Ralphs Basting Brush and Pendulum Wheel

[FunWithGravity2]

Since i know that Ralph hates to be a hypocrite i wanted to help start another thread so that he does not have to take over someone elses post with his thoughts on the prime mover.

I am not in Ralphs inbox waiting for him to decide whether or not i deserve grainy pictures of some concept that he did not have the confidence himself to build. I am going to share a video that was shot almost 18 months ago of a pendular study that i did. I shot almost 100 videos at the time of this video and was intending on spending time with the forum discussing the fine points of pendular motion and accelerating pivots in a rotating enviroment.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d46ssi8CJO0

The intent of this video was to show a simple balanced pendulum arrangement that was given both and individual impetus as well as a system wide impetus to begin with and watch the wind down. Over the series i focus on varying the input impetus as well as the amplitude and mass of the bobs of the balanced pendulums.

It appears like a simple concept the one Ralph seems to have attached himself to and that Scott introduced nearly 10 years ago to the forum. But in reality it is one that i'm sure we have all contemplated ourselves and most have over the past 300 years. Unfortunately it also epitomizes the most basic problem in the search for PM, what we know about a simple motion changes completely when inserted into a rotating accelerating environment. Simple assumptions are completely wrong and tough to see without a complete understanding.

I am sure that the accomplished builders her are not dropping what they are doing to do build a "basting" brush wheel but before anyone else wastes their time I would caution them to start small and learn what it seems some here may not know yet.

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Dave......Just snipped this little nugget out.

Unfortunately it also epitomizes the most basic problem in the search for PM, what we know about a simple motion changes completely when inserted into a rotating accelerating environment. Simple assumptions are completely wrong and tough to see without a complete understanding.

This is the real challenge that gets pushed back. It's just my humble opinion here that this a part and parcel to what Bessler was alluding to when he points out this part from A.P., pg. 271....J. Collins.

For I put together the very first device which could spontaneously revolve a little. I saw that I had finally made the right choice, and why the earlier ones had been wrong. My heart leapt for joy at the sight of this genuine Mobile.

He knew! I think this says just as much about the approach he was taking as it does about the principle he just discovered. And also this one....A.P., pg. 295...J. Collins.

I also think it's a good thing to be completely clear about one further point. Many would-be Mobile makers think that if they can arrange for some of the weights to be a little more distant from the centre than the others, then the thing will surely revolve. A few years ago I learned all about this the hard way. And then the truth of the old proverb came home to me that one has to learn through bitter experience. There's a lot more to matters of mechanics than I've revealed to date, but since there's no urgent need involved, I'll refrain from giving more information at the moment.

And also this one from A.P., pg. 288....J. Collins.

But the point is, my invention is not fanciful - I haven't suddenly come up with an unheard-of form of matter; rather, I have invented something new from commonplace materials.

I would like another translation of this last one as far as the last sentence goes. Stewart may already have done this and since I've been so darned busy the last couple of years I may have missed it.

If the focus is directed mainly towards "creating the off-balance", without regard to the adverse reactionary forces that take place.....we're spinning our wheels. I have a lot of "what if's" in this scenarion that I just can't get any viable explanation for in the books.....but I think that's by design.


Steve

[FunWithGravity2]

Yes agreed Steve,

the reactionary forces are very important and not what all would assume basing assumptions on so much data collected from static tests of simple mechanisms. IMHO the reactionary forces are the driving force within the wheel and it is never overbalanced in mass in anyway. The most troubling and interesting part of this line of experimentation lies in the exponential degree of variables that cloud the mix with each simple item added to a rotating reference frame. In the video above you can even witness some coupling of the pendulums as they swap amplitudes, something that i would not asssume would happen in a rotating reference frame.

[rlortie]

FWG2,

Since i know that Ralph hates to be a hypocrite i wanted to help start another thread so that he does not have to take over someone elses post with his thoughts on the prime mover.

True! I am one who has little use for 'hypocrisy' and consider it a compliment to be noted as such. Unfortunately there are some who believe that I do profess of beliefs and virtues that I do not possess. I appreciate the opening of another thread to alleviate John's but fear it may be to late!

I am not in Ralphs inbox waiting for him to decide whether or not i deserve grainy pictures of some concept that he did not have the confidence himself to build.

This is your first of two blatant false assumptions; I do have the confidence and have built the device giving me proof that the design is worthy of further indulgence. Your second is 'whether or not I deserve'...

I am sending the pictures to whom ever asks, I am only attempting to prevent them from falling into public knowledge or 'open source. If kept here within the forum it can be considered collaboration between associates.

If you wish to see the 'grainy pictures all you need to do is ask and you will receive them with a notation that they are not to be reproduced without my approval.

I am going to share a video that was shot almost 18 months ago of a pendular study that i did. I shot almost 100 videos at the time of this video and was intending on spending time with the forum discussing the fine points of pendular motion and accelerating pivots in a rotating enviroment.

I have viewed and studied your video over and over many times and many months, almost to a mesmerizing state of mind. There is no better time than the present to Discuss the fine points of pendulum motion.

I believe you started on the right track and I compliment you for your achievement. Although looking somewhat 'chaotic' I see a rhythm within. IMO you need to spend some time on achieving synchronization, introducing an impetus to keep them working as pairs.

The intent of this video was to show a simple balanced pendulum arrangement that was given both and individual impetus as well as a system wide impetus to begin with and watch the wind down. Over the series i focus on varying the input impetus as well as the amplitude and mass of the bobs of the balanced pendulums.

And you have done a quality build and video thereof; I do not believe there will be much argument if I state; A pendulum or a pair of chaotic or synchronized pendulums will not provide themselves with cycle impetus.

As such you have a gradual wind down, yet you have shown the tendency for the unit to attempt self-sustainability.

It appears like a simple concept the one Ralph seems to have attached himself to and that Scott introduced nearly 10 years ago to the forum.

True, but I was well attached and heavily involved before learning that Scott had posted on it 10 years ago. Question is; why did it not get any response? I believe the answer is within your next quotation.

But in reality it is one that i'm sure we have all contemplated ourselves and most have over the past 300 years. Unfortunately it also epitomizes the most basic problem in the search for PM, what we know about a simple motion changes completely when inserted into a rotating accelerating environment.

I did/do my best to not only agree with you but explain it in depth after my research studies on the 'Peter Lindemann' design went public. Two years after I had completed the analysis. Unfortunate for members on this forum my writings were made public on the link that Peter chose to go public on.

Simple assumptions are completely wrong and tough to see without a complete understanding.

Appears that this also rings true of ones character! :-) This is my point, we take to much for granite based on assumption and speculation. You are a builder. As a builder it is my assumption that like most builders you are instinctively apprehensive of collaborating with other builders.

Ralph

[rlortie]

Steve wrote;

If the focus is directed mainly towards "creating the off-balance", without regard to the adverse reactionary forces that take place.....we're spinning our wheels.

I am guilty to the point of driving you from a previous forum! Creating an off balance by leveraged weights is futile, I now admit that as all such designs end up in the typical 'height for width category. They simply will not work!

FWG2 wrote;

the reactionary forces are very important and not what all would assume basing assumptions on so much data collected from static tests of simple mechanisms. IMHO the reactionary forces are the driving force within the wheel and it is never overbalanced in mass in anyway.

I agree, The mass stays virtually balanced, it is the properties or reactionary forces of mass that sets and maintains motion.

The most troubling and interesting part of this line of experimentation lies in the exponential degree of variables that cloud the mix with each simple item added to a rotating reference frame. In the video above you can even witness some coupling of the pendulums as they swap amplitudes, something that i would not asssume would happen in a rotating reference frame.

Now that you have seen it in your own build do you still assume that it cannot happen while rotating?

Working out those exponential variables such as pivot radius, length of rod, and weight of bob is a good portion of the iceberg and where I now currently find myself!

Ralph

[bluesgtr44]

Yes agreed Steve,

the reactionary forces are very important and not what all would assume basing assumptions on so much data collected from static tests of simple mechanisms. IMHO the reactionary forces are the driving force within the wheel and it is never overbalanced in mass in anyway. The most troubling and interesting part of this line of experimentation lies in the exponential degree of variables that cloud the mix with each simple item added to a rotating reference frame. In the video above you can even witness some coupling of the pendulums as they swap amplitudes, something that i would not asssume would happen in a rotating reference frame.

Thanks Dave! As far as your video goes....I would be interested to know what would spin for a longer period of time with the same impetus, running empty or with the pendulum attachments. I'm not really convinced that the pendulums really had anything to do with maintaining the motion anymore than the initial thrust would have done. Although the periods of increased and decreased activity is obvious, is it really providing a positive input overall?

As far as a pendulum style of clock comparison, the encroachment device is only a regulating device to keep the pendulum swinging in "time". The driver of course is the weight or weights. I think what Ralph was pointing out was the washer appeared to be providing an assist towards the timing.....and maybe a little shaking of the floor. The weights were already attached.

Bessler mentioned that the weights were "encased in a structure or framework" that kept them from finding that P.Q. point that we have all become familiar with. This is what could be seen as a part of the encroachment device that gets mentioned......it keeps it together and maintains the timing. The big covering part that we can see is merely a part of the flywheel aspect that aids in regulating the whole device.

Karl, who I think was a pretty sharp person evidentally testified.....PM:AAMS, pg. 114....J. Collins

Furthermore there is the testimony of the Landgrave of Hesse-Kassel, who is experienced in evaluating mechanical inventions and had seen the internal mechanism of the wheel and ran it for many weeks in a locked room, keeping the keys himself, having personally locked and sealed the doors and sindows with his own seal. He testified both verbally and in an officially printed certificate that the movement of the wheel was caused by nothing more that the weights and that it would run continuously unless the internal structure of the wheel was altered.

This was an exerpt from a letter written by Wolff for the Czar, Peter of Russia. So, again we are presented with this structure being mentioned as a critical aspect of the device. I think that Karl would have been aware of any other sort of energy sources being used to make it run and how that would take away the PM definition. That's why I can't quite grasp the thermal concept that some think may have powered this......Karl wouldn't fall for that.

So, what is this "structure or framework" and just how does it not only provide a constant imbalance, but also regulate the device through the acceleration process? Understanding this, how do you set this up to where it can maintain that imbalance and has to be tied off as the one directional wheels are concerned? Again, a constant state of imbalance......


Steve

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Ralph.....

I am guilty to the point of driving you from a previous forum! Creating an off balance by leveraged weights is futile, I now admit that as all such designs end up in the typical 'height for width category. They simply will not work!

Good gosh, no! Ralph, I've worked more hours in the last 3 years than I have the previous 10-12 years before that. I'm not complaining because they have been the 3 most profitable years of my life! But, it's taking a toll on me and I'm starting to pull back some if I have the choice. We've talked about the height for width worthlessness and a lot of thanks goes to Fletch for his undying and relentless knack for repeating it constantly for those who are new here......it's one of the first things I believe needs to overcome by folks. I know he helped me out a lot along with many others here. It's hard to move to the next level when we can't even see past that imbalance. I still find myself constantly reverting to that sometimes, I'm just quicker to realize and laugh......You've been a great compadre here, Amigo! Many thanks for the lessons learned and the friendship. Damn glad I got to meet you and your wife!


Steve

[DrWhat]

Dave,

what might be worthwhile is accurately graphing the speed of the wheel in your video (ie do a replication and live measuring for accuracy) and seek at which point the wheel disc accelerates.

Map the movements during these acceleration points. Now some accelerations will be obvious, but seek the unexpected accelerations and note how the pendulums were moving.

Then develop a coupling that coordinates the unexpected acceleration movements.

Might be a way to go.

Damian

[rlortie]

Steve,

As far as a pendulum style of clock comparison, the encroachment device is only a regulating device to keep the pendulum swinging in "time". The driver of course is the weight or weights. I think what Ralph was pointing out was the washer appeared to be providing an assist towards the timing.....and maybe a little shaking of the floor. The weights were already attached.

What you refer to as the 'encroachment' I refer to as an escapement'..

http://www.angelfire.com/ut/horology/escapement.html

The most popular design used for explanation can be found here;
http://www.angelfire.com/ut/horology/grassh.html

Note that one tooth engages before the other is released. The driving weight is wound around the back side of the gear creating a constant downward pull. If the linkage were not to engage, the sprocket would unwind as the weight fell to the bottom.

With each tick an impulse by the hair spring adds an impetus to the pendulum driving it at its set amplitude acquired by rod length. Note that the pendulum itself is not connected to any drive source.

What the shaking of the floor did was set the pendulums into osculation and should be considered as an 'outside force' taking the place of the gravity drive weight. There was no such 'drive' weights attached to James's wheel or mine, only the pendulum bobs.

An impetus is required either internal or external to keep a pendulum in motion rotary or static. Children with clubs; look at the top right hammer toy figure in the upper depiction. Forget the parallel bars and attach him close to the rim of your wheel. On the ascent he falls forward with a downward strike on the anvil. The anvil in reality is a dampener weight connected to the pendulum via a right angle lever, or call it a cross bar.

The force applied drives the anvil down and the pendulum up and inward hopefully matching the linear velocity of the wheel. Thus removing mass property's of the bob. The hammer man falls back resetting via gravity on the descending side.

Ralph

[FunWithGravity2]

I need to be clear without sounding rude, i am not at the tip of the iceberg with this idea. I have been chipping away at the glacier for a very long time and have created a beautiful sculpture. The intent of the video was to allow others to see things that had inspired me early in my journey and had me having some of the very same thoughts that are being presented. I truly appreciate the "suggestions", but my sculpure is far past any outside creative input. The videos are from 18months ago and were made during a period when i was trying to understand the forces at play, i was truly perplexed on the "chicken and egg" controversy of what i was seeing in front of me.

When the swinging pendulums idea was brought up again in another thread i figured it was worth my uploading one of the videos again to allow others to have a visual of the type of thing that was being discussed.

The video has a vast many aspects that can be studied as well as some simple variations from the basic, yes the periods of increased motion can be seen but are much easier to study if one of the pendulums is replaced with a static weight so that areas are identifialbe and attributtable to only one object. I would assume that a wheel given the same impetus with similar static weights would rotate for about the same time and in the setup shown there is most likely not any extended run time due to the swinging.

NONE of the videos were an attempt to find OU/PM.

I will try and find some more videos that are worthy to inspire.

[bluesgtr44]

Thanks Ralph.....

Note that one tooth engages before the other is released. The driving weight is wound around the back side of the gear creating a constant downward pull. If the linkage were not to engage, the sprocket would unwind as the weight fell to the bottom.

With each tick an impulse by the hair spring adds an impetus to the pendulum driving it at its set amplitude acquired by rod length. Note that the pendulum itself is not connected to any drive source.

Maybe we just disagree on this, but I consider that impetus a huge part of the drive source whether directly connected or not. Why? because if it were not for that hair spring there wouldn't be any regulating, right? So, what provides the constant impulse to that hair spring? The hanging weight I presume. I look at the system here basically as a weight driven device that has a sub-system for maintaining and regulating the timing. The sub-system could be useful if we knew the "structure or framework" for the main weights in the system.

I still think that once it comes out, it's going to be a "doh" moment.


Steve

ETA: Ooops.....not a huge part of the drive source, but regulating the drive source. The hanging weight is the drive source for the whole clock system. Sorry......

[nicbordeaux]

Thanks Dave! As far as your video goes....I would be interested to know what would spin for a longer period of time with the same impetus, running empty or with the pendulum attachments. I'm not really convinced that the pendulums really had anything to do with maintaining the motion anymore than the initial thrust would have done. Although the periods of increased and decreased activity is obvious, is it really providing a positive input overall?
Steve

The pendulums provide no input, they do however prolong the runtime considerably. It's a build most people have done without taking it to such extremes, because it is definitely not self-sutaining, therefore not worth the time.

Hey FWG, what's with the personal attack on Ralph ? You have some sort of issue ? If so, keep it private, nobody here is interested.

[bluesgtr44]

The pendulums provide no input, they do however prolong the runtime considerably. It's a build most people have done without taking it to such extremes, because it is definitely not self-sutaining, therefore not worth the time.

Hey FWG, what's with the personal attack on Ralph ? You have some sort of issue ? If so, keep it private, nobody here is interested.

Hey Nic.....I can see how they could prolong the runtime if they were coordinated. Dave's set-up was a chaotic type and the results would vary from run to run. It is an illusional type of operation and alluring in how it seems that there could be potential. But, just because I don't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there!

I wouldn't worry too much about Ralph. He seems to be able to hold his own pretty well around here.......;-). He's a damn good man!


Steve

[rlortie]

Nick,

I agree! the pendulums do not supply any input and this has been proven by many of builders time and time again.

It is however worth the time if one considers that somewhere in his writings Bessler states that the the force is gained by their own swinging and elsewhere he speaks of the 'impetus' that is applied.

Ralph

[FunWithGravity2]

Yes Steve, there is something in those pendulums.

BUT, the sychronization of a system of this type is quite honestly beyond the abilities of most i would assume. As you have alluded to the "impetus" is what is required in order for a system of swingin weight to self sustain. The hammer falling or basting brush or whatever other complicated provider of some impetus that can be imagined will also require it in and of itself to be OU.


I think Ralph felt as i did some time ago that this was an avenue that would be worth sharing and that others would immediately see the potential, also is why it was kept to himself, because it was soemthing he or his partner thought had great potential. Strangely as is the case once again we are not greated with everyone seeing the same thing and drawing the same conclusions. You have an open mind and are looking but really want to see some eureka moment. Others on the same page have more interest in dropping bowling balls in glass' of water and denying any possibility based upon their limited and poorly executed ideas along this same line in the past.

My signature has been for some time a "huygens" quote regarding CF and i have alluded to the 55 clue many times before as a hint to huygens and his work with CF/pendulums. I won't go down that road again here but for anyone that was unaware i can find the post in "mt thoughts" and direct you. I believe the connectedness he was refering to was the odd sympathy of the items attached together and that the "right angle" clue was a reference to CF always acting at a right angle to the axis. But IMHO clues are subjective and a complete waste of time, and are not worth trying to pursue to find an answer, best left for another thread.

Ralph is a big boy and i'm sure can handle my hostility. I make no apologies as i was unhappy with the way he presented his "sharing". I have am uncanny abilty to not care what other think when i have a strong feeling towards someone actions. I am sure we will hear from a few more of the "leave ralph alone" group, and that is fine. I will ignore it as what is more important is that Ralph or I or anyone else share what they feel is relevant to the discussion at hand.

Ralphs basting brush wheel.
I have not seen the photos and am not interested in seeing them unless they are open sourced. It would make the discussion easier if they were in front of us but i assume most here probably asked for them and will be able to discern what comments are made from them. What has been the general consensus of the build that was shared?


Dave