How can adding more mechanisms increase rpm and power ?

[Fletcher]

Something I've wondered about over the years. I decided I'd ask the forum for your opinions.

.....................

Bessler said in AP & DT (from wiki clues).

"If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in my machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself at all, but, on the contrary, when I arrange several bars, pulleys and weights, the machine can revolve much faster" - AP pg 355

"For I put together the very first device which could spontaneously ('spontaneously' wasn't used but included by the translator) 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." - AP pg 271

"now present for all to see, the principle of Perpetual Motion. For no burden or resistance is so great that, other things being equal, the P.M. principle cannot overcome it, since it is capable of having its effect multiplied indefinitely." - DT pg 210

.....................

How does one increase rpm and power by the addition of more mechanisms (given the space available) ?

N.B. it is a given that adding more wheels to a common axle would apply. I'm talking about more sectors per individual wheel.

What circumstance(s) allow this to happen ?

My experience is that when adding more mechanisms the torque remains symmetrical with equal and opposite amounts of torque i.e. equal positive and negative torques per sector (a sector being the equal division of 360 degrees by the number of mechanisms). So adding more sectors does not improve anything in any way !

How can more mechanisms and sectors allow for an increase in rpm ?

Can you think of any mechanical examples, or more importantly circumstances, that would show an increase in rpm this way ?

It has me flummoxed - perhaps the answer is simple but I suspect that it may be more complex than that.

Your thoughts appreciated.

[pequaide]

If the lowest descending drive mass is flipped or thrown from bottom to top then there is nothing on the ascending side of the wheel. Then the more drive masses you have on the descending side the greater the power.

[james.lindgard]

I think you mentioned the classic mistake most people make. Even Bessler said adding more weights here and there didn't help.
One of the first things I learned about electricity was that it needed a flow. Momenum is no different. And with gravity, unless you consider wind or water, resistance allows for conservation of momentum. With gravity, it can oppose inertia, etc. while allowing for momentum to be conserved.

[Fletcher]

Thanks .. it would appear that if a system CoG can be constrained to the descending side of the axle (for the majority of time ?) then more positive torque than negative torque would eventuate. That much seems obvious.

This would provide for more positive torque than negative and be a pathway to increasing rpm and power with more sectors and mechanisms added and would satisfy Bessler's above quotes I guess.

However, this requires a way to mechanically replenish or restore the GPE lost by the internal movement of parts as they apply leverage principles IINM.

And we know that the cause of leverage principles to work is when more GPE is lost than the opposing side gains. Without a reduction in NET GPE of a mechanism by one side or the other it will not move.

And that is the conundrum of a mechanical wheel that is gravity only powered, again IINM.

[pequaide]

If you were not going to listen then why did you ask?

[rlortie]

Fletcher,

My opinion will mean little here as I am not following Bessler, but rather Kenrick and his molecular mass concept.

My design is made up of 35 sectors, there is a "sector" hitting 90 degrees or 3:00 o'clock every 10.28 degrees of rotation.

The design consists of two parts, the 35 sectors containing the OB mass in one wheel assembly. The other half or second wheel is stationary containing the drivers. This second portion can be manually turned 180 degrees, adjusting torque and direction of rotation.

Your thread http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=5504 is somewhat responsible for giving me the inspiration to try a hydraulic design.

I have had, and still have a lot on the burners (including health) so fabrication is moving very slowly. One of my commitments you would appreciate is for and with my local EAA chapter. It seems experimental aircraft also apppreciate my skills and resources.

Ralph

[ovyyus]

If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in my machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself at all, but, on the contrary, when I arrange several bars, pulleys and weights, the machine can revolve much faster

If the lowest descending drive mass is flipped or thrown from bottom to top then there is nothing on the ascending side of the wheel. Then the more drive masses you have on the descending side the greater the power.

A wheel containing 1 weight flipped or thrown from the bottom to the top will not replicate the characteristics of Bessler's wheel. Bessler's wheel acted as though it was wound up with an internal clock spring, ie; constant torque. That's what Bessler describes in his quote above - constant, albeit small, wheel torque from just one 'cross-bar'. A weight flipped or thrown up inside the wheel cannot provide constant wheel torque.

[raj]

The weights do not have to be lifted from 6 to 12 o'clock and drop from 12 to 6 o'clock to provide torque effect for wheel to turn.

Net torque can be gained with weights moving around up and down only in the lower half of the wheel below the axle. In which can, the wheel will be like a unidirectional swing and the axle will be just a pivot.

Raj

[Fcdriver]

Besslers wheel worked because there was a constant over whelming force on one side, because lifting was less costly to rotation, than the dropping force causing rotation. Multiple additions of the exact same force, sets up series of events, and yes adding additional actions does increase rpms, but only to the terminal velocity of the dropping force. After that point it increases to torque out put. Because a 10 lb weight does not fall any faster than a 25 lb weight. The total rpm is limited to the distance of drop.

[Fletcher]

If the lowest descending drive mass is flipped or thrown from bottom to top then there is nothing on the ascending side of the wheel. Then the more drive masses you have on the descending side the greater the power.

If you were not going to listen then why did you ask?

I must have missed your detail. I can only guess that you mean the inertia/RKE of the wheel in motion releases a small tethered mass (which does the force imbalancing) from near tdc wheel position and swings it around about a the 6 o'cl pivot and back to its starting position on the wheel.

IOW's it fully restores GPE whilst covering frictional losses and gives the main wheel additional momentum and RKE.

Of course in sim world this doesn't work. I tried it many years ago.

See ovyyus's answer.

Nice to here from you Ralph .. best of luck with the Non-Bessler approach as always. I've turned over about as many rocks as I can find over the years. Right now I'm just looking at the gravity only imbalance situation as Bessler implied. What could be the thing we all missed and that 'one word' could give away in that context. I know Oystein says that word is 'backwards' and so I've also looked at lifting weighted levers forward on the ascending side as well as the traditional approaches.

So far Nada.

The weights do not have to be lifted from 6 to 12 o'clock and drop from 12 to 6 o'clock to provide torque effect for wheel to turn.

Net torque can be gained with weights moving around up and down only in the lower half of the wheel below the axle. In which can, the wheel will be like a unidirectional swing and the axle will be just a pivot.

That's correct Raj .. there is no insistence that a wheel must be CoG top heavy above the axle i.e. keep the CoG in the top half of the wheel for longer than beneath. It will turn just as happily with a CoG rotating wholly and well below the axle for example.

What does need to happen is that at some stage in the cycle the GPE lost by internal parts moving, leveraging, and impacting, must be replenished/restored. And that requires a lift or shift at least once if not twice per cycle depending on your design. This can happen all below the axle if you'd like.

The trick seems to be to keep the CoG/system CoM to one side for a longer portion of time per cycle or wholly to one side.

Right now I'm stuck for mechanical possibilities that can do both that and restore GPE etc etc, regardless of not listening to pequaide apparently.

[Fletcher]

Besslers wheel worked because there was a constant over whelming force on one side, because lifting was less costly to rotation, than the dropping force causing rotation. Multiple additions of the exact same force, sets up series of events, and yes adding additional actions does increase rpms, but only to the terminal velocity of the dropping force. After that point it increases to torque out put. Because a 10 lb weight does not fall any faster than a 25 lb weight. The total rpm is limited to the distance of drop.

The limiting of speed/rpm to rate of gravitational acceleration and terminal velocity due to drag frictions of masses was established as a likelihood many years ago Frank. I think dax did the math amongst others. It was called the 'lag effect' IIRC. Things need time to apply forces and space to rise or fall.

That part of your theory is plausible.

As for the rest, I'll have to disagree until the physics experiments you can suggest to prove your case prove otherwise.

[ovyyus]

What could be the thing we all missed and that 'one word' could give away in that context. I know Oystein says that word is 'backwards' and so I've also looked at lifting weighted levers forward on the ascending side as well as the traditional approaches....

'Backwards' just doesn't help much, as you say. I think the only word that betrays the power of any engine is the name of it's energy source.

[Fletcher]

If I arrange to have just one cross-bar in my machine, it revolves very slowly, just as if it can hardly turn itself at all ..

Yes Bill .. the way it reads it certainly sounds like a constant torque and constant speed situation.

So I have to wonder also if the translation is accurate enough.

A thing will rotate slowly if there is a small imbalance (because there's not much torque). But, as we know, from the moment of imbalance the wheel carrier background will slowly accelerate increasing in noticeable rpm until it enters negative torque territory when that rpm begins to noticeably slow as it loses RKE.

N.B. that is after 6 o'cl for a one cross-bar with mechanism(s) wheel.

[ovyyus]

Oops, sorry Fletcher for my badly timed post edit.

[Fletcher]

What could be the thing we all missed and that 'one word' could give away in that context. I know Oystein says that word is 'backwards' and so I've also looked at lifting weighted levers forward on the ascending side as well as the traditional approaches....

'Backwards' just doesn't help much, as you say. I think the only word that betrays the power of any engine is the name of it's energy source.

No worries Bill ..

I agree, but that would be rather too obvious I would think.

If we assume it was indeed a gravity only PMM caused to rotate thru 'imbalance', preponderance, excess impetus etc, then that one word could relate to either the Prime Mover mechanism makeup or to a way of using that mechanism, I should think.

'Backwards' could indicate a lifting of masses rather than a falling of masses in a wheel. It reminds me of the deliberate reversal of MT13 - the lettering is in reverse but the number 13 is the correct orientation, so the print error was deliberate.