Who is .....

[Grimer]

..... that brave chap who said he thought that the third dimension was involved, i.e. the dimension in the direction of the wheel axis.

In view of the fact that Bessler' wheels are so damn thin, thinner than the average coin, I though that idea very difficult to justify. No doubt in a lest polite forum the chap would have been excoriated for his view.

Thinking over the my builder's revulsion against my Jerk argument a revulsion I emotionally, but not intellectually shared, I now believe that the third dimension is indeed involved and wonder if the "brave chap" is prepared to enlarge upon the reasons he thinks so.

[ruggerodk]

Dear Grimer
Could this be it?

We all assume that Bessler's weight's some way or the other were falling.
But were did he EVER speciffically say that?
IMO he only asked if anyone could lift 4 pounds by the falling of 1 pound. And he continue to state, that whoever tries to put more weight on one side would never succeed.

An interesting point would be to define what Bessler meant by "outer position" - which is not at all the same as the perimeter of a wheel...it could might as well be on the Z plane.

That goes for "Climbing" too (if you like that translation...I prefer the to believe, that Bessler never said anything about "climbing back up")

Regards
ruggero ;-)

[Grimer]

No. But it is interesting point you make.

With the Keenie I can now see that the axle dimension is involved. In short the dx^4/dt^4 or Jounce term.

Laithwaite was right in the idea that there was something we are missing in action of a gyroscope. And though he was later to capitulate to the orthodox he didn't realise that the orthodox view is a bit of a cheat in that in order to explain the interaction between orthogonal (nearly) torques it keeps shifting its ground.

I'll have to dig up the relevant video if it hasn't been suppressed like his lecture.

[Bill_Mothershead]

Grimmer...

In view of the fact that Bessler' wheels are so damn thin, thinner than the average coin,...

Not certain what you are talking about (thinner than...coin)????

from http://besslerwheel.com/timeline.html

1712 Gera wheel........ 6.5 feet......by 4 inches wide
1713 Draschwitz........ 9.3 feet......by 6 inches wide
1715 Merseberg......... 11 feet.......by 11 inches wide
1717 Weissenstein..... 12 feet.......by 12 inches wide

Looks like these wheels have a reasonable width and
are not so "thin".

Could you explain what you were thinking.

[jim_mich]

1712 Gera wheel........ 6.5 feet......by 4 inches wide...... ratio 19.5
1713 Draschwitz........ 9.3 feet......by 6 inches wide...... ratio 18.6
1715 Merseberg......... 11 feet.......by 11 inches wide..... ratio 12.0
1717 Weissenstein..... 12 feet.......by 12 inches wide...... ratio 12.0

US Penny ............ 0.75 inch......by 0.06 inches thick...... ratio 12.5
US Nickel ........... 0.835 inch.....by 0.08 inches thick...... ratio 10.44
US Dime ............. 0.70 inch......by 0.054 inches thick..... ratio 12.96
US Quarter .......... 0.954 inch......by 0.07 inches thick..... ratio 13.63

US coins have very similar thickness to the diameter ratios of the later bi-directional wheels.

The earlier uni-directional wheels had ratios that were much thinner than US coins.

Edit: The coin dimensions were from an actual sample of each coin and might not be the official US mint dimension.

[Fletcher]

Relative dimensions I think he means Bill.

Movement in the z axis has been mentioned from time to time by various members - I'm sure if you searched the archive files Grimer it's been mentioned in their more than once also.

An early member here who had such an idea was a gentleman named 'winkle' of many years ago, he still looks in now & again - his suggested method was to rotate L levers in the z axis to create imbalance - I remember him & his idea in particular because he was a bit of a character, good intentioned.

So it's not a unique idea & one that we all ponder at some stage I think.

It's true that Bessler's wheels must have had an internal volume because they were disks - what's not clear is was that a necessary part of the principle or a function of wheel structural strength importance, given the materials available then ?

[Grimer]

Thanks for all the answers. As Fletcher pointed out I did mean relative dimensions.

Interesting to see that the first two wheels on Jim's list are even quite a bit thinner than a typical coin. One can't help admiring the skill of the man. I suppose we tend to underestimate the skills of the past. As in the case of Bessler, they often seem to get lost.

[Thomas]

Well, it's been a while since I posted my opinions on why Bessler's wheels were thin. I think there are enough new members now since I made those posts to perhaps get their ideas on what I was suggesting. Here is the link to that thread.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... ght=#63786

[Bill_Mothershead]

OK. Ratios. Got it.

This very nice animation/simulation has be around for a while.
(Somebody with a lot of graphics skill spent a lot of time on
this. Must have been really motivated to tell us something.)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIuU3M3c7-I


The final wheel is both "thin" AND has a rather interesting
use of the Z axis.

It is, of course, a geared ramp in disguise. The "charm" of the design
is that it does not try to lift very much very far very quick.
(Not so greedy as compared to other ramp designs.)

[murilo]

Grimer,
of sure I'm not that 'brave chap' but for several times I said that the unbalance is much easier found in a 3D design... not exactly afirmative for JB solutions, but very possible!
JB designs have enough 'z' volume for this!
Some models I could try gave very good results, except by the 'triggering' sets, which I just couldn't draw as desired.
The unbalance with small hammers bent at 90º of main plane is very obvious and evident, BUT just in hard models.
Cheers!
M.

[Tarsier79]

The Z plane doesn't give any advantage as far as weight advantage goes.. IE moving a weight in the Z doesn't cause any change in the masses position compared to the wheels axis.

The third plane movement does however give variations of available movement from a given mechanism. For instance, you can move a weight in a straight line at any angle using a curved rod, or a lever flipping in 3D, rather than guides and rollers for the same effect, which usually has more friction.

So, weights effective movement, or wanted weight movement and the effect it has particularly when talking about CF and Gravity is calculated and designed in 2d, but sometimes is more easily achieved when using 3d as well.

Things like a screw thread in the third dimension, if driven by gravity still has to be enabled by weight movement in the y plane.

[Unbalanced]

Good Day Grimer,

My name is Curtis Ciszek aka Unbalanced of Bend, OR. I was the "brave chap" that posted about using the z-axis.

I am working on a build to this end and so wish to reserve further comment until I have had the opportunity to experiment.

[Gill Simo]

Hi Grimer
I think..... Perpetual Motion is impossible. Impossible two dimensionally. Impossible in theory and, although so many continue to attept to prove it otherwise, impossible in practise. I'd no knowledge of Bessler saying `that whoever tries to put more weight on one side would never succeed` but God Bless him for it....the biggest possible hint for us all to give up this 2D nonsense en mass, more a stab in the eye with a pointy stick than a hint I suggest but.....?
Bessler spoke of a Universal movement. Unless my logic has gone awol then that simply defines itself doesn't it? If asked to describe the term universal I could no doubt come up with some words, or plenty....but keeping it simple I'd answer...3D? There are folk here, investigating buttons in old portraits for clues. Clues?, God help us! Times a'gettin kinda short don't you think? To short perhaps to be staring at buttons whilst being poked up the rear by the facts on offer?
We exist in a 3D reality but energy wise we are only made aware of it 2D, thus investigating and deducing it in 2D. That the energy of this 3D reality can be expressed 2D is proven, to a point.... now almost reached.... but what chance it's the best expression? Very, very little. A 3D reality must surely have, or be, a 3D energy.
re coin. I imagine that Bessler's wheel, in answer to his question, is a wheel ...but it's not the wheel that holds the inventive step, it's the axle....that the axle isn't an axle is more accurate. If I recall, Bessler mentions more torque or the like, the further the weights from the axle. I'd suggest than in terms of this apparent problem of 3D in such a thin wheel, you might investigate the ratio between the width of the wheel at its thickest, around the axle....and the diameter of that thicker section. There's plenty of space there for `something` to perform 3D.....and for that unique movement to have it's effect on weights applied to it at any distance, the further the more oomph as the man said....and he built it with impressive oomph in mind it seems. The big, heavy, `thin` flywheel is running on a most unusual axle/bearing, in that thicker section...maybe?
Welcome to 3D. Although there is clearly very few dabbling in it seriously I think that it should be sectioned off from 2D. .....because 3D taken to any depth at all immediately exposes the esoteric and the 2D folk won't wear it. I don't get the blog thing at all but I'm guessing that I can set up a 3D only blog, if I'm that passionate. Maybe I should try, can just see me talking to myself tho, somehow.
Any 3D observations, then please share. I have many to share with anyone offering to join in... 3D.
Gill

[Unbalanced]

I am going to share my 3D idea with this esteemed group and ask only that if this proves to be the key, that credit be given where credit is due

This is the first concept I have explored that introduces another, external force associated with rotation. This is precessive force.

Wind turbines utilize three blades for a very good reason. The rotating blades act like a gyroscope. As it pivots, gyroscopic precession tries to twist the turbine into a forward or backward somersault. For each blade on a wind generator’s turbine, precessive force is at a minimum when the blade is horizontal and at a maximum when the blade is vertical. This cyclic twisting can quickly fatigue and crack the blade roots, hub and axle of the turbines. By using three blades only one blade is ever in the vertical at any given time.

Look at the "connectivity" of MT39 Every other arm is connected or arms at 90º from one another. In a four arm wheel the arms experiencing the greatest precessional deflection, laterally into the Z-axis are those in the vertical plane. We use these precessionally deflected arms to shift the weights on those arms closer to the horizontal axis. As the vertical arms are pushed left and right of the plane of rotation, the weights on the horizontal arms are thrown closer and further from the axis respectively.

Essential to this concept is an efficient means of connecting the articulating arms (read arms allowed to move left and right of the plane of rotation) to
the arms 90º ahead. Stork bills would do nicely but I am building with block and tackle connections as I am a sailor of renown and familiar with pulleys and rope.

Check out this Eric Laithwaite video, specifically 2-minutes in, to 3-minutes in. This is a fine example of the force of precession. Notice the wobble is top and bottom not side to side after Eric induces a gentle shake to the frame. This is a unique gyro he built.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRCq3wLMfIM

I propose that this gentle shake he induces can be induced with the throwing of the weights in and out in their elliptical orbit.

Regardless of the gyro, precessional acceleration takes two revolutions to achieve its maximum processional velocity. Eye witnesses relate that Bessler's wheel took two revolutions to achieve its maximum velocity. Coincidence?

Villard De Honnecourt drew his wheel representing a wheel that wobbled or moved in three-axis's.

Bessler gave us the toy page. The best single representation of precessional force is a toy top. As well he showed stork bills and the anvil toy, as examples of connectivity.

Bessler had a sense of humor. Take for example his phrase regarding MT43, "This figure speaks for itself and requires no explanation; it tells us that it would run readily if only it had feet and legs."

He also said, ""He who wishes to make it in this world must often be prepared to use a combination of lateral thinking and initiative!"

"Lateral" as in side to side, the Z-axis.

We have tried every possible configuration of ramps, be they actual ramps screws, etc etc., this harnessing of the precessional energy concept utilizes a force as a ramp so to speak. The force of precession to shift mass.

I firmly believe that this is a way to accomplish what we have sought for so long. My wife of 30-years is dying of metastasized breast cancer and because of this I am unable to devote my time and resources to building this wheel at present.

Precession is a valid external force associated with gyroscopic or rotational motion. As a gyroscope's radius doubles its speed can be halved and still retain the ability to precess. A wheel 12-feet in diameter should precess handsomely at 26-rpm.

With a 4-inch deflection utilizing a 2x1 reduction in block and tackle a weight could be shifted 8-inches. With stork bills this shift could be much further.

Another great and counter-intuitive property of precessional wobble is that as the fly wheel slows down the wobble becomes more pronounced. In other words in using my concept, the greater the load placed on the wheel the slower it would turn, the more it would wobble, the further the weights would be thrown from the axis.

I would like to collaborate with all and any who would like to help me bring this design to reality.

All my best to all of you on BW for a great new year. Curtis

I attempted to attach some illustrations but I am not adept at this and failed







[/img]

[Unbalanced]

Harnessing precessional wobble concept from a very amateur illustrator