A Christmas Tale

[Gill Simo]

As ever I remain firmly of the opinion that we seek a motion...a motion that, as Bessler states, conforms to some Principle of PM.
That's weights, as stated, gaining/drawing their impetus by virtue of this principle.
This impetus drives a wheel....a bog standard, balanced wheel.
The only insight we have as to this principle is Bessler's assertion that he considers/theorizes, `excess weight` to be at play.
So...the inventor himself apparently has no definitive knowledge as to the how/why of this principle.
If, as so many erroneously believe, his wheel is simply turning due to some persistent excess of weight at some point/s around the axle then that would be no theory...that would in itself be a principle, a principle long established & thoroughly understood.
-----------
What follows is a motion...a motion of, theoretically, excess weight.
There is NO overbalanced wheel.
As to how/why this motion might perpetuate I, like Bessler, like you's, have no knowledge.....but I must implore you to concentrate on/question only this...the motion....& not be ever fooled into dismissing the motion because it doesn't overbalance the wheel.
I repeat....the wheel is balanced at all times...including the motion held within it.
-----------
Take one Golden Rectangle, the 1st & simplest form to be derived from the Vesica Piscis....that whereby two of its sides are double or half the length of its other two sides.
Twist it....so that you now have the two shorter sides connected by two cross members (the two longer sides) This is achieved by collapsing the rectangle to one side or the other & expanding it again, turning one shorter side in opposition to the other shorter side.
It could, of course, also be achieved by inverting one shorter side against the other.
In twisting then, as per any wound spring, the two ends/shorter sides pull closer together.
As per any wound spring, an input of energy has been stored...perhaps? I really don't know.
In Fig 1 the two shorter sides have been replaced by two discs, of a diameter equal to those original, shorter, sides. As before, by turning the two discs in opposition to each other the rectangle collapses to either side....& in doing so, as before, the two discs spread further apart (Fig 2)
You should be able to discern that by constantly turning one disc against the other, then this rectangle collapses, expands, collapses, expands, etc....whilst the two discs spread apart, squeeze closer, etc, etc.
This arrangement is to be set within a wheel on a central axle.
Referring back to Fig 1.....
The two discs are to run against the wheel's rim but, as these two discs are turning in opposition, one rim will not do. Each disc must run its own rim, the two rims thus also in opposition to each other.
The only sensible way in which to assemble this rectangle is crossbar attached behind to two discs, these attached behind to a crossbar. This poses a problem in that the two discs, set between the two bars, sit in the same plane.....meaning they can only run against a single/central, rim. This obstacle is easily overcome....I only mention it before you mention it to me.
For the purpose of this tutorial please assume that in Fig 1 you are looking, let's say, at a disc to the left closest to you....two crossbars behind...& a disc to the right, furthest from you...& that all is free to move unhindered.
The orange axle shown is optional, I think.....I imagine this assembly more sturdy for its inclusion. If included then it must 1) run independently on/at the central axle of both of the two outer wheels/rims that sandwich it & 2) be a split axle, each half drilled through to accept a crossbar moving through it.
That said, there is a second obstacle to overcome....that being that these two discs are constantly closing towards, pulling away from, each other. This requires each disc to have no normal rim...a rim that changes in its diameter, to accommodate these expanding/contracting discs.
Thankfully, this being the Vesica Piscis/Golden Rectangle, then the rim required by each disc is a simple, six sided, hexagon. (Fig 3/4) Not wonderfully accurate in the drawing of it I must admit but accurate enough to see I think.
Job done.
----------------------------
I'd love to be able to offer an animation here...but that's gonna take me plenty of time/effort & it'll likely be pretty crap. Later...perhaps.
---------------
I'm not now going to attempt to justify this suggestion, happy to discuss it though.
For now I'll assume, as is usual...that, despite my begging you's to investigate/question the motion, you'll most likely still be stubbornly boxed into only being able to look for & fail to find, an equally, stubbornly, overbalanced/unbalanced wheel.
I hope not....I hope you'll dwell a while on these two crossbars, overlapping across the axle line, each, the centre of which is scribing a figure of eight around/through that axle line......each, the ends of which, scribe not a circle but, by virtue of the expanding/closing discs, an ellipse.

Perhaps it might help to suggest that you think, with a bit less gravity & a bit more magnetism in mind?

Merry Christmas All

[Gill Simo]

Not a term I've ever felt compelled to use but...lol
I just can't think of a better expression for the witnessing of a bunch of souls so anal in imagination, imagining that they can ever lick the butt of this riddle, let alone ever solve it.
Here's a wee Vesica based fractal thingy.....loud & full screen I'd suggest.
Dunno....something 's needed to loosen up the ole sphincter for sure?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdyenxEE2dw

[agor95]

Thank you for sharing.

I for one appreciate your contribution.

I see value in a dynamic complementary device.

We should keep an open mind. We have seen new knowledge here.

I had no idea that one can look from a beach over the top of a headland
and see a lighthouse via looming. Logically it was there all the time.

However the idea had not been invoked within me until a post in this forum.

I thought a device requires asymmetry.

It is possible to implement both in a device.

[Gill Simo]

Ok....you evidently see nothing of any interest, so lacking in interest apparently that not one here can even be bothered to point out why.
So, I'm duty bound to now point out why it is, or might be, of interest...& that's probably best achieved by explaining this in terms of gravity...gravity as you & I know it, from inside that damn box in which you hide.
Fig A....two discs with two bars joining them at their centre's.....placed/pressed between two vertical, parallel, straight edges. Gravity, of course, pushes down on the whole, which will fall, left disc turning c/wise, right disc anti c/wise....no argument here I trust?
Fig B.....two discs with two x-bars...these bars are longer than in Fig A but as shown, this arrangement can still be placed/pressed between the two parallel bars, still the same distance apart.
Gravity, of course, still pushes down on the whole....but the whole cannot fall, because any turn of the discs will result in those two discs spreading further apart, as they move towards the widest, collapsed, position shown. In order to facilitate a fall then the two parallel sides would also need to spread further apart.
Fig C....the same two parallel bars, still set at the same distance apart....only now both bars are able to turn around fixed points X & Y.
The discs/x-bars arrangement is collapsed, the two discs being at their furthest spread/distance apart therefore. Set thus, this is dropped between the two x-bars as shown....the bars, clearly, requiring to be pushed apart.
From this position any turn of the discs will result in those two discs moving closer together.
Gravity, acting on the whole results in the discs turning to facilitate the fall...the turning results in the two discs making this move, in towards each other, as they roll between the two sides.
The precise point where the whole becomes fully expanded...where the two discs are therefore at their closest to each other, is the precise point where the whole now sits between fulcrum points X & Y.
The whole will continue to fall, discs turning, now spreading further apart, spreading the parallel sides apart....until the whole is again fully collapsed.....back to the top, .repeat again.
The whole will fall, indefinitely, for as long as this particular, two parallel sides arrangement is repeated/extended in the vertical plane.
What is required is for this opening/closing parallel sides arrangement to be offered to the whole....around an axle.
This, I must repeat, is achieved very simply, by employing two hexagonal rims.
Going back to Fig 3 in my original post......shown here as a moment in time, a snapshot, then it looks very much as though the whole would simply slip/roll down the two parallel sides it sits between.
But immediately prior to this position the two discs were still moving towards their closest & the two hexagon rims were not fully aligned....the two sides presented to the discs not being parallel therefore.
The whole is moving/falling through the same arrangement/action as outlined previously....exactly the same being offered now by the two hexagonal rims turning against each other......before, the whole was constantly falling straight down....or, alternatively, staying in position and driving the two parallel sides straight up.
Now the whole is constantly falling, staying in position & turning the two hexagon rims against each other.
Weight, constantly falling under gravity, the fall transferred/converted to turn around an axle.....& no unbalancing of that axle....whatsoever.
Not possible surely?
I must therefore assume myself to be making some fundamental mistake in my assumptions/calculations, si?
Any chance someone out there might enjoy making me out the fool that I surely wait to be...so's I can learn & move on...please?

[ME]

you evidently see nothing of any interest...

I tried to wait until I understood the hexagon part... (or someone else to kick in)

• Thankfully, this being the Vesica Piscis/Golden Rectangle, then the rim required by each disc is a simple, six sided, hexagon. (Fig 3/4) Not wonderfully accurate in the drawing of it I must admit but accurate enough to see I think.

In my best guess you try to let the wheel pump the mechanism, and/or vice versa let the mechanism pump the wheel. Not sure if that's gonna work..

But under the enjoyment of your choice in relaxation music I made a simulation of those discs. Those discs are constrained by a horizontal slot.
Obviously the XY-plot of the bar-centers do not show anything special (that vertical mis-alignement is negligible)

Perhaps the thing of interest is the wobble in angular disc velocity.
This wobble should somehow correspond to (and overcome) the angle of the closest hexagon.
I'll just try to let it sink in for a while...

[AB Hammer]

ME

Here is a video that is on youtube that shows some of the effect that Gill is showing from a slightly different design. I have the new stand it needed done but have not built the new drivers for it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5pPaTqd-4w

Gill

The flywheels working together is a cool approach but still IMHO needs another driver in the system. If it has a chance of truly running.

[Gill Simo]

Thanks ME for showing an interest.....some points however.

Ref back to Fig C, or indeed A/B.....the unit is falling, under gravity, both discs turning, each against a vertical side, as it does so.
Falling is uni-directional of course & the unit's discs can only turn in one manner...of course.......left disc clockwise, right anti.
Your animation shows the reverse, resulting in the unit rising up rather than falling down, if placed/rolled between two vertical sides.

The unit is, as stated, a Golden Rectangle first....crossed/twisted second.
You have perhaps crossed/twisted first to result in a Golden Rectangle second......the centre points of each x-bar that you show should each, when fully collapsed, touch/reach the rim of a disc...your x-bars are too long to facilitate this.
If corrected then you may well see that those two centre points scribe around a very shallow/flattened fig of eight...not back/forth in a straight line.
I so wish that I were able to create such animations, over a bit of relaxing music...it'd make explaining so much easier.
However...if it is fairly simple for you to do, then please bother to correct the dimensions & reverse the directions.
Then a second, simple, animation of one hexagon behind another, both turning in opposition to each other......from this you'll be able to see how, at 180 degree apart/around, these two hex's morph at the rim to facilitate the expansion/contraction required to accommodate the disc wobble as you term it......remembering of course that it's one disc to each hex.
Place ani one inside ani two if possible....would love to see it.

[ME]

I so wish that I were able to create such animations, over a bit of relaxing music...it'd make explaining so much easier.

I wish the same for all of us, also makes understanding much easier and topics a lot shorter.
Hence my attempts to create something. Perhaps not always correct at the first attempt: but one has to start somewhere.
Not always as easy as I made it sound, but music helps sometimes.

About the previous sim:
Because (in that sim) the disc-centers do not change in height, the centers of the bars do neither: a figure-8 can't be made when those discs only are allowed to move horizontally. The benefit is that disc-speed can be observed without additional interactions.
The disc speed is most with increased disc-distance and less when those discs are close, the direction of the spin does not change this amplitude behavior.
My hypothesis on this partial observation on this speed effect: For the mechanism to work in the hexagonal environment it implies it has to be able to lift itself against the rotating hex-slope when the discs are expanding, and can be lowered when the discs are contracting.

Whenever there's such speed/height combo one should be on the lookout for the CoE-equation: g*h=½v²


About a next attempt:
I'm a bit confused about your golden rectangle (for a change in dimensions I need to re-make the simulation).
Sphere's (with diameter [d]) are connected by a rod (with length [L]) from the one's 12 o'clock to the other's 6 o' (after the twist).
[d]x[L] formed a golden rectangle, thus L=1.618*d: The distance between those discs (in the 12-6-case) will be 1.272*d, or 2,544*r.
If I'm correct this image differs from your illustration, mine would look more compacted.

[Gill Simo]

ME....a big thanks again for your indulgence.

Re our confusion as to the rectangle .....

The attached diagram of the Vesica Piscis shows the rectangle required, in white...a double square.
When crossed (Orange) then this arrangement defines the Vesica itself....whereby the length of the short sides, divided into the distance between those sides, equals root 3.
It is the playing/tinkering with this ratio, for want of a better term, that possibly holds the key....playing with the properties of a Vesica...no other ratio will do.

Re the straight line/Fig of eight conflict.....

This is a matter of perception....the point to note is that point where the two x-bars cross....you can clearly see that this point, in your own animation all be it slightly incorrect, moves up/down through the straight line you speak of. Relative to THIS point, then the two discs are moving above/below IT....

Whilst we can both agree that animations can be a great aid to explaining/understanding, there is no greater aid than an actual, physical construct.
To this end I have literally begged you/s to do this over & over....& I'd happily bet my shirt that nobody ever has.

Change the two discs for two bars & change the two x-bars for two discs.....
BUILD THIS....it really couldn't be any simpler a thing to construct...a few odds/sods from around the home & a few minutes of your time.....far less hassle than an animation I'd wager.

Once done, then...in the open/crossed position you'll have two discs in line, one behind the other. In the collapsed position you'll have a Vesica Piscis.

Turn these two discs against each other, from aligned to Vesica, to aligned, to Vesica, back to aligned (one circuit)....& you will see, feel & understand in an instant that which I could take an age trying to communicate here in words.
The two discs perform a figure of eight....& whilst I'd very much appreciate your animation, corrected in size & turning in reverse to that originally shown....we're going to get a whole lot further together if you also build the thing as suggested.
This key is required to unlock any understanding of what is actually going on...build it, study it...& if you don't eventually fully agree, then I'm more than happy for Scott to place a `GillSimo is a complete & utter numpty` sticky at the top of each/every forum.
There's surely one here, at least, happy enough to make such a small effort to see such a gross reward as that?

[ME]

GillSimo is a complete & utter numpty

Who's to say who's numpty? Probably the numpty-one... but who'd actually know, right?
So in all the relativity of most of our own ideas, for better or worse, it's always the other one...

you will see, feel & understand in an instant that which I could take an age trying to communicate here in words.

I guess I probably still need a few more words. While trying to avoid that previous Bookclub-burnout.

With either simulation or physical build: we/I would still need the right dimensions, as warned: "no other ratio will do".
The ratio [radius:distance] went down from about [1:3.913] (in your opening image) to my estimated [1:2.544] and now [1:1.1547] (I think): a huge difference.
For anyone to check that correct logic:

• * Disc Radius (my green circle) (r):= ½ √3
  * Distance between disc-centers (d):= 1
  
  Thus [radius:distance] = [1 : 2/√3 ], rod-length L²= (2r)²+d²

Gill, perhaps it's easier to show a picture of your own build?

Anyway, attached is the image of my [1:1.1547] ratio, according to the green circles I drew in that diagram.

You see the disc-speed now show a bump around the low-velocity-point (compared to the previous attempt).
Not sure if that's good or bad:
The possible "good": the balanced point becomes a bistable point;
The possible "bad": when this mechanism stops, it probably stops at those lower-velocity points either 30° left or right from that current point.

[Gill Simo]

ME....it's perhaps best if I self confess numpty status & withdraw at this point.
Whilst, once again, I can only thank you for your indulgence & effort on my behalf....
The numpty can only repeat...take a rectangle, short sides unit one, long, unit two...twist it....replace short sides with two discs, slap it between two hexagons, free to rotate against each other...job done.

My apologies for sure....but I've not the slightest idea what all those big, confusing, numbers are about?

I'll just have to knock up a wee model, to check out the geometry at least.
Hopefully paper clips & lollipop sticks will result in something accurate enough to do this, although I've never managed to achieve anything remotely the like thus far....meaning life long.
As for constructing something capable of holding together, let alone turn...nah.

Cheers/Gill

[ME]

Sorry, not yet telepathic enough.

Those numbers... (who cares: it's a reference tool)

My first animation looks like your first diagram: (Small discs non-overlapping discs, long arms)
My second image looks more like your colored diagram: (bigger overlapping discs, shorter arms)
So the question (because it's not my design): your idea looks either more like the first, or more like the second, or totally different.

Please believe me when I say I try to figure out what you mean.
I just do a step-wise refinement: first get the basics as correct as possible, then ramp it up to something more complex. And things are never perfect from the start.

"Numpty" is a bad excuse. Even when things do not work as intended, it still may teach us something (for both the mechanism as well as communicating that idea)

Hence perhaps a better question: Why do you think so strongly this construction has the ability to perpetuate?

I'm still here/
Cheers, Marchello E.

[Gill Simo]

No need for apologies Marchello.....this means of communicating is seriously hopeless when put to the test I find....tis little wonder mankind suffers such misunderstand & confusion nowadays.

Why do I think so strongly that it will perpetuate?
Because I can't see how it cannot.

But I think I'd best, happily, quit this thread for now until I can offer something more of substance, one way or the other.

Until then I can only condense from my previous diagram, repeated/revamped below...

Fig A.....Thing falling under gravity...by way of two wheels, turning in opposite directions (the only directions for a fall) against two parallel, vertical sides.
Fig B.....A different thing wishing to do exactly the same (top pic) but can't because (bottom pic) the wheels, in turning, must spread apart...it's trapped.
It can be easily un-trapped (Fig C)......although it would suffice to simply change the straight sides for in/out `wavy` sides...& it's now shown thus.
This done, then, same as the other thing, this different thing falls.

The difference in this different thing is that the sides it falls through can be looped.
If Fig A was placed in two circular rims, one for each of its wheels then it would turn around given a push.....but it can't, of course, fall...it's pinned across the circle's diameters.
Two hexagons are created by taking each wavy side & looping 6 sections of it.....& as far as the different thing is concerned, nothing is any different at all...it still encounters, at the point where its two wheels touch the rims....two parallel waves....as the hexagon rims turn against each other... it can still fall...& does...perpetually.

The weights, the two x-bars, in falling under gravity, move in accordance to some Principle for PM I assume...the discs simply transfer this to drive the rims about the axle.

Not rocket science, simple as can possibly be, operates to all physical Laws as we know them....& introduces something to perhaps render them redundant in many a way?

Obviously, I can't believe it til I see it...likewise yourselves of course.
And....it has to be doomed...of course.
And I am gonna have to quit smoking & spend winter under the duvet to pay some local talent to make it and prove that to me...of course.
Back springtime....Inshallah!
Gill

[Gill Simo]

An observation......

Is the above uni or bi-directional?

Well...it's bi-directional in that it turns, or I should say, can be arranged to turn, the central axle in either direction, simultaneously.
But it's uni-directional, in that it isn't possible to stop both rims & turn them against each other in the opposite directions.

So...what of Bessler's uni & bi wheels?

Initially his concern was to hide the wheels/axles turning in reverse, so to this end he fixed only one to the central axle, extended it, as per a drum, over the other, this drum fixed also to the axle.
This resulted in his uni-directional wheel.
He realized, soon enough, that he could fairly simply make this wheel bi-directional......by placing both `offending` rims within a thicker drum, fixed to a central axle...& arranging things such that one rim locked to the drum/axle in one direction, turning free about in in the other...and likewise the other rim, in reverse.
Just a thought....& it kinda drags up another design consideration.

It should be obvious that fixing one wheel stationary simply leaves the other to still turn....hence perhaps his reference to servicing bearings whilst it still did work....but if both are within a drum, only one ever fixed to it, either direction, then how did he stop the thing?
When stopping the drum would've left the free, internal, rim still turning.