Bessler's (4th) Kassel wheel Archimedes screw pump calculations

[rlortie]

For that matter, why the square pulley on the barrel staved water screw.?

My thoughts lead to an alignment problem which would be rather obvious using round pulleys, they would not track. It would appear that the square pulley would change in radius either making the rope belt to long or to short. Therefore the four forked guides would also chang in radius length and have to be synchronized with the square pump pulley. One increasing leverage while the other decreases.

The crossed belt would increase contact on the drive and driven so called pulleys that are not pulleys, not a big problem for a bi-directional wheel.

As for an eyewitness; how about the one who timed the machine pumping water comparing rpm when free running. IIRC the pump dropped the velocity of the wheel from 26 rpm to 20.

I do not keep these facts in my head, as I find to many discrepancies in the depictions. I will say it takes skill to long butt splice a rope using marlin spikes for a smooth endless rope used as a belt for pulley application. My father tried to teach me this art, but to no avail, I could never get the hang of it.

Ralph

[ovyyus]

I expect to get response rebuking my statement, stating that these facts are relevant and necessary. That of course being personal opinion. But they are of little value without first having a runner.

Ralph, my ongoing research includes trying to better understand the actual performance characteristics of Bessler's wheels. Why? If Jim's 150 Watts estimate is correct then it becomes VERY difficult to explain Bessler's demonstrations without resorting to nonsense. If my 25 Watts estimate is correct then it might be possible to explain Bessler's demonstrations without resorting to nonsense. It's a big contrast. I understand this might not have much relevance to your own research and that you think it's just a waste of time but it does have relevance to my research and it is definitely not a waste of time. Oops, I just rebuked you. Your expectations are met again :D

For that matter, why the square pulley on the barrel staved water screw.?

Rope slippage is reduced with a square pulley. I don't agree with Jim's opinion about friction, I think it would be quite efficient at the relatively low reported speed. Each to their own opinion, I guess. Also, the rope is quite long and would have enough slack to smooth out the bumps you speak of, eliminating alignment problems.

[rlortie]

Bill,

Thank you for verifying me expected rebuke!

I too find Jim's alleged figure of 150 watts produced by four pound weights hard to swallow.

To get an idea of the required force required, place a 24" or 26" wheeled bicycle on a stationary stand. Procure an automotive alternator, with a serpentine belt pulley and tension mount it so the rear bicycle tire can drive it. Connect the B+ terminal on the alternator in series with an amp meter and the positive post of a 12 volt battery. Run a ground lead from alternator frame to the negative battery post to complete the circuit.

Attach a volt meter in series from positive to negative posts. Typical auto alternators produce 14.2 volts DC output, to achieve 150 watts you must produce 10.56 amps (volt times amps equal watts).

Also connect you light bulb circuit to the battery posts. Or wire it in series between amp meter and positive post.

Climb on the bike and start peddling, for torque values measure the distance from peddle crank axis to peddle axis. Remove one peddle and replace with a pivoting platform that can handle a small bathroom platform scale. multiply required pounds by length of peddle crank and you have acquired inch pounds of torque. While your are peddling have a second person monitor the amp and volt meters.

If you can light a 60 watt light bulb and maintain it, your in better shape than I am.

If you agree with this method the next step would be to remove the peddles and handle bars to allow attaching a 12 foot diameter disk on center with crank axis. To this you can add your secret OB gravity or motion force design using four pound weights.

From hands on experience I have learned that greed is indeed an evil root. I am utilizing a six foot diameter wheel, using many weights. I have not had them weighed by my local postmaster but I feel confident that they will weigh in less than one pound.

Ralph

[Furcurequs]

Mr Randall has made two fundamental and fatal errors in his "motion wheel" calculations.

Number one is the belief that weight inertia can generate a force. Randall clearly believes this as he has repeatedly claimed that CF is nonlinear so therefore must be non conservative and then generates these huge forces that can be utilized.

But even by Randall's own definitions, inertia is not a force, only a resistance to a force. CF is then only a manifestation of this resistance and is not a force either.

Randall keeps mesmerising himself by calculating impressive CF values at all different rpm's, but continually fails to consider that CP is constantly opposing inertial resistance with exactly the same values such that the difference is always zero. This is "idotic" according to Randall.

Fatal error number two: Randall has neglected to account for the energy required to accelerate an extending weight from it's initial low circular velocity at it's location close to the wheel hub to the much higher circular velocity at it's extended location now close to the rim.

This acceleration requires energy input, which Randall has totally ignored.

The end result of these two errors are that what Randall had calculated as a gain is actually a loss.

The resident troll has arrived spewing his usual lies.

Mr. troll, you claim to know everything. Tell us what the CF is of a 1 lb weight at 24 inch radius rotating at 10 RPM. Then tell us the CF at 20 RPM. Then at 30 RPM. And at 40 RPM. Now graph those results. Then come back and tell us you have a linear straight line on your graph.

Hint: At 10 RPM CF is 0.068 lbs of force and at 40 RPM it is 1.0907 lbs of force.

If I'm wrong, and CF is linear as the troll claims, rather than non-linear as I've said, then CF would be 0.4090 at 20 RPM and 0.7498 at 30 RPM. But CF is not linear. Clod camper is wrong.

My point is that clod camper keeps posting lies about me.
My point is that I fully understand CF, while clod camper hasn't a clue.
And furthermore, clod camper doesn't know how to spell.

jim_mich,

Why is it that you insist on calling Cloud Camper "clod camper"? Why do you refer to him as "a troll," "the troll," "the resident troll," or even "Mr. troll"?

In my opinion this is incredibly childish behavior on your part. It seems to me to be a behavior similar to that of perhaps a mud-slinging politician who would attempt to discredit his opponent by attacking his character rather than truly dealing with the substance of his opponent's arguments. It would seem to be like the behavior of a gang leader who would show no real respect for "outsiders" to the gang while expecting his lapdogs to treat those outsiders very cruelly to then "earn" his own so-called respect. It would seem to be like a corrupt national leader demonizing others so that his order taking followers might later at his command do the vilest of things to those others who they later will quite obviously view as "inferior" and "enemies".

It is my observation, then, if not only opinion, that you have some very real issues.

Yes, maybe Cloud Camper can get a little personal himself, but then maybe you shouldn't have started making it personal to begin with - and so I see that maybe he is now only giving you but a very small taste of your own rather foul medicine.

I actually commend and applaud Cloud Camper for challenging you, for you need to be challenged when you make ignorant and unsubstantiated claims as if they were fact.

I'm not saying that Cloud Camper always gets everything correct, either. Which of us mere mortals actually does, huh? ...but I certainly don't see in him the kind of arrogance and self-righteousness I see in you where you would refuse to even check yourself when blaring mistakes are truly pointed out to you.

You act as if you simply cannot be wrong - even when you are obviously wrong to others who may be more knowledgeable than yourself. ...well, at least when it comes to so-called Physics 101, huh? ;)

Now, as to your claims, as Cloud Camper and even others have been trying to explain to you, you seem to be overlooking some things.

So, if we are going to do some graphing, how about we along with graphing the centrifugal force a moving mass exerts on a swing arm or track at different rates of speed when that swing arm or track is constraining it to a circular motion at a given radius, we also graph the kinetic energy of that mass too?

Like the centrifugal force, you should see then that the kinetic energy is ALSO a function of the speed of the mass SQUARED. So, if the rate of rotation of the mass is 4 times as great, then, yes, the centrifugal force will be 16 times as large, but of course the kinetic energy of that mass moving at 4 times the initial speed will also be 16 times what it was before as well.

So, to get the much larger centrifugal force (which is a nonlinear function of the speed of the mass, of course), you will have had to have also added a proportional amount of kinetic energy - since the centrifugal force of the mass moving at a given radius IS a linear function of the kinetic energy of that mass.

You seem to have trouble with "dynamic" analysis, which is something that when I went to school was covered in the second quarter of our freshman level college engineering curriculum.

In the first quarter, of course we had "Statics."

I remember my college Dynamics teacher telling my class that for some reason practically everybody seemed to have trouble with dynamics - even including many of those that actually did well in "statics" - and that he didn't really understand why that was. (I personally did well in both, though, IIRC.)

It is my observation, if it's more than but a mere opinion, of course, that most all so-called "perpetual motion machine" designs that I have seen seem to have a design based upon a purely static analysis of the forces by the "inventor."

It would even seem to me that those in the mainstream who would poo poo any attempt at an overbalanced device don't seem to move beyond a static analysis themselves (even if they actually were capable of doing a dynamic one) whether in analyzing the failed designs of others or in speculating about some ideas of their own. Didn't even Simanek confess to having tried to come up with some of his own designs early on?

Anyway, jim_mich, there's more of my input. Are you going to just ignore it like the last while holding out hope I'll just back off out of disinterest or frustration (which is certainly a possibility) and you can get back to business as usual and maybe even to conning others into banning that mean old resident troll? ...lol

Dwayne

[Oystein]

Bill,

Thank you for verifying me expected rebuke!

I too find Jim's alleged figure of 150 watts produced by four pound weights hard to swallow.

To get an idea of the required force required, place a 24" or 26" wheeled bicycle on a stationary stand. Procure an automotive alternator, with a serpentine belt pulley and tension mount it so the rear bicycle tire can drive it. Connect the B+ terminal on the alternator in series with an amp meter and the positive post of a 12 volt battery. Run a ground lead from alternator frame to the negative battery post to complete the circuit.

Attach a volt meter in series from positive to negative posts. Typical auto alternators produce 14.2 volts DC output, to achieve 150 watts you must produce 10.56 amps (volt times amps equal watts).

Also connect you light bulb circuit to the battery posts. Or wire it in series between amp meter and positive post.

Climb on the bike and start peddling, for torque values measure the distance from peddle crank axis to peddle axis. Remove one peddle and replace with a pivoting platform that can handle a small bathroom platform scale. multiply required pounds by length of peddle crank and you have acquired inch pounds of torque. While your are peddling have a second person monitor the amp and volt meters.

If you can light a 60 watt light bulb and maintain it, your in better shape than I am.

If you agree with this method the next step would be to remove the peddles and handle bars to allow attaching a 12 foot diameter disk on center with crank axis. To this you can add your secret OB gravity or motion force design using four pound weights.

From hands on experience I have learned that greed is indeed an evil root. I am utilizing a six foot diameter wheel, using many weights. I have not had them weighed by my local postmaster but I feel confident that they will weigh in less than one pound.

Ralph

Do you read all the posts in this thread at all? I have earlier attached the equivalent average unbalance from eight 4 pound weights without an external 1:4 pulley reduction (mentioned in one report and ovyyus). The watt value is ranging from around 50w - 120w depending on which of the 3 large wheels we estimate from. There is no need to use bathroom scales or pedal arms to understand this. I have calculated the Draschwitz wheel to put out the most wattage and the Merseburg to put out the least. I am not sure which of the 3 big wheel my drawing is from.

In the picture you can see with your own eyes what the 4 pound weights need to do to imitate what was demonstrated by Bessler. The box, is the box of stones that where reported, so is the size of the axle where the rope is attached. I did this years ago so I could better understand and "see" the forces needed in Besslers wheel.

PS, I am a bike rider with a watt-meter, and I know what 50 or 120w mechanical work is.

[daxwc]

Bill:

Rope slippage is reduced with a square pulley. I don't agree with Jim's opinion about friction, I think it would be quite efficient at the relatively low reported speed. Each to their own opinion, I guess. Also, the rope is quite long and would have enough slack to smooth out the bumps you speak of, eliminating alignment problems.

Yes the square pulley will increase friction but would pulse stress the wheel, but the problem area is the other end which is small in radius and uses forks. This end would have much greater slippage problems than even a round sheave at the other end; doesn't quite match inklings of slippage problems.

[ovyyus]

Daxwc, the profile of the forks relative to the size of the rope determines slippage at a given tension. Same with the edge profile of the square pulley.

[daxwc]

Daxwc, the profile of the forks relative to the size of the rope determines slippage at a given tension. Same with the edge profile of the square pulley.

I don’t disagree with you, but usually the best friction provider is more surface contact, if anything was going to slip it would be the fork end. The forks are half the diameter of the square pulley, just seems to me something is not drawn to perspective.

[jim_mich]

A forked pulley has almost no slippage. The rope wedges into the vee pocket and tension pulls the rope even tighter into the pocket. The rope deforms to fit the pocket. Then the friction occurs when the rope must be pulled out of the vee pocket.

Other friction occurs because the pulleys are not aligned. The rope must slide down the side of each vee fork due to the miss-alignment. And it does this while under the tension of rotating the screw. So this adds friction.

Water flowing through the screw also adds friction. When a 1/2 foot lead is assumed and a screw length of 12 foot is assumed, then the water must flow, rubbing against the internal wall of the screw, for a distance of about 113 feet. This flowing of the water against the interior wall of the screw results in significant friction.

The bottom line is that a water screw has significant more friction than a simple weight lift using two pulleys or a simple hammer-mill.

Now would the significantly more friction of the water screw be enough to explain the difference in calculated results between all three load devices? I don't know. Calculating friction is a tricky business.

[daxwc]

Hmm… Sacrilegious strange thought, the square pulley could be timed with lifting of the stamper to provide leverage to the lift. BP

Anyway both seem to need a pulse stress of power, the screw and the stampers, which is probably an indicator of an uneven power cycle of the wheel itself.

[ovyyus]

Why is there pulse stress between wheel and water screw?

With attention to details such as fork profile, rope size & type & tension, alignment, etc, this setup would be quite free and easy to turn. Without attention to detail and trade experience even beautifully free to move gears can be made stiff and friction-bound. I expect Bessler's machines were very well crafted.

[jim_mich]

Bill, a square pulley transmits pulses because it is square and is not round. The rope becomes tight then slack then tight then slack. This results in pulsing.

If two square pulleys of a same size are used then they would synchronize and the tension between the pulleys would be constant. But the transmission speed between the two would pulse because the effective pulley diameter varies from when the rope is at the point of the square pulley and when it is at the flat part in between the points.

[Unbalanced]

Daxwc wrote

I don’t disagree with you, but usually the best friction provider is more surface contact, if anything was going to slip it would be the fork end. The forks are half the diameter of the square pulley, just seems to me something is not drawn to perspective.

Writing of perspective, as drawn, the square pulley on the Archimedes screw would not be able to turn without contacting the side of the water trough. See right hand side of illustration.

[daanopperman]

Hi jim_mich ,

The pitch of the water screw can also be found in the drawing , at the bottom you will see a notch in the screw housing , that would be the pitch .

[jim_mich]

Dan, yes, that would be the smaller limit of the pitch, but it does not confirm the actual pitch. The notch could very well extend only half way into the lead of the screw, which could make the pitch any amount longer.

Again, we are left with an assumption. When a situation has many assumption, the probability that one or more assumption might be wrong increases exponentially with the number of assumption.

The hundred-weight lift has the least number of assumptions. Bill throws in a single assumption that there was some sort of pulley reduction that is never shown or mentioned except by one witness in an off handed manner, which can be explained as being a reference to the peritrochium style of the wheel and instead of a speed reduction of the load.

If Bill's assumption is false, then the wheel output when lifting the hundred-weight load has no assumptions. All the data is known. And it closely matches the estimate for the hammer-mill. The only assumptions for the hammer-mill is how high the weights were lifted and the density weight of the wood.