6 o'clock and 12 o'clock
(0° TC (top center) and180° BC (bottom center) will need to be retracted as well when the wheel rotates. It will seem complex at first. Please remember, have spent a lot of time working on this. It will be next month when I can start building. That give me this month to show everyone the design, show some of my previous work and talk about Bessler.
With the scissored levers, they will rotate 15°. The short levers will be able to rotate 30°. This will allow the end of the lever to always be 90° to the "grind stone". This is important and once understood, everything else will be easier. This is because everything else will be something that everyone probably has some experience with already.
And I this works out, I've heard that Australians know how to barbecue.

The next few posts will show different ways Bessler had a top and bottom weight move together.



Jim

[James_]

I'll post a quick reminder, I'm not Bessler but I do believe he was successful

With Mt 40;
"No. 40: This is a somewhat different stork' s-bill invention. The weight-levers A pull up figures B –which have the joining point at C- and also pull up the weights D by means of the poles E. The figures correspond in the center at F; thus it becomes light at G and heavy above at the superior weight. Whoever thinks it proper can construct these figures on an axle."
<dl><dd>- Johann Bessler


MT 21-40 - BesslerWiki (http://besslerwheel.com/wiki/index.php?title=MT_21-40#MT_040)


With pulleys, inertia would allow the top weight to "pop up" while the bottom weight drops a little. Scissor allow for weights to b moved and controlled.
</dd></dl>

[James_]

@All,
With Mt 134 it shows 2 lines going from a top weight to a bottom weight. If 2 lines replaced B, then the top weight could be lifted twice
as high as the bottom weigh drops. While today we have slides, in Bessler's time he had scissors. And if he previous pictures where the levers
were scissored, then we can start to consider all of the mechanics involved.
edited to add; what needs to be remembered is that both the top and bottom weights would be retracted the same distance towards center.
This will increase the inertia they have and the pulleys that replace B will transfer force from the bottom weight to the top weight.

Jim
https://goo.gl/photos/6kbPNzgwCBqvNMA77

Scissors would explain how a top and a bottom weight can be retracted using a drum.

[James_]

@All,
If you look at h design in post #10, the math is fairly simple. The short levers need to be in a fixed position 30° to the long lever and 1/2 it's length.
The long lever can rotate 30°. This keeps the retraction line at an angle of 90° to the drum and the axle. This last part is important.
When a 750 gram weight drops 15 cm's (long lever is 30 cm's fulcrum to center of gravity of the weight), with this design, it will use 750 grams * 10.5 cm's of
work to reset the weight. If all 4 weights retract as the wheel rotates, Conservation of Angular Momentum predicts the wheel will accelerate or spin faster until
the weights move outward. This design is the simplest one to test and could work.
I will explain this week how using pulleys will allow for a controlled movement of the 2 weights that create an over balance. That and why Scottish Rules Football
is awesome ! Have trouble getting I in America so I guess it's the Super Bowl for now.
As for building, the frame work shown in reply #10 or what I had built would work fine. Since the frame creates no energy, less is better.
For "spokes" .6 mm thick wood with a top and bottom piece 1.2 mm thick would allow for mounting pulleys or just provide a study frame.
With the 2 weights that create the over balance, they can be moved from the side.


Jim

[James_]

@All,
Hopefully you will understand this. I will give everyone a couple of days to think about it. If all 4 weights are retracted by the "drum", the over balance remains. All that happens is that the weights move closer to the axle/axis of rotation. What is easily over looked is that when the 2 opposing levers drop, they will only need to lift the top weight.
An example of this is if a 750 gram weight drops 15 cm's. When 2 weights drop, that is 1.5 kg * 15 cm's, the work lifting a weight that can be done. This allows for a 750 gram weight to be lifted 22.5 cm's. 1/3 of the work would allow for velocity.
How this changes things is if a 750 gram weight is retracted 15 cm's by using a "drum", then the 2 levers only need to drop 10 cm's and lift the top weight 15 cm's. Since the work to reset an out of balance lever would be 7.5 cm's * 750 grams, then an equal amount of force would come from the over balance. This simplifies the design considerably.
And with a drum, it retracts a weight by resistance. As a line wraps around the drum it pulls the weight closer to the drum with no work being done. I am going to work on a spreadsheet for the fun of it. That way on designs using more mechanics (levers, pulleys, etc.) an idea of how fast it might rotate (be expected to) will be known.
And for lifting the top weight, Bessler did say it "pops up" and lifting it at a ratio of 2:3 would allow to levers to lift it to 75% of the height possible.


James_

p.s., since the levers would drop 10 cm's lifting a weight 15 cm's, a minimum of 750 grams * 5 cm's
of torque would be a minimum amount of force. One lever would be in balance and one would be
out of balance. we only need to consider the out of balance weight/lever for purposes of work that needs
to be accounted for.

[James_]

@All,
With the 2 diagrams, they show rotation from (top center) 10:30 (45° BTC) to 12:00 (0° TC). This movement shows the weight(s) gig from a over balanced position to balanced position.This allows for momentum to be generated (spin of he wheel accelerates).
Because the wheel accelerates, angular momentum can be conserved. This is what happens when the weights move to a balanced position. This will require timing just as a car's engine has ignition timing. By separating movements, it will be easier to understand
how they work together.
The brown piece between the 2 long levers allows them to work together. This means both levers will be lifting the top weight only.
The drum or (black) ring will retract the bottom (lower) weight. After the top weight is lifted, then the "ring" will retract the 2 weight on the levers. And when this is happening, more angular momentum (r/2 = 4v) will be conserved.


Jim

for the time being all weights are 750 grams with an outside radius of 60 cm's.
I will go slowly to give everyone time to consider the motion, mechanics, etc.

[James_]

With these 2 images, it becomes apparent that the timing of the top weight needs to be changed. The 2nd image shows how the levers would be positioned to start lifting the weight moving towards top center. The weight moving towards bottom center will not be lifted by the levers. The drum / ring will lift it. This transition is where people can expect to get confused because weights that work together normally do not work independently at the same time.
This is what allows for angular momentum to be conserved. This is where being able to animate drawings will help to show the proper movements.


Jim


edited to add; what is not shown is the levers dropping in the single image. As the wheel rotates, the lever on the left will drop
10 cm's as well as the one on the right. This will only lift the top weight.

[James_]

It will be slow going making different drawings to animate the motion of the levers. I think once I can do this then everyone will have a better understanding of why I like it.


Jim

[James_]

<cite></cite> This is about some of the "history" that Bessler may have included in his work. The attached image shows a picture of Bessler and one of his drawings.
I will explain how some of is drawings when considered differently ay help to explain or demonstrate his motion.

" Further demonstrations regarding the possibility and impossibility of perpetual motion
NB. May 1, 1733. Due to the arrest, I burned and buried all papers that prove the possibility. However, I have left all demonstrations and experiments, since it would be difficult for anybody to see or learn anything about a perpetual motion from them or to decide whether there was any truth in them because no illustration by itself contains a description of the motion; however, taking various illustrations together and combining them with a discerning mind, it will indeed be possible to look for a movement and, finally to find one in them. "
<cite>- Johann Bessler, cover page of Maschinen Tractate</cite>

Portal:MT - BesslerWiki (http://besslerwheel.com/wiki/index.php?title=Portal:MT)

One story associated with the lyre is that Hermes invented it but it was Orpheus who made it sing.
Lyre - Ancient History Encyclopedia (http://www.ancient.eu/Lyre/)


With Bessler, if he was successful then he invented the perpetual wheel and it would be those who make it now who help make it to sing.



Jim

edited to add; I seem to encounter a buffering problem but can work around it

edited to add; Bessler did say he as asked if he was Orpheus and replied that he was not.
<cite></cite>

[James_]

With Mt 26, it is a good place to start. This is because if a person understands this part of Bessler's wheel then everything else is much easier to understand. This is because the weight wheels >

o. 26: This is somewhat different from the previous model, but it can be described simply: A are levers which are interrupted at B and equipped with weight-wheels at C. The weight-wheels run in a channel E and are attached to the cords D. As the diagram shows, one side is heavier than the other. Behind this problem one looks for an augmented problem." <dl><dd>- Johann Bessler


> move inward by the use of a drum or ring. Then when they move outward it is because of inertia. When tis is realized then the over balance crated by these movements allows for excess energy.


Jim
</dd></dl>

[James_]

The 2 images shows some of what Bessler worked with when building mills. The grindstone if 1 meter in diameter allows for a weight 2.07 meters from the axle to be pulled in to 0.5 meters by the wheel rotating 180 degrees. hi means all weights would be 90 degrees to the edge of the grindstone and the axle, right angle.

added; tis changes things slightly but he Basra wheel might be close example for a basic build. They didnt think of sin a grindstone. The weights are moved inward by the ension on line much like tether ball.

[James_]

The 2 images shows how rotating a design shows how it makes sense. The top weight would be lifted by the 2 opposing levers dropping while the bottom weight is retracted by using a "grindstone". I will show how these 2 weights move by working towards an animation. I am also working on a spreadsheet to calculate net force or torque and estimate rpm's.
As for a perpetual design, this is where it begins. With 2 levers dropping an excess of force will be realized. This is for a basic design to test a theory. And as everyone has seen, it can be made more complex.



Jim

[James_]

I've read what Automata is (Thanks Niel) and technically this isn't it :-)
Still I may need to admit myself into the hospital (self inflicted wound) It seems the media in the U.S. doesn't care if a doctor puts someone together wrong because doctors don't care if they do.
I will be doing some more work on the drawings to show how the bottom weight is retracted and the top weight is lifted. These last 2 things happen independent of each other. That's why there will be extra or free energy.

With the design, the levers will not be scissored. And by using a 1 meter radius, the design can be easily scaled down and 100/2.54 = inches in a meter.

Jim

[James_]

@All,
You guys are not familiar with my work. And the design I will be posting will allow for an easy enough build, then maybe more people will find what Bessler did interesting.
I do believe I will be able to simplify the basic design so if all a person has is a drill and a jig saw, they might be able to build one. I will start showing the design tomorrow. I have been working towards a basic animation and on spreadsheet for myself.
The build design will require one round piece of wood for the wheel. It can be called a disc as well. 2 smaller round discs will be needed as well. They will be mounted on the stand and will not rotate. 2 levers will also be needed, they will rotate with the wheel. The 2 levers will be connected to each other and will work together.



Jim

[James_]

With what I've posted so far, if when the 2 levers lift the top weight is changed then there should only be balanced and over balanced motion. This means that when the top weight is within 30° of bottom center, the op weight would be lifted.

[James_]

The image with different colors shows how to make a wheel wider by stacking arc segments. This will allow for levers and weights to move inside the wheel.
The image of the wheel is an approximation.
The "framesupport" I added is for around the outside of the wheel or between and outside sections.

edited to add;with 1.2 cm thick plywood, 5 pieces stackd = 6 cm or 2 1/2 inches. With the 2 weights that move at an angle, a slot can be used if they roll or drawer
slides if they are pulled. How the levers will be mounted will be shown next.



Jim

[James_]

This link is to a trebuchet. The weight being lifted will follow a similar path. What makes this interesting is that when both levers start to drop, the weight will have mass but will be weightless as far as the wheel itself goes. This is because of the location of the pulley lifting the weight.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hpwwotSDeZA

[James_]

This drawing shows how both levers are connected. The 2 lines will go through the hub. This is where making a hub the same as the frame strengtheners will allow for this. While it is simple it will allow both levers to operate the same hoist. Pulleys will be needed to guide the line to the top of the slide for each weight.
When the levers drop lifting the top weight, the line to the bottom hoist will become slack.

[James_]

I am going to quit working on this until I can afford electricity and a trim router. There is a simple design that uses 1/2 x 1 1/2 x 10 inches to make the rim and 1/2 x 1/2 x? with 1/4 x 1 1/2 x? to make the spokes and levers.
With a trim router it will be easier to fit the pieces together. Even making spacers to keep the rim square would be easier because a 1/4 x 3 x? could be drilled or routed to lighten it.
That'd be similar to what I built but much simpler. It'd probably look better as well.
I am going to see if I can find a cheap router. Hopefully I'll find one.

Jim


edited t add; will try to find a storage unit with light bulb or plug outlet.

[crowie]

I am going to quit working on this until I can afford electricity and a trim router.
I am going to see if I can find a cheap router. Hopefully I'll find one.

Jim

G'Day Jim, A number of my USA & Canadian woodworking mates talk highly of Craigie lists for buying good second hand tools... just a thought... Cheers, crowie

[James_]

@All,
This is as simple as it gets and yes, if you want you can build it. It does violate the Keel Effect however.
What has been over looked is that balance in Mt 2 is achieved when weight A is t axle level and there is no weigh B.
Using the retraction method I posted, on I believe Bessler used works at a right angle to the grindstone and axle. With
what is shown, the weight a B is loaded from a ramp. This means it does not roll to it's location while on the wheel.
If ME is watching this thread, maybe he can make a simulation ?


Jim

I'd like to Thank my brother Paul for
helping me. I'd like to think his help
allowed me to realize this simple concept.

And crowie, Thanks for the encouragement.
This design for however simple it is shows how an overbalance can be maintained.

[James_]

This diagram shows how it can be tested. By having a weight at 3 o'clock rotate the wheel and having the weights being retracted by the grindstone roll inward. How much will it rotate ?

With something like this inertia, conservation of momentum and conservation of angular momentum can be tested. This is because about everything I've been posting is affected by one or more of these principles in physics.
And if things go well then everyone will see it's not as complicated as it sounds.

Jim

[James_]

With Mt 6, it shows a ramp being used to move a weight from the left side of the axle to the outer part of the wheel on the right side. I will go into some explanation in how this allows for an overbalance. I think once explained there might be a lot of face palms and that's okay. It has been 300 years and no one has managed to make sense of Bessler's drawings yet.
An with a demonstration of how momentum and inertia figure into basic design then when using levers to lift weights, that too will be easier to understand.



Jim

[James_]

With the diagram, the math is as follows;

will need to edit to add the math, time limit on p.c.

A bit simple but is what the diagram shows.
A + B < 1
C < 2

At the position shown, about 1.4 N-m's of net torque. This is equal to about 150 grams of force @ 1 meter.

What is not being considered is conservation of angular momentum. Theoretically that will increase the amount of net force.

The ramp is on a decline of 6 degrees. I will show how weight wheels (Mt 26) can work in this design.

I have mentioned before about a health problem I have. I think my colon has ruptured. If so I will need surgery and won't be able to do anything for 3 or 4 weeks.
I'll probably go to the hospital this weekend and ask them to find out.


Jim

[James_]

I changed the amount of movement to be no more than 45° radially. You can see the difference it makes.
Mt 26 shows scissored levers moving wheel weights. With this specific concept, the weights can roll into and the out of the wheels.
The top shows a way that wheels can be rolled outward and inward. It will take a little thinking to understand how the weight wheel works or can work.
With the ramp, if I is actually built then when an empty slot passes it, a weight can be released. Watch the game Mouse Trap.
Still what is being son now is to help understand the other 2 configurations I posted. And if it turns out it can work then that I okay.
This is why I need t be healthy.


Jim

[James_]

The 2 links are to some builds I have done. I think Bessler might have used water because many of his drawings show bellows. With water, there is no opposing weight.
The math is basically the same as far as work goes. This simply means how much work does it take to create an overbalance. This is why conservation of momentum is so
important. In the last post, the 2nd image sows how a + b is relative to weight1. At the same time in Mt 26, if weights are retracted using a grind stone then B is an elbow.
This is where it might be necessary to retract both weights o the 2 opposing levers. This would allow for conservation angular momentum to add force. This is where
1/2 the radius equals 4 times the velocity. Yet everyone would be looking for the force to come from an overbalanced weight and not from how it's momentum is conserved.


Jim


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMHtEVdmJnQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNGw46sG6EA

[James_]

This is a short thread that the forum owner moved into the fraud section.
besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=6966

Tomorrow I will post a 4 levered design that uses pulleys and a grindstone. The prevailing thought will be that overbalance accelerates a wheel from 1:30 to 4:30 (45* ATC, degrees after top center to 135* ATC, *= degrees).
Then retraction (conservation of angular momentum) from 135* ATC (4:30) to 135* BTC (7:30).
With 4 working weights, one will always be over balanced.

Jim

[James_]

I'll have to apologize for using the metric system. After all, I do live in America.
If 4 levers are used and the center of gravity (CoG) is 1 meter from the axle when in the outer position, a weight can be retracted 15cm's. The diagram shows 2 levers ( 9 o'clock and 3 o'clock) dropping 10 cm's each. This allows for the top weight to be lifted 15 cm's.
The sign considers 35 gram as an acceptable weight to use.
If the drawing I rotated 80 degrees then the levers would be in position before dropping.
The drum in this deign dos not rotate with the wheel.


Jim

With what is shown, it shpould start accelerating. If so, no reason it wluldn't work.
Because 3 o'clock is over balanced, 6 & 12 are balanced. This allows for a net force. And if 6 accelerates as it is retracted (conservation of angular momentum) then it's relative mass decreases.
And if all of this is right then Bessler probably didn't realize this part of his work.

[James_]

By fixing all but the bottom in a permanent position this can be tested to see if the wheel accelerates.

Since all the rigging might be a lot of work, testing this would show if the retraction method works or not. All the weights except for the bottom can be fixed
in their position. Then it would be seen if the wheel can accelerate some while retracting the bottom weight. If so then a complete build might be worth the effort.
And with the grind stone, an idea of how it works and can be set up would be known. And for a test the build doesn't have to be pretty. This means the retraction line can be screwed to the grind stone. Then if it retracts the bottom weight while maybe generating some force that would be known and is what this concept is based on.
A simpler test is to test the retraction method by itself. And if a dish scale is used to measure the force to lift the bottom weight then if it lessens relative to how fast the
test wheel is spinning. This would show if conservation of angular momentum works in this configuration. And that would probably be the first thing that needs to be done.
And using 2 pieces of 7 mm thick plywood would work. A wheel can be cut out using a jig saw and then 2 pulleys can be mounted so the weight can be retracted as mentioned.


James

[Kiwi75]

True genius must have a touch of madness...

[James_]

A simple test to see if lifting both weights has any merit is as the 2 drawings show. Math can be used to show it can work and that it can't work. It all depends on how the force of the top weight in the 2nd drawing is calculated.

@Kiwi, hopefully I only have a small touch of madness.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJ2X9SANsME

edited to add; in the 2nd image the top weight is to the left of center. Is it's force calculated by 11.5° and have a force of only 75 grams or does only it's distance from TC (top center) times mass matter ?
If it does then it would show why the grind stone might be needed. The over balance to the right is 7.5 cm's and the top weight has a basic force that is further from the center line of the axle going either up or down. And this is where having levers on the opposite side of the axle from it's weight should decrease the force it takes to rotate the top weight. This is because the fulcrum would be rotating which would shorten the distance the weight travels while being capable of doing the same amount of work.


Jim

[James_]

To do a little math for the previous post;
if the top weight is 75 grams * 10 cm's and the weight at 9 o'clock is 375 grams at 42.5 cm's.
375 grams has 3.67749375 newtons of force.
The top weight has 0.735 newtons of force
The 9 o'clock weight has 3.12 newton's of force.
This is about 3.85 newton's of force. The descending side has 3.675 newtons of force.
This let's us know the grind stone needs to be used to retract the weight at 6 o'clock. And this is why
that specific item needs to be tested. If it can retract a weight using less energy than it takes to lift a
weight then an important observation will have been realized.
With the grind stone, the path of the weight being lifted is shorter. This alone will decrease the
amount of work necessary to lift a weight. And if angular momentum is conserved as well then that
would also decrease the amount of work necessary to lift a weight.


James

[James_]

(.425 * .75) * 9.8 = 3.12 N-m's

(.50 * .75) * 9.8 = 3.675 N-m's

That's the correct math for 2 levers lifting 2 weights. What would need to be found out is how much downward force a weight has when it is 10 cm's from top center.
Trigonometry states the weight 10 cm's befote TC (top center) only has 20% of it's mass as force.
If that is correct and 20% is significantly
less than 0.5 N-m's of torque then it might work.

Jim

p.s., a build like this can have the grind stone added after this build is finished. So if it doesn't work that's okay because I do believe all of the weights might have been retracted using a grind stone. This is because it would allow for more Conservation of Angular Momentum.

[James_]

The attached drawing shows how a roller can retract a weight. At the same time a dowel can connect the roller to the grind stone. If you look at Mt 26 it shows a cord holding the weight wheel in place. The way I configured (rigged as in rigging would be the proper way to say it) the lines, they will sag a little but will keep the roller in it’s position.
And this is where the dowel being attached to a dowel that is centered will pull the roller assembly in that direction so it will retract. And with a first attempt only the 2 weights not on moving levers will be retracted starting at 6 o’clock (BC, Bottom Center).
An Ant Burr once told me to salvage my builds to save on the cost of building. That’s why I now try to design my builds so they can be modified and become a progressive build. This means there are a lot of mechanics that can be added to a wheel but to start with everything will be kept to a minimum.


Jim

p.s., am hoping I'll be in the hospital today. If so then I'll be
offline for a short while. And this will give everyone a chance
to review what I've posted.

By the way, with this design there is a grind stone on each side of the stand.

[James_]

A couple of links to some of Bessler's writings and other information about his work.

I believe he is describing his 60 rpm wheel and that it is a poem to apologize for his destroying it.
Bessler's Apologia Poetica (http://besslerwheel.com/writings/apologia.html)

Johann Bessler - Orffyreus (http://besslerwheel.com/)

[James_]

The link is to a page on besslerwheel dot com. Johann Bessler - Orffyreus - The First Law (http://besslerwheel.com/firstlaw.html)

The reason given, The first law is often formulated by stating that the change in the internal energy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_energy) of a closed system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermodynamic_system#Closed_system) is equal to the amount of heat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat) supplied to the system, minus the amount of work (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Work_(thermodynamics)) done by the system on its surroundings. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perpetual_motion_machines) of the first kind are impossible.

And what Conservation of Momentum says about it; Linear momentum is also a conserved quantity, meaning that if a closed system (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_system) is not affected by external forces, its total linear momentum cannot change.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Momentum#Conservation

An this means hat if the Earth transfers momentum to a perpetual wheel that he total momentum of that closed system (the Earth and the perpetual machine) remain the same.


With my medical situation, I have an appt. with a surgeon on April 11th. They are going to try to move my appointment to an earlier date. So tomorrow I'll go back to discussing the simplest way a basic wheel might be built.

[James_]

I'm only showing the bottom of the wheel's rim because of the text I added at the top. It's this catch and release mechanism that might allow this concept to work. The trebuchet has a weight lifted in a similar fashion which is one reason why I like it. Also since the weight does not bind while being retracted, that would be momentum that is conserved or saved.
I will detail the catch and release mechanism more. I will give everyone a couple of days to consider how the dowel moves from the grind stone to a ring attached to the wheel. This shown as being completely circular but I will remove the excess part of the ring. This will allow everyone to see which part of the ring matters.
A piston type kicker will be needed to move the dowel from the grind stone to the inner ring. Why this is important is because as soon as that happens the 2 levers will drop lifting the top weight to the over balanced position.

Jim

edited to add; the grind stone will be attached to the stand which is not shown.

[James_]

I'm showing how the dowel can be "locked' in place and then released. A simple toggle on both sides of the wheel can kick the dowel onto the ring attached to the wheel. This means that the ring only needs to be long enough so that when the dowel sits on it's stop it has to stay there.
There will be 2 dowels, one for each weight being lifted. The unique aspect about this is that each retraction line can go 180° around the wheel and connect to the other line. This will help both lines to stay in a groove that goes around the outside of the grind stone.
I think when people understand how this part works everything else will "fall" into place.


Jim

edited to add; the toggle might need to be on the ring that rotates with the wheel. If it rotates 45° downward then a dowel on the ring would be able to push it down and out of the way.
This is because a 2.5 cm long toggle would stick out about 1.75 cm and that would allow for clearance.

[James_]

The drawing shows how if a weight is retracted at an angle there is resistance. This is one reason why retraction is at 90°. This should allow the shorter path taken to allow for extra energy. This would also allow for conservation of angular momentum.
The link is to a time line of what Bessler did. There is also a link to his first official inspection. With what I have designed, it is about 1/2 the diameter of what Bessler is said to have built.
As far as design work goes, there isn't much more to add until I can start building again. And this means that about the only thing left to discuss is how science would allow for it to work. With a basic demonstration, having 3 weights in a fixed position and having one weight retract would give a good idea whether or not this could work. It would require a grind stone on each side of a wheel/disc. And with the retractable weight, the opposing side of the wheel could have weight added to keep the wheel balanced.


Jim


Johann Bessler - Orffyreus - Timeline of Events (http://besslerwheel.com/timeline.html)

[James_]

This is a basic test anyone can do. The reason for 3 pulleys is to balance the test levers/wheel.
If someone tries it without retracting the wait you will find out that there will be a rotation of about 90°.
With the retraction, if the 2 levers rotating stop themselves because the retraction dowel is not released
then extra energy is being realized. It is possible to add a release for the dowel that catches on the grind
stone so that it sits in the lever that moves to the 6 o'clock position. This would prevent inertia from moving the
retracted weight outward again.
And with this, anything on the lever moving from 6 o'clock to 9 o'clock will need to be on the lever moving from
3 o'clock to 6 o'clock.

Jim

with the pulleys on the levers, they should both be in the same position. The support for the pulley between the
2 levers does not need to be counter balanced for this test/demonstration.

[James_]

With the basic lever test in the previous post, it would show the design in the attached image or a wheel would have the potential to work.
If anyone tries the basic retraction, first if they have one weight at 3 o'clock and one at 6 o'clock, there will be close
to a 90° degree rotation so the 2 weights would be at 6 o'clock and 9 o'clock. This is why a 1 kg weight at 1 meter has
9.8 N-m's of torque, this is because it could lift another 1 kg weight 1 meter.
And if the retraction is tested and extra force is found then a basic over balanced or perpetual motion device might be
possible. With the retraction, if the weight was not retracted 90° to the axle then it would bind. An example of this is if
the pulley lifting/retracting it was off to one side or another then the weight would also be pulled into the arm it's on.
I'll give everyone some time to think about this.


Jim

added; there would be a ramp going from 9 o'clock to 3 o'clock. This is because if there is extra energy to be had then there would need to be a
couple of weights between 9 and 3 to allow for the time it takes for a weight to roll from one side to the other. And it would show that only 4 arms
with only 2 weights at a time would be on them.

The 4 armed diagram is an example. If there is extra energy then the wheel could rotate enough so that the weight at 9 o'clock will roll onto the ramp while the weight at 3 o'clock could roll into the arm it's next to. This shows why extra energy in the basic test would be important if it's there to be had.

edited to add; With what I’ve discussed, 25% of the force generated by the falling weight might be extra energy. If so then lifting one weight higher than another weight falls not only would be possible but would also let such a wheel rotate quickly. This is because the over balanced weight goes from all the way out to half way in and the average is ¾. And the test that is mentioned would show if that much energy can be conserved as either angular momentum or just as momentum of the rotating wheel.

[James_]

With the attached image, it is a design template. When I show how various parts can be used so the basic OU design can be built, the template will allow me to show 3 views. They will be the front, side and top views. With the basic design a shuttle cock will be able to be used. This is what can move a weight closer to center and when empty it can move outward so that in an over balanced position a weight can be moved into it.
I will be showing how a "kicker" can move a round weight either onto or off of the ramp. It will be a basic design because with something like this it might be best to not try and over complicate it. The 2nd image is a simple rocker that when a part of the wheel pushes it down it will rotate into a weight. A counter balance might be needed so it will rock back into position after it moves a weight. With something like this just a little extra weight should work.


Jim

The 3rd drawing shows an arm that would act as a counter balance. A stop can be added to control / limit it's range of motion.

[James_]

The diagram shows 2 sockets for the weights to be in. This will require some tinkering when a prototype or wheel is built. They can use drawer slides with one on top and one on bottom. with something like this as the weight on the right rolls in, it can help to pop the other weight out. This is because the weight rolling in will need to sit in the socket, a hole is one example. Then if it depresses a button another button can push upward. And this means there would be 2 set ups as the wheel would repeat that after rotating 180°. The 2 sockets would need to be connected so that as the one moving from 6 o'clock to 9 o'clock it will be moving the opposing weight socket outward. With a couple of pulleys it's something basic.
I think this is about as simple or basic as a perpetual wheel design can get with the intent of it working. I would see about doing an animation but will wait until I can build it. And if in the meantime if someone wants to try it they can.


James_

[James_]

The attached drawing shows how force is lost when retracting a weight. Because the fulcrum is behind the lever as the weight rolls upward / inward it is also being pulled from behind. This would mean that no energy or work is saved by retracting the weight. This is where (hopefully) energy is conserved by retracting the weight using tension. When a weight is pulled inward / upward using resistance then no work is being performed. This is because the fulcrum does not move while the line is at right angles to the weight.
This means from the center of the axle to the point on the grindstone it has stopped on creates a right angle. The 2nd image shows all right angles. The line that goes from right to left does not have to be at a right angle because the line going down to the weight is parallel to the line stopped on the grindstone. And if it takes anyone a day or 2 or more of considering this, don't feel bad, I've taken several years to learn this.
Between liking Bessler's work (will add one of Bessler's drawings with a few comments) and wanting to show one woman a build she helped inspire it does allow for an interesting hobby as well as a unique way of learning wood working even though I am still a novice.


Jim

With Mt 20 the work created by a falling lever only needs to rotate a weight a little past top center for gravity to cause it to fall to an overbalanced positioned. This means that Mt 20 might have the potential to work as drawn. This is where understanding what roles torque and work play in a design like this is important. And if it's okay with everyone I'll explain the math behind this. And with torque,
1 pound inch = 0.112 984 829 33 newton meter

In situations like this I find inch-pound (in.lbs.) to be a simpler reference but will use both metric and SAE (American) values. And with Mt 20, it might be a good design as it should help everyone to understand the more complicated build that I've been discussing. And most importantly how momentum is conserved.

With in.lbs., 1 lb. = 0.453592 so an in.lb. is 453.6 grams at 2.54 cm's.

[James_]

The link is to a video that I made. The build was using 2 opposing weights. it was to test and consider how momentum can be saved. I used something similar to the grindstone to pull the overbalanced weight closer to center. And as everyone will notice, it's rotation went from 3 o'clock to close to 9 o'clock. With what I have shown the momentum would be conserved going from 6 o'clock to 9 o'clock.
When one weight is overbalanced it accelerates itself and the opposing weight. The increase in force / velocity in the opposing weight is conservation of momentum. And when the over balanced weight is retracted some then both weights can spin in a balanced position. That uses less energy for them to rotate. And the cam at top is similar to the grindstone Bessler mentioned.
With Mt 20, a different thread might be best since that would be explaining how torque and work are calculated. And if it's levers were moved then how would that help. That's some of what have done and with this, if it is found to work then the only way to make something go faster or capable of doing more work would be in understanding some of the math behind it.


Jim

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLR0N542BCk

p.s., with my medical situation i have let some doctors know that if I hear nothing by the end of the month then I'll need to motivate doctors myself ;-)

[James_]

This is another video that shows a somewhat complete design. Although in this build I did not give Conservation of Angular Momentum much thought. It is a learning process. What I did learn was that using imitation sinew worked better than anything else for retraction lines. I probably spent too much time working with either wire or other types of lines. Imitation sinew is as flexible as it can be while having no stretching to it. And nylon fishing line which is difficult to see is about the only other thing that I know of that works as well.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNGw46sG6EA

edited to add; I did tell one person that once I figured out what Bessler knew (IMO) then as some of my other postings show I could work on improving my wood working. Kind of why I'll probably always say that I am a novice. There is a lot to learn and that does go into wood working. http://d1r5wj36adg1sk.cloudfront.net/images/icons/icon11.png

[James_]

This will be a slow walk through on how I calculate torque and work. What needs to be remembered with Bessler is that 2 opposing levers work together. And with Mt 20 both levers need to drop as a minimum 1/2 of the lift (rotation) of the weight on the right.
With this the opposing levers will be able to be shifted to decrease the amount of work needed to rotate them (the wheel) so they can perform work (drop) again.


Jim

[James_]

Hopefully things will go a little better now http://d1r5wj36adg1sk.cloudfront.net/images/icons/icon7.png

With the 45 degree angle shown (1:30) changes the amount of over balance. If the weight "flips" at 3 o'clock then
12:00 o'clock to 3 o'clock is balanced by 3 o'clock to 6 o'clock. This means it is the same as 6 o'clock to 12:00 o'clock.
With over balance happening from 1:30 to 4:30 then that will allow for 90 degrees of rotation of over balance.
With what I am showing about Mt 20 is how I calculate force and work. The 2nd drawing is what might work. By doing
things this way it might be easier for everybody to understand. Then if someone wants to try the 2nd drawing they can.
I do have a design I want to try which is more advanced. And like what is shown some usage of either Conservation of
Angular Momentum or just requiring less work to reset the levers lifting a weight or possibly even both weights. I am
kind of hopeful that once what i'm explaining is understood that there might be some questions on people's minds.
Back to Mt 20. If the weight's fulcrum is 1 meter from the center of the axle and the weight being rotated is 15 cm's
from the fulcrum it would need to be lifted between 25 & 26 cm's. Why I say lifted is because of the weight moving upwards.
This means the weight on each opposing lever would need to drop 15 cm's. And this is where we can consider if enough
over balance exists to reset both opposing levers.
What does become apparent is that "lifting" a weight 25 cm's to achieve 15 cm's of overbalance is wasting work. And this
is why shifting a weight is more efficient. what will be realized is that weight's will need to move closer to the axle. This is
because it's path becomes shorter as it rotates around the wheel. And this can reduce the work needed to move any weight
on a wheel.



Jim

[James_]

This might show things better. Both levers would drop lifting or rotating the top weight. If the center of mass for the top weight
moves 15 cm's away from the axle then the weights on the 2 levers need to drop at least 7.5 cm's each to perform equal work. With
this there is a way (hypothetically at this point) that will allow the wheel to rotate with the levers needing less energy to rotate with
the wheel.


Jim

p.s., I'll start showing the math. I'm not sure how familiar everyone is with torque and work and this is a little different
so will not be trying to offend anyone.


edited to add; the over balance as shown is 7.5 cm's (3 inches) and 500 grams (20 oz.'s ?). If the work done is calculated then the weight on the long lever by the hub is
500 g's * (Pi15 cm's = D) = W no. 1

The over balanced weight is calculated as
500 g's * (Pi * [1 meter *7.5 cm's] = D) = W no. 2

Divide no.1 / no. 2 = ratio of work performed

what that will show is that the over balance doing the work does much more work than what is necessary to reset the 2 long levers. Could / should work as posted.

[James_]

I did some math and I realized one issue that I've had with the metric system and that is calculating work. What I did was to calculate work in N-m's of work.
Everyone knows W = M * D (work = mass x distance) so what I did was to multiply N-m's of force by distance. And with what I showed in Mt 20 it does show a net force.
While Bessler showed his weights rotating and hitting stops, they might have. Witnesses said that they heard 8 knocking sounds per revolution. An easy way to account for this is to have the weights rotate at about (45° ATC). And with 8 weights, one would be placed every 45°.
With the math, hopefully someone will go over this;

This is what I keep coming back to;
(5.635 N-mf - 4.9 N-mf) * (1.15m * Pi) = 2.65 overbalanced weight's net work
4.9 N-mf * (0.15m * Pi) = 2.31 out of balance weight on a long ever

The 2 figures are N-m's of work, this is why Pi is a part of the calculation. And 0.34 N-mf does show potential but offers no guarantee.
What this does take into consideration is the much longer path the overbalanced weight takes.

4.9 N-mf is a 1/2 Kg weight. What I'm having trouble considering is that a weight rotating 15 cm's from the axle (on the long levers) has the same force as a weight
that is 15 cm's further from the axle than it's opposing weight (overbalanced weight) yet will travel 1.57 meters more. That could be why I find Mt 20 intriguing. It's not exactly what someone
would consider thinking rationally.


Jim

[James_]

The 2 drawings are simple tests that can be done to see if the lever / weight configurations can rotate 180°.
The placement of the weights are as follows'

Example 1:
weight at 12:00 is centered 50 cm's from the center of the axle.
The weight at 6 o'clock is centered 42.5 cm's from the center of the axle.
The weight on the long lever's fulcrum at 8 o'clock is 10 cm's to the left of the axle and down 10 cm's.
If the lever (used as an example and is not needed for this test) is parallel to the floor, then the dimensions mentioned above
are to go from that plane.
The long lever on the right has it's weight 10 cm's to the right of the axle.

If a disc can rotate 180° then it's weights are in position to both drop again.

Example 2 shows the levers at a right angle to gravity and are centered on the axle. One weight will be 10 cm's below the plane of it's fulcrum.

Both tests can use the same disc. For Americans, 50 cm's = 20 inches and 12 oz. weights will work.
And with the metric weights, 325 g's for all 4 weights.
And with such a test, if neither configuration works then a grindstone is necessary.



Jim

[James_]

With Mt 20 it probably would not work if more weights and levers were used than what is in this drawing. This is because all weights
would be counterbalanced. Since the 2 opposing long levers are 90° to the over and under balanced weights there is no counterbalancing
going on. Instead torque should rotate the wheel. This could possibly be the simplest design that might work. And as I mentioned in my
last post, if the weights are positioned on a piece of plywood as shown on the wheel, can it rotate 180° ? If it does then this design might
work.
With the other diagram, if anyone is interested in that then I can discuss it. It's the same as this one but the levers are centered at a right angle to the axle.



Jim

p.s., sometimes I will repeat information because this is new to most people.

[James_]

@All,
Even though I don't really have a place to work I'll see if I can't build a test "wheel". It would be to see if 180° of rotation is possible. It would be
a + on a stand. I'll go over things this weekend and before I do anything else I will post some specific numbers and from one side to the other it
would be about 50 cm's across. And as far as this goes I will need to order 4 weights that will be about 340 grams / 12 ounces.
As for my doing a build, I'll probably need my medical situation resolved.

Jim

While it is April 1st in the U.S. and is April Fools Day I will need to skip the month of April.
Just not sure if the surgeon I'll be seeing is going to do anything and can't rent a shop (storage unit)
to work in until next month.
Usually I'd say this is a lot of work but I think I've learned enough to where it's not a lot of work
anymore.

[crowie]

All the best for a good result and a speedie recovery Jim....the shed eagerly awaits your return...Cheers, crowie

[ian]

I did some math and I realized one issue that I've had with the metric system and that is calculating work. What I did was to calculate work in N-m's of work.
Everyone knows W = M * D (work = mass x distance) so what I did was to multiply N-m's of force by distance. Force is just newtons (N). If you multiply Newton-metres by meters you end up with Newton-meters^2. By definition, a N-m is a Joule (J), so the unit you are describing is a Joule-metre (Jm). I may be wrong, but I don't think a Joule-metre is a meaningful measure of anything.

And with what I showed in Mt 20 it does show a net force.
While Bessler showed his weights rotating and hitting stops, they might have. Witnesses said that they heard 8 knocking sounds per revolution. An easy way to account for this is to have the weights rotate at about (45° ATC). And with 8 weights, one would be placed every 45°.
With the math, hopefully someone will go over this;

This is what I keep coming back to;
(5.635 N-mf - 4.9 N-mf) * (1.15m * Pi) = 2.65 overbalanced weight's net work
4.9 N-mf * (0.15m * Pi) = 2.31 out of balance weight on a long ever

The 2 figures are N-m's of work, this is why Pi is a part of the calculation. And 0.34 N-mf does show potential but offers no guarantee.
What this does take into consideration is the much longer path the overbalanced weight takes.

4.9 N-mf is a 1/2 Kg weight. What I'm having trouble considering is that a weight rotating 15 cm's from the axle (on the long levers) has the same force as a weight that is 15 cm's further from the axle than it's opposing weight (overbalanced weight) yet will travel 1.57 meters more. That could be why I find Mt 20 intriguing. It's not exactly what someone would consider thinking rationally.


Jimsee blue text

[James_]

Ian,
I've often found in.lbs. or ft.lbs. of work or torque for reference works quite well. And at the same time I think 96% of the people in the world use the metric system. And for what I am hoping to explain someone might know how a person using the metric system would quantify 375 grams dropping 10 cm's as a value related to work being performed. With in.lbs. It would be about 13 oz.'s * 4 in. = 3.25 in.lbs. And this means that 3.25 lbs. can be lifted or dropped 1 in. or 1 lb. can be lifted or dropped 3.25 in.
And for everything else I prefer the metric system because it works great with trigonometry and allows for easy scaling and 9.8 m/s I prefer to 33 feet/s.


Jim

[James_]

I'll go over the math behind balanced and out of balance. With Bessler, in his drawings he shows an out of balance lever.
This is when a lever is not 90° to the axle. Why this matters is that when a lever is at a different angle then it is out of balance.
The 3rd image shows this. When 2 opposing weights are perpendicular to gravity, 1 weight is at 6 o'clock. Those 3 weights are
considered in balance.
The weight that is out of balance is to the left of 12 o'clock. It is this imbalance that needs to be accounted for. And there are 2
basic options to account for this without using a grind stone. When both levers drop they lift the weights that shift the balance of
the wheel. The work performed to create an overbalance will always equal the imbalance created by a lever not being 90° to the
axle. This is at 100% efficiency.
I'll give everybody a couple of days to consider this. I'll give a hint as to the answer; I'll show 180° of rotation which means
12 o'clock becomes 6 o'clock and 6 o'clock becomes 12 o'clock and this will be for the 2 weights being lifted.


Jim

for this the levered weight to the left of 12 o'clock would counter balance the over balanced weight at 3 o'clock, they would move
the same distance. This means if the levered weights drop 10 cm's then the weight at 3 o'clock would be 10 cm's further from
the axle than the weight at 9 o'clock. In the U.S., 10 cm's = 4 in.

[James_]

These 3 images show what I am going to start on after the 1st. That's when I'll be able to have a place to work. It is kind of a simple build because it uses basic leverage/levers with pulleys. The weights that shift for the over balance travel further than weights near the axle. This means less force is needed to do more work.


Jim

p.s., 3 times the radius means if the shift is multiplied by 3, then is it more than what the interior weights shift ? If so then a usable over balance should be realized.

[James_]

@All,
It's actually a pretty neat trick in leveraging. The fulcrum moves more than the weight does. And this is where mass times distance = work.
If the fulcrum moves 3 times more than the weight then it needs 1/3 the force.



Jim

[James_]

Some people might be shocked to realize this has been over looked. The image on the left is what Bessler shows in his Mt 20 while the image on the right is an obvious 3:1 ratio which is acceptable balance because of mass and leverage. While they are the same thing no one has considered a weight being lifted from the rim of a wheel and could only consider the axis as a fulcrum for leveraging.
And at the same time 2 weights on long levers can lift more than 1/3 their own mass. This is how the over balance/net force is realized.


Jim

edited to add; if the weight on the left is on the long lever then it can lift more than 1/3 it's own weight. The weight on the right represents net force or over balance for comparison.
As I have shown in a previous post the weights on the long levers can be pretty much in line with the 2 weights that shift to create an over balance. It does take time to consider
something that is not in the usual way or fashion of having been done.

edited to add; the last 2 images show 2 - 500 gram weights dropping 10 cm's lifting 2 - 250 gram weights 10 cm's.
obviously 500 grams is twice as much as 250 grams. What everyone is missing is that a net force of 250 grams * 10 cm's * 3 is more than 500 grams * 10 cm's * 1.
If everyone notices that the fulcrum for the long levers is the same distance from the axle as the center of mass for the "under balanced" weight.

edited to add; will start on actual build after the 1st. Will take it easy until then.

[James_]

This is a simple leverage test anyone can try. They will find that the force the weight exerts on the end of the cross beam is 1/3 that of the weight. This is why I placed the fulcrum for the long levers at the outside of the wheel which is what Bessler shows in his Mt 20. And with the 2 weights shifting to create the over balance being as far from center as the long levers fulcrums, would need to get into physics to explain why this is necessary. And at the end of the day it will probably take demonstrating this for people to accept it.
I think the simplest way that I can explain it is that the heavier weights are rotated/lifted from the rim and not from the axle.

Jim

[James_]

This is something I'll start working on after the 1st of the month. It will be the easiest way to test conservation of angular momentum. This would be when a line starts wrapping around the grind stone. This is because as the path the swinging weight is taken has a radius that keeps becoming smaller.
The link is to a web page that allows for some basic calculations to be performed. And once the bob reaches 6 o'clock (BC or Bottom Center) the grind stone will slowly retract the bob. This should allow the bob to swing higher because conservation of angular momentum dictates that the velocity of the bob will increase.
The weight will be between 2 solid beams with tracks the weight can ride on.
This way once the weight reaches a height greater than what it started out at in then can be released so it can move outward. And if successful then this might help to explain why Bessler referenced grind stones in his wheels.
What would need to be looked for in this is the angle the bob started swinging down from is eclipsed on the ascending side. And with this, 2 weights might be needed. With 2 weights then conservation of momentum and angular momentum might be realized. I think this might be the most basic way that can be tested.

Pendulum (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pend.html)

@All, with a pendulum I should be able to see what works before committing to a full build. This will allow me to test 2 different methods to conserve momentum.


Jim

[Lappa]

Two problems I've noticed:
1) massless Rod - everything has mass
2) frictionless pivot

cheers

[James_]

Lappa,
I've reconfigured the mechanics. I've posted it in BesslerWheel.com :: View topic - Theoretical Perpetual Pendulum [ Guest ] (http://besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7135)
You are right about 1. This is where both bob supports would need to be identical.
And this is where my medical situation is causing me a lot of frustration, I miss having my shop to work in.


Jim

[James_]

@All,
This is the mechanics I'll use for the build. I will need to see about an ileostomy first though. With this I'll take a cue from Gus and use some brass tubes. Besides adding a nice touch to the design they'll allow for a simple catch and release mechanism that can move with the pendulum.
With the pulley on the arm to the left, when the arm rotates downward the pulley will keep the catch and release mechanism positioned in a straight line with the weight. This will allow the line above/to the right of the pulley to be aligned always with fulcrum B. Without the pulley then as the arm n the left swings upward fulcrum B would be pulling back on it's retraction line and this would be pulling the weight in the opposite direction the arm is rotating instead of moving with it.


Jim

[James_]

@All,
This is as simple as it gets. With the grindstone it is aligned so that when the arm is in the down position the retraction line will drop straight down.
And when the arm rotates 90° to go 6 o'clock to 9 o'clock the retraction line is on top of the weight wheel. With the grindstone it does need it's bottom and right side to align with the top of the weight wheel.
With this, a 10 cm radius on the grindstone allows for a 5 cm retraction. And with the levers, if the weight wheel moves from 50 cm's to 45 cm's away from the center of the axle, that should be enough for it to work. And the grindstone can be changed to increase the amount of retraction. This would mean the space the weight wheel moves in would need to be adjusted as well.
With the "V" it is a chamfer that allows for 2 lines to slip off of the grindstone allowing the weight wheel to roll outward. If guides are placed between the grindstone and the weight wheel then when the arm swings down the lines will also fall back into place. And using 2 6 mm x 3.75 mm x 50 or 60 cm boards would allow for the 2 arms to have their basic shape. Then sections can be added to maintain separation. I'll explain this over the next few days.
If anyone else wants to try this they can. I'll be able to order the weights (may need to buy lead online to melt) so will not be able to do any building for about 3 weeks. And this would be a basic demonstration of the principle that Bessler used IMO.
And if the grindstone stops the upward swinging then the movement in the opposite direction will not reach 90° or 3 o'clock. And this is where it will need to be seen how much retraction is necessary.


Jim

[James_]

@All,
Mt 51 seems to work well with this. As you can see in the pictures the swinging pendulum rotates the wheel around it. As for the grindstone, it can be counter weighted as well as geared so it will try to lift itself. And since a weight can't lift itself the grindstone would stay in place.
And just for fun Mt 85. Could a set of tongs pump enough water to power a water wheel ?
I'll be trying to find out what I need to do to make the weights I need. The rest of what I need to do to test this is not that difficult to do.


Jim

[James_]

@All,
I'll need to build this one first because it is much simpler.

edited to add; if this design doesn't work then I can change it
into the double pendulum design and at least I'll know it doesn't work.

I did learn a new word and it is antinomy. With this, it will work because of the work the over balanced weight performs
and it will not work because the leverage across the axle is the same while the ratio of movement isn't.

Jim

[James_]

@All,
Once the 2 levers drop lifting the top weight the principle behind the pendulum will raise the bottom weight. To avoid confusion, the black circle is considered where force is calculated from. One reason why is the long levers have their fulcrums there and another is it shows where Conservation of Angular Momentum comes into play. This last part is when the bottom weight moves closer towards the middle of the wheel.
With the top weight, the work needed to lift it is mass * 9.8 m/s - mv^2/r. This is where demonstrating that the double pendulum concept works would show how this works as well.
And between now and the middle of the month I'll be working on the design for the double pendulum. I may need to find out if someone in North America would be willing to make a couple of pieces because the side of the radius I need will need to be 90° and if I try to work this by hand then then I won't get it right. If you look at a round piece of wood, the side needs to be 90°. I will be able to pay for them as well as shipping.

Jim

[James_]

With the math, if a 90° arc segment is 8.6 inches or 21.8 cm's if it's radius is 5.5 14 cm's inches then a retraction of 3.1 inches/ 7.9 cm's is possible. This is because of 90° of rotation.
This also means that if a line hangs down from the top of the brown section it will hang 3.1 or 7.9 cm's inches below the radius block.
I'll be posting the build design so if the math proves out then everyone will know how to make one if they want. And since this is in pursuit of getting what might actually have been a Bessler wheel anyone can build this.

I've ordered this block. It will be a bit of a challenge to make 2 wheel weights but will try a simple design.
http://www.vendio.com/stores/Maple-Oatmeal-Wooden-Blocks/item?lid=27010015

[James_]

@All,
Most likely a line will need to be tied off/anchored above the 90° arc (from 3 o'clock to 6 o'clock). This will allow it to slip off off of the arc segment more easily. I'll be using a 5.5 inch radius and a 20 inch length with 12 ounce weights. This translates to about 14 cm's, 50 cm's and 340 grams (350 will be close enough).
The distance/length is center of mass to center of axis. The weight will hang from the board on top of it when it is at the 9 o'clock position. Having 2 different lines wrapping around it will allow for this. The retraction lines will be 2 different lines. The supporting lines will sag. This can give a slight downhill slope for the weight to roll away from the axis of rotation or away from the axle.
A v-block will help the lines move outward (to the sides of the retraction arc segment) so they can slip loose. This can be attached to the arc segment or the stand itself. And this is about the simplest possible concept. Since I am in need of surgery am not sure about how things will go on my end. Because one doctor didn't do anything this means it's not another doctor's problem. How in America a doctor avoids a malpractice suit. Had damage from radiation therapy and my then surgeon told me he didn't cause that is why he did nothing.
Back to Bessler's wheel, with the weight wheels, what might be easiest is to drill a hole through wood that is 6.25 cm's thick. Then if a hole 2.5 cm's in diameter is drilled through it it will hold 350 grams of lead. With this it might be easier to have the wood round before pouring molten lead in it. This is easy enough to do if a wood block that has 2 halves has a hole through it so it can be clamped around the round wood to have lead poured in it.
It will be strange to have the leg/weight on the right just to be dead weight but this is because as the leg on the left swings upwards it's resistance will decrease because it's weight will be reeled in.


Jim

30.6 cm^3 = 350 grams

[James_]

The image shows about how I'll keep the wheel weight in it's proper position. The blue line will control the way the weight moves towards and away from center while the red line is what retracts and releases it. The link is to a short video which shows a part of the shop I had. It was about 2 1/2 meters by 4 meters. For what I'll be doing it will be on a very limited basis. The alternative is to not be working at it.
And with what I was building in the video, it did help me to realize that the secret was in how the weights were moved and I'll get back to that build one day. I have a design I call the A.C. Bessler and this is working towards that goal.


Jim

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aCfloSpyMU

[James_]

This is a bit better and simpler design. Appearance will matter, will want to have a good go of it.


Jim

[James_]

@All,
Am going for a simpler and better looking design. A shorter more precise motion like Milkovic has with his I think will work better.

edited to add a little bit better image. It has a 60° degree spread between the 2 legs of the pendulum. There's not much to it because it's a fairly simple concept. And if this works then it would allow the 2 levers to lift the top weight when used in a wheel. This would only be showing that momentum can be conserved when a weight is swing upwards just as it would be moving in a rotating wheel.
Most likely where the line hangs from would need to be above the arc segment so it can slip off of it and back on easier. That's something that can be played around with once the double pendulum is built. I have posted this in a wood working forum and since it is in pursuit of Bessler's wheel anyone can build it. I'll need to wait until next month to start on it.

p.s., I like the way it looks like the symbol for the Freemasons that Bessler has in many of his drawings. Also 2 lines might need to be wrapped around the weight so it is suspended from the part in front of it with the left leg. With the right leg it can be held in one position the same way. If the line goes under the weight then over the top and under it again it will roll between the 2 places the line is secured to.


Jim

posted this on besslerwheel.com

[James_]

T = 1.52s Large Amplitude
T = 1.44s


This is from the link on the first post. If the average distance from the fulcrum going up is 45 cm's while the downward swing is 50 cm's then it will require a difference of 0.08s. This means that the pendulum can swing a little higher. Going through a series of numbers 80° came up. I find that a little difficult to believe but is the answer the calculator for a pendulum's swing came up with.


Large Amplitude Pendulum (http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/pendl.html#c1)


Jim

[James_]

BesslerWheel.com :: View topic - Theoretical Perpetual Pendulum [ Guest ] (http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=152395#152395) :-)


Jim

[James_]

I am hoping I'll be able to start back on this at the end of the month. I am simplifying everything and started anew thread at besslerwheel dot com. In a way I am trying to give as many people as possible a chance to understand what Bessler knew.
Once I have something to show I'll also post it in here.

BesslerWheel.com :: View topic - Simple Tests [ Guest ] (http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7168)


Jim

[James_]

@All,
Sorry about the prolonged absence. Am getting better and have reserved shop space for the 1st of Aug. I did discuss somethings with a friend of mine and with this it is possible someone could build it while I am still building mine. If I am given credit for realizing the design then this isn't a problem because it is Bessler's wheel. And with the design I'll be building it will be showing how Bessler used both Conservation of Momentum and Conservation of Angular Momentum.
This will be an important build because I am expecting it to work. And work well. If it can rotate at 15 to 20 RPM's then I'll be happy with it. There is a lot of expectations with a perpetual wheel and this would help people to not be disappointed by something that rotates at only a few rpm.
I have also simplified the design so it will be inexpensive to build and might only require a tape measure, a compound square, a drill and a jig saw. And clamps of course. I'll also be posting this at besslerwheel.com using SAE measurements. With me, I like using SAE to calculate torque and work and for everything else prefer the metric system.
And with this design the grindstone might not be necessary.

James

Bessler's Wheel link; BesslerWheel.com :: View topic - Simple Tests [ Guest ] (http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7168&sid=394e500fdc64ae755012ece51dff8565)

[crowie]

Good to see you back on deck James....

[James_]

Since the 1st will be here soon enough I'll go over some of the math that I'll be using in my build. And if someone else tries this and it does work, don't forget about me, okay ?
The drawing shows 2 weights dropping 8 inches and all 4 weights weigh 12 ounces. Inch pounds, abbreviated in.lbs. is 2.54 cm * 454 grams.
With the work the drawing shows 12 ounces dropping 8 inches is 6 in.lbs. of work. This simply means that another weight can perform 6 in.lbs. of work. To give those not familiar with this an idea, if a weight is lifted at a 2:1 ratio then a 6 ounce weight can be lifted 16 inches or if a weight is lifted at a 1:2 ratio a 24 ounce weight can be lifted 3 inches.
In metric terms, at a 2:1 ratio a 454 gram weight dropping 15 cm's can lift a 227 gram weight 30 cm's or a 908 gram weight 7 1/2 cm's. With this wheel this is important to understand. This will help to show how using a "grindstone" saves work/energy/momentum.

And if you can afford a sheet of plywood 1.25 m x 2.5 meter, have it cut into 1/3rd of the 2.5 m length and just cut out a wheel (rim and spokes) that way. I'll be assembling rectangular pieces that I'll trim. This will use less wood. I'll be cutting the spokes out after the rim is trimmed. This is so the spokes can be off set to allow for the grindstone to be positioned to be inside of the rim. The grindstone will be mounted on the stand.
I will be pouring my own weights I may just use 400 gram weights and plan on having them move 12.5 cm's. Then if anything (meaning it works) then it should rotate quickly enough. And if I'm going that way then the over balanced weight will rotate 40 cm's from the axle. If so then this might turn out to be an all metric build. I think though I need to do this mostly for A.C. Barnes. Might be a mistake on my part but then I've made enough.



Jim

[James_]

With how I am going to construct the rim, I will be using 12 pieces. The rectangles will have 15° angles on each end. when joined together they will form a 30° angle. after assembly it will be possible to trim excess material to make a circular rim. As shown on my previous build it's not necessary.
By having the pieces 6.75 cm's wide I can trim a circular rim that will be 3.75 cm's wide. I think it will help the appearance considerably. What will take some people by surprise is that the spokes will not join the rim where 2 sections meet. Instead the spokes will mount in the middle of a section. This will allow for 12 dowels to be positioned between the 2 sides of the rims and also to have 4 plates for where the spokes will be.
This will make more sense once I am able to have it assembled. One reason why I am planning on taking my time on this is to get it right. Also I plan on pouring my own weights and will save that for last. For anyone who hasn't tried anything like this before and is considering it, I would suggest using drawer slides or something similar as that would be easier to mount.
Later in the week I'll explain the math and how the grindstone saves work. With the levers it is something that has been over looked and might allow this design to work without the grindstone.



Jim

[swk]

James,
I have been reading a very interesting book. It is "The White Road (https://www.amazon.com.au/White-Road-pilgrimage-sorts-ebook/dp/B00ZE8PCW4)" by a bloke called Edmund de Waal. It is really a potted history about the manufacture of porcelain, in China and later on in Europe. I found the bit about the Europeans trying to copy the Chinese porcelain in Dresden very interesting. The two main guys doing this work were Tschirnhaus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehrenfried_Walther_von_Tschirnhaus) and Boettger (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Johann_Friedrich_B%C3%B6ttger). They were more or less doing this at the same time Bessler was around. I think that if you read de Waal's book, particularly the parts about Boettger you might get some greater insight into Bessler.

Regards
SWK

[James_]

@SWK, have placed a hold on the book at my local library. It could be that both Bessler and myself are misfits. And this gives us something to do.

@All,
With how the 2 levers are positioned it is a thought experiment. This is because if a weight travels around the outside of the wheel for 1/2 of a rotation (180°) it travels R*Pi = D. If the fulcrum of the lever is the same distance from the axle as the weight is, then the weight travels R*Pi/2 = D. And since work is W = M*D then when a weight travels a lesser distance it requires less work to move it. There is a reason why being able to consider this is important and it explains why a "grindstone" is important as well.
I have some things I need to do over the next couple of days because of my medical situation. It is something I will most likely need surgery to resolve and with Bessler's wheel or because of it wood working will most likely be in my future. You know, how get get something out of what I've been through and a decent wood shop would be nice.
I will go over some definitions I'll be using since some are similar.
CoG = center of gravity
This is to calculate a weight's position from the center of the axle or the center of it's fulcrum
CoM = conservation of momentum
This is basically the Earth's gravity being converted into acceleration because of gravity as far as Bessler's wheel goes
CoAM = conservation of angular momentum
This law of physics is magical. When momentum is conserved as angular momentum it's velocity increases by a factor of 1/2R = 4v. This means that if a weight is rotating at a radius of 40 cm's and it's radius is reduced to 20 cm's then the weight will move 4 times faster. The link is to a figure skater demonstrating this principle of physics. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FmnkQ2ytlO8
This is where most people get lost when discussing Bessler's design and it is this which will show why the grindstone is so important to Bessler's wheel. He wrote this about it;
Around the firmly placed horizontal axis is a rotating disc (low or narrow cylinder) which resembles a grindstone. This disc can be called the principle piece of my machine. Accordingly, this wheel consists of an external wheel (or drum) for raising weights which is covered with stretched linen.
http://besslerwheel.com/writings/das_triumphans.html

When this last part is understood I think everybody will find it amazing what he realized. At times I have been compared to a born again Christian because I have been sure that Bessler was successful. And this build should prove that Bessler knew enough to have done what he claims in his writings. He was also a wood worker and later on I'll post pictures of some of his work that has survived even if it's just the windmills that he built. I am not sure if any of his clocks have but will check. As for me, if everything works out I'll just consider myself Bessler's #1 student.



Jim

[James_]

@All,
This is where the "grindstone" starts to matter. as noted in the drawing, the weight's path is 40% of that of it's fulcrum. all things being equal the over balance is equal to the drop of the levers. It probably won't rotate.
The trick is with the grindstone retracting the lower weight that both levers can lift the top weight a little higher, about 50% and still have work left over. With these dimensions a retraction of about 12.5 cm's would be the maximum.
This means that the weights on the levers can have their masses reduced to about 300 grams each, maybe even 250 grams.
@250 grams each this means .5 kg lifting a .4 kg weight an equal height as the drop of both levers combined. And at this point the over balance is greater than the imbalance that created it. And if this works as I hope it will then this principal can be used to allow for even faster rotation. If the grindstone (I'll post it later) were in this drawing then the retraction would be more and the weights on the levers would be slightly smaller.

@SWK, have started reading The White Road. I'm still in the prologue. One book I have read is called The Way back. It's interesting because the author talked to that person because he heard that the guy had seen a Yeti. As it turns out he said his sighting was after leaving a gulag in Russia and was almost through Nepal on his way to India and freedom. he was polish and imprisoned by Communist Russia. How The Long Walk became The Way Back - BBC News (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-11900920)


Jim

[James_]

I've simplified the design so a sheet of 6 mm thick plywood 60 cm x 60 cm can be used to cut out each side of the wheel with one piece.
To the right of the hub the opposing weight can be seen. What is not shown at this time is the weight at top that both levers would lift or the weight at the bottom that would be retracted by the grindstone.
By rotating a 60x60 sheet of plywood 45° it allows for a wheel with an outside dimension of about 80 cm's across. And since radii and straight lines are easy enough to cut making the wheel is simplified. For the 2 opposing levers I'll probably use a 1.25 cm thick plywood and use 2 pieces on each side so the fulcrum is 3.75 cm's thick. This allows for a space of about 4 cm's between the sides of the wheel.
The lines to lift the top weight should be able to be attached to the weights. When the 2 levers drop they should create slack in the lines going to the weight at the bottom of the wheel. It is something that will seem strange until it is seen that it does work. The grindstone will be the same way.



Jim

[James_]

The 2 sides would be held together by 6 cm dia. dowels. The 2 round weights would roll in towards or center or out to the over balanced position.
With the grindstone on the stand the weights would extend past the 2 sides of the wheel. The levers would be able to lift the round weights between the 2 halves of the wheel. I will need to design a basic catch and release mechanism for the grindstone. It will need to hold the line in place while the weight is being retracted. Then at that time it can release the stop and a small notch can let the weight fall into it to hold it in place.
The closest thing to this type of motion is the trebuchet and it can heave a Volkswagen the length of a football field.

@SWK, I have thought of some subtitles that Mr. de Waal might have used instead of Journey Into An Obsession. It seems to be more of a love affair with porcelain with him than an obsession and he's letting us in on it. My suggestions for alternative subtitles are as follows;
A Porcelain Peep Show
My Tryst With China (double entendre, pun intended)
From Shaolin to Kaolin


As far as Bessler goes, he did say he built a wheel that rotated at 60 rpm. This means that he most likely used Conservation of Angular Momentum as this can double the amount of torque a weight produces. And with gravity torque is acceleration. And this all comes back to the grindstone concept/principal. I'll try not to go to much into physics. Got to discussing it in a climate change forum and we ended up discussing how gravity pushes light away from the Sun (Einstein's General Theory of Relativity). It also accelerates satellites going past planets. It'd be this latter aspect that would help to explain how a shorter radius increases the velocity of an object.
And with this, when the top lever is off to the left the over balanced weight needs to be able to rotate the wheel. This is where both levers lifting one weight and the grindstone retracting the other weight will allow for this. it's a simple matter of leveraging a weight.


Jim

[James_]

I have a work space and will be collecting what I'll need to work with. I'll be happy to have the frame on a stand this month. I think I am going to
use the bit more complex assembly. I have the time so might as well. Then if all goes well maybe next month I'll be able to finish it.


Jim