Energy creation

[Georg Künstler]

Hi eccentrically1,
you wrote:

What makes it tricky is not knowing what was rotating inside as well as how much mass it had.

But you have additional clues, and you can count them up.
the weights are shaped cylindrical
one weight has about 4 pounds,
the weights act in pairs
you have the diameter of the wheel
you have the rotation speed
you have 8 impacts per turn
you have the material of the outer wheel, wood
all the dimensions of he wheel can be measured from the drawings
you can calculate the mass of the outer wheel
The wheel was started with a finger push and accelerate.
It changes the status from well balanced to overbalanced.

With 8 impacts per turn you can calculate the oscillation frequence.
When you have calculated the mass of the wheel and you like to accelerate this mass, then you need an internal torque.
The mass of the internal weight is 2*4 pounds, or 4*2 pounds...2n*4 pounds.
The distance for a lever is limited to the radius of the outer wheel.
As one weight is going to the rim and the other to the axle,
only one of the 2 weights is responsible for the torque,
then swap.

More weights, more torque.
A greater radius more torque.

[agor95]

Hi All

We are good at ruling things out so why not used that ability to rule thing in.

Lets stick to one type of wheel like the Castle 54 day bi-directional runner.

Setting The Limits

We can create limits [min and max] for the properties of this wheel.
Some are reasonably exact; as posted above.

the weights are shaped cylindrical
one weight has about 4 pounds,
the weights act in pairs
you have the diameter of the wheel
you have the rotation speed
you have 8 impacts per turn

Where exact calculations are not possible we could assign upper and lower limits.

Note every measurement has limits; even the ones we know are accurate.

Rotation 25 - 26 RPM [unloaded]
speed up time 9 to 14 seconds


Previous Posts

Logic tells me for the K.E. to increase from a small push start the Potential Energy has to come from Kinetic Energy outside the system [wheel].

That is why I choose to look at 'acceleration due to gravity' as a movement. An increasing rate of Kinetic Energy.

We can pin down the limits of devices we create and place large limits of the thing we do not know.

In Besslers case most of them :-)

However members would then have a list of agreed characteristics.

With regards uni- or bi- directional devices.

The initial small push would break initial friction then the device could keel.
That would convert Potential into Kinetic energy. So the direction can be in either way.

For uni-directional the latency of inertial would precondition the rotation direction

IMO.

[John Collins]

Why a speed up time of 9 to 11 minutes? Fischer von Erlach stated that the wheel gained its full speed after two or three turns. Or did you mean seconds?

JC

[ME]

It's not.
9 to 10 seconds is the most likely value that fits the data.
See topic: "the missing factor"

btw Agor: It is 25 to 26 RPM

[Georg Künstler]

H Agor95,
for the acceleration the wheel needs 3 turns.
As I have written before this is dependent on the internal weights and the outer rim weight.

But we can pin down 3 turns for the acceleration. It will be a good start.

After the acceleration time, the wheel tuned with 26 rpm (rounds per minute)

To make it easier we can say the end speed will be for one turn 2 seconds.

The acceleration is not linear, it is fast on the beginning and then being reduced until we have the stable run.(natural frequency)
The reason for that is: if you always accelerate with the same pulsating force the oscillation will damage the wheel.(ut of control)

So the calculation of ME sounds plausible, to speed up we need 9 to 10 Seconds.

[agor95]

Thank you all - the original post has been updated.

[ME]

Not to nitpick, but... let's do it anyway

Note every measurement has limits; even the ones we know are accurate.

Rotation 25 - 26 RPM [unloaded]
speed up time 9 to 10 seconds

This speed-up time is not a measurement, but a calculated guestimate.
To get an idea of accuracy, Jim_mich thought 14 seconds.
:-)

[agor95]

Thank you all - the original post has been updated.

OK updated again to cover the limits

12 foot diameter = 3.65 meters = 1.82 m radius => distance covered at rim ( 2 Pi r ) => 2 x 3.142 x 1.82 = 11.5 meters ground roll @ 26 rpm => 1 revolution each 2.3 secs => velocity 5 m/s = 18 km/hr.

To good a point not to be missed.

A mass that is rotating around a pivot point can not drop faster than the acceleration due to gravity..

[ME]

Another limit:
A mass going so fast that centrifugal force equals gravity can never exert a torque by gravity.

[Johndoe2]

I would like to say that ME did hit on a few interesting topics that are key to this discussion

1) The fact that it is the energy difference that causes the energy appear.
2) the relationship of energy and momentum.

[Johndoe2]

Amass that is rotating around a pivot point can not drop faster than the acceleration due to gravity..

I think you need to investigate this statement further.

[eccentrically1]

The weights have to "drop" faster than gravity in order to impact the wheel - and make it rotate! - at those rpm's.
Do you still think it was a gravity wheel?

Edit: Note well: Centripetal force does no work on the weights. It is perpendicular to their velocity direction.

[Senax]

Another limit:
A mass going so fast that centrifugal force equals gravity can never exert a torque by gravity.

On the going down side it's acting in with gravity, in addition to gravity.
On the going up side it's acting against gravity, in subtraction from gravity.

[Fletcher]

Here's some extracts about rotation from my trusty "Mechanics of Flight" Ninth Edition ( A C Kermode ), when I was a student pilot many many moons ago.

It explains things rather well. Excuse my hand writing and margin notes as I worked thru things at the time.

I think they may help understanding for some.

[ME]

Another limit:
A mass going so fast that centrifugal force equals gravity can never exert a torque by gravity.

On the going down side it's acting in with gravity, in addition to gravity.
On the going up side it's acting against gravity, in subtraction from gravity.

When stuff stays where it is, then it remains where it is and is not going anywhere. Especially not relative down.
Unless there's a hole in that bucket, dear Liza, the following is what I mean:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zulw5bQ18Kk