Book Club Blues

[Gill Simo]

Thank you ME...even more impressed!
For sure you can use two x bars in place of the two discs but the two discs are easier for showing the action involved....& also for explaining, as I did above, in terms of smaller wheels constantly falling within a larger one.
From your animation it can be seen that the two discs slip in to the centre, across & back out again, along the horizontal, whilst they themselves turn through a fig 8 motion...& that both therefore change their direction where two becomes one, such that both discs turn a/clockwise to the left, clockwise to the right of the centre.
I believe you have the thing running in reverse though....
As I mentioned before, imagine the VP across the whole horizontal of a larger circle/wheel....the disc on the left would wish to roll clockwise to the bottom of this larger wheel, the disc on the right a/clockwise.
Clearly the two discs cannot simple roll around the rim, both meeting one behind the other at the 6 o'clock position...the two arms that connect them prevent this....but they do have this desire to fall/roll & if a roll can somehow take place then they will roll back towards each other, across the horizontal, to align centrally, rather than fall.....whereupon they both change their direction of rotation, so's now to be able to continue falling/rolling, now on the opposite side.
Easily seen in your ani except, as I said, your discs would both be continually rolling up an outer rim/wheel, not down...but then who knows?
As I also said before, there are other things of possible importance such as the two discs displacing through 120 degree & back each time they align, perhaps?
Not sure what your problem is re the II'gram?
I only mention II'gram because it's what Bessler shows in toy C & what, when twisted as suggested in D, becomes the moving 1717 bow tie,(E)....that gives rise to a fig 8/Savonius motion (A/B)

If we can get on the same page here then I can go on to argue a case for allowing/assisting these two discs to roll across in their constant desire to roll down....as you're still now, most likely to be assessing it in terms of overall balance..a wheel, rather than a motion.

[ME]

We could put this thing on a horizontal wheel, give it a swing, see what happens, and don't tell Jim :-)

This happened to the speed (in the animation):
The used motion is the infinity-linkage powered with constant speed on the left-side, the right side coasts along and speeds up when pointing to the outside, and then the system is centered and rotated for symmetry, which results in also making the left-side to go off-speed.

[jim_mich]

It would slowly coast to a stop as friction chewed up the momentum.

[ME]

Interesting observation Jim.
It's possible that exactly the speed difference as animated is needed to make it go? Didn't yet do any calculation on it to back it (and I'm half-way Gill's instructions) - added a default linkage anim.
What do you think is needed to make it go?

[jim_mich]

What do you think is needed to make it go?

Throw away everything except the rotating environment. Then add a bunch of Bessler's two-weight mechanisms. Or better still, add a bunch of Bessler's four-weight mechanisms so that the wheel can coast in reverse. You can then add some reversed four-weight mechanisms to the wheel and it will work either direction.

Just my opinion. Carry on with what you're doing.

[ME]

How should a two-weight mechanism move, if this is not the way?

[Furcurequs]

It looks like jim_mich has been beamed into the Realm of Total Bessler Awareness like ken_behrendt before him. We who are stuck here in the Realm of the Confused and the Frustrated need not bother, then, in asking for details that cannot yet be shared - for to be in the Bessler Realm is to have secrets that cannot be seen nor understood by mere mortals until the day of revelation

Here, Ken left us a handy diagram to help us know our place:



http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/download.php?id=4198

It seems that Ken was a gravity guy, however, so maybe they'll be duking it out up there where they both now reside.

ETA: To be more accurate, I guess I should say that Ken was supposedly still in the process of ascending when that was originally posted. I don't know if he got there or not.

[AB Hammer]

ME

I like the last one best. Testing should be simple.

[Gill Simo]

ME.....your second animation is, of course, the same thing as I suggested except you've made the rotating arms the diameters of thus two smaller discs instead of the x bars being the diameters of larger discs.
However, I'm lost as to what you're using to produce these animations with variable speeds?
It looks very much as though you've somehow taken gravity into account & if so then there are issues...because you have pinned one cross bar across the horizontal.
This results in the bow tie, the central point, sitting at an angle to the horizontal....the whole needs to be turned until the bow tie sits across the horizontal. If gravity is somehow being taken into account then it needs to be taken into account operating in this position.
I strongly suggest, if now suitably intrigued, that you make & study the twisted II'gram...more people the better....and `then` debate over what you find.
You'll then see how, holding one x bar stationary, that the other falls easier/faster to one side than it does the other, due to gravity. You'll also be able to see how this 120 degree displacement, previously mentioned, effects things, in that regard especially.
And you'll hopefully see that whilst pinning one x bar allows for good observation of the other, especially if gravity can be placed in the equation, it actually makes no sense.... this twisted II'gram needs to be free to compete with itself, for want of some better way to put it....you'll see that when I say the bow tie needs to be across the horizon to assess gravity, there's a problem in that the bow tie appears in two different locations, either side of that horizon.
Nothing I suspect that'll make much sense...until you study it for yourself, whereby it will drag you in, intriguing more & more, thus preventing you from drifting off by your own design or the design of others....a process already started I note.

[ME]

They look the same, because they indeed are.

No gravity applied, just a constant rotation on the left, while the right follows analytically (too lazy to do the math exactly).
As said earlier, those circles are not needed for this rotation; although they look nicer.
With the vesica pisces it looks like a horizontal displacement, but when I draw other circles I could look like a Stevie-Wonder-move (attached) or as a vertical up-stream.

-In the meantime your whole idea is being derailed-

I like the last one best. Testing should be simple.

This locomotion is a bit difficult to make run smoothly.
But one never knows: a 'runner' by accident?

You'll then see how, holding one x bar stationary, that the other falls easier/faster to one side than it does the other, due to gravity.

The bar gives a non-linear angle because they are symmetric at +60/-60 instead of +90/-90. Actually, some time ago I made a somewhat similar shape from scrap... it has indeed nice properties.

drifting off by your own design or the design of others....a process already started I note.

Let's blame those pro's and con's on creative processes :-)
Oh 'derailed'... where where we?

[Gill Simo]

ME...with respect. I attempted to capture your interest & in doing so offer you an opportunity to study something...the double square, itself revered, only second to the VP that forms it, in times past....but twisted.
The study, I must again assure you, is the main requirement.....if you start heading off at some tangent, believing that you're adding something then you'll learn the long/hard way that everything added, adds up to the same.
You can, for sure, attach all manner of wheels, triangles etc, etc. in varying sizes/numbers. If ever you did study then you'd see that you can also expand outward/around the axle, as well as along the axle.....the shapes/patterns that result are endless.... as previously contested, all of Creation is & can be formed.
But......it is formed from the motion of the twisted parallelogram.
The one that sits at the heart of each of your animations...nothing is derailed?
So long as that sits at the heart of your whatever design, then your design forms something...but it's the motion of the twisted II'gram that's fuelling/creating it. This is the PM....& there's no point in making it look prettier/more interesting in some naïve attempt to find `your` PM when it's already present.
Or rather....potentially present, because, after years of study/thinking about it,

then I'm now fairly well convinced that this, if it is a PM, is not a figure of eight, it's a twisted figure of eight.
Would've been nice to coax you towards that understanding, once we'd got on the same page...but there's likely gonna be no option other than to let your ego rip & wait until you're fit to accept that this quest involves many, small, eureka moments, each one long & hard to attain. There's still plenty more ahead for me & for sure a whole lot more ahead for you before the big eureka.

Enjoy your thoughts, may they quickly lead you back, rather than forever nowhere....& quickly they would, if only you'd humble yourself instead by making/looking at a twisted II'gram.

[ME]

Ego, hmm -- remember your first few posts?

Your starting point was the VP, and that's confusing because you indeed came back to that same linkage. I just showed those circles are not needed, and trying to make things less 'Mystical' in the process.

If you're willing to explain, I can try to grasp things in my own way.
Perhaps my way has some incompatibilities with your way; but that's part of the charm.

And I still don't get that parallelogram, because that would mean the linkage broke somewhere.

[Gill Simo]

I can see my first few posts ME.....& my starting point was suggesting that folk look for a motion &, eventually, after getting no suitable reply, I mentioning a figure of eight as a possibility and your response to that wasn't encouraging

Stupid us in thinking +1 -1 <> 0
So you suggest: +2 -2 <> 0
Go figure 8, go!

You rain down this mysticism on us, and I thought I did make a good summary of what you tried to say. Perhaps not.

So I assume you've made some progress on your Vesica-Piscis-project?

The first mention of the VP & by yourself.

I then proceed at great length to introduce and argue for the twisted IIgram.

I'm not at all sure what inventive step you feel you've taken, if indeed you do?

All you've taken is my bigger wheels off the x bars and added your wheels elsewhere, whilst all the while insisting that it's the linkage, the twisted IIgram & not the wheels that are important.

I KNOW it's the twisted II'gram ME, I've spent the best part of three days trying to argue that & I've known it for a good year & more, thank you.

Whether I choose to slap a couple of wheels into the design so's it shows off as a VP, or you choose to slap a couple of wheels elsewhere to show it off differently is by the by.
Both of your alternative animations have my VP moving away...the x bars... & rubbing out my circles & drawing them elsewhere in the process doesn't change the fact....the VP is still there & it will be the VP that is responsible for the whole of Creation & the motion that drives it, whether you choose to attempt to hide it, or not.

Ego?...You'll find that from the very start I'll always offered my thoughts/ideas openly & freely for all to consider...so they may add to it, including finding the solution by it....happy me if they did.
And you know, I've spent so many hours dwelling on how, should I find the solution, might I announce it anonymously? I eventually gave up, it being an impossibility as great as PM.
Never did it occur to me that someone might jump straight in & willingly take the responsibility away from me!
Unfortunately, as ever, here's another case of `what you think you know is purely the result of your ignorance`.
You're nowhere near the solution I'm afraid to say and you're not gonna get near, until you earn some understanding first.
But still...good luck!

ps What's with this perpetual `don't get the II'gam stuff?

The PM is performed by the linkage...the linkage is a twisted II'gram. No suggestion of a straight II'gram acting anywhere, just a statement of fact...?

[Tarsier79]

Nice diagram Furcurequs!

[ME]

the Realm of Total Bessler Awareness

So that's what happened to Ken-wm2d-Behrendt...! I am truly amazed.

I'm not at all sure what inventive step you feel you've taken, if indeed you do?
You're nowhere near the solution I'm afraid to say and you're not gonna get near, until you earn some understanding first.

There was no inventive step from my side and I'm nowhere near solution.

I'm just trying to follow your idea, perhaps complementing it with an animation or two as far as I'm able to understand.
But I'm not a student of yours willing "to take your responsibilities away": I couldn't handle such thing.

I can see why such linkage is important, as a possible means to redirect force.
When such thing can be applied successfully, I see no reason not to stack them on top of each other for multiplication purposes.