Remove bearing, still do work?

[John Collins]

Yes, but minus the weights. :-)

JC

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Agor95,
you can add, that the weight of the Wheel is only the Wheel and does not include the internal Swinging weights, because this were removed before the relocation.

As one weight weight about 4 Pounds, and they act in pairs,
one pair is counting up to 8 Pounds


My opinion to how many weights are used:

From mathematically point a Minimum of 8 weights are necessary
so the Swinging mass will be 32 Pounds.
Because you heard 8 Impacts per turn.

It can be more, but 8 weights are needed for the bi-directional Wheel.

[raj]

@Georg,
If the weights were swinging on a
smaller wheel inside the main larger wheel at twice the speed, then it is possible to have 8 knocking sound with only two weights, per rev of main wheel.

Raj

[raj]

Sorry!
Duplication error.

[Georg Künstler]

Hi Raj,
yes with more revolution of a smaller inside Wheel you can have more Impacts, that is true. 2 for every turn of your construction.

But if you have a look to Leibnitz, then you will see that if you make your internal Wheel too small, it cannot roll over something.

For example: if a wagon Wheel is to small, it can not roll over a simple Stone. A bigger Wheel can do this easily.

So the inside mechanism has to be build as big as possible.

The 8 Impacts per turn are not fix for me, it can be in a range also from 7.8 to 8.2 Impacts per turn, but it gives a good start Point.

[raj]

Just a slight precision.

In my construction, the inside wheel/S do rotate but do NOT ROLL over anything.

Raj

[agor95]

First guess the wheel without weights maximum is 300 lbs (136kg) or around 21 stone.

https://strengthlevel.com/strength-stan ... eadlift/kg
https://duckduckgo.com/?q=11+stone+to+p ... &ia=answer

Add the weights of your choice for flavour.

If members want to up the limit then we await your reasoning.

Regards

[raj]

This is just for what it's worth.

1. Friction is the main obstacle in our search for a PMM.
2. Primary cause of friction is the total MASS of the WHEEL/S acting on the axle/bearing/s.
3. Secondary cause of friction is the total MASS of the WEIGHT/S, pressing wheel/s on the axle/bearings.
4. Third causes of friction are All moving connections on all BEARINGS.
5. Fifth cause of friction is AIR resistance on volume of WHEEL/s.
6. Sixth cause of friction (ENERGY LOSS) is NOISE as sound energy.

I am trying to REDUCE these causes of friction in my concept/s.

Raj

[sleepy]

When Bessler let the witnesses hold that cylinder in the handkerchief, did he specifically say that it was a drive weight? And why would anyone assume that the eight "sounds" were being made by the apparatus driving the wheel?
I've heard bad wheel bearings on a car make a rhythmic knocking, but it was a by-product of the wheel turning. It was not what was turning the wheel. I'm sure Bessler could have caused any number of sounds just to confuse the witnesses and further protect his secret.

[Fletcher]

Bessler said about wheel noise .. n.b. not necessarily referring to the sound of about 8 heard per revolution.

"the clattering noise you refer to is, I assure you, a phenomenon caused directly by the real motive power of the machine, and nothing else" – AP pg 352

Note: The Draschwitz machine did not create a similar noise because it worked on quite different principles – AP pg 352

[Georg Künstler]

Raj wrote:

This is just for what it's worth.

1. Friction is the main obstacle in our search for a PMM.
2. Primary cause of friction is the total MASS of the WHEEL/S acting on the axle/bearing/s.
3. Secondary cause of friction is the total MASS of the WEIGHT/S, pressing wheel/s on the axle/bearings.
4. Third causes of friction are All moving connections on all BEARINGS.
5. Fifth cause of friction is AIR resistance on volume of WHEEL/s.
6. Sixth cause of friction (ENERGY LOSS) is NOISE as sound energy.

I am trying to REDUCE these causes of friction in my concept/s.

Raj

here we talk about a different concept of the internal mechanism.
Potential energy is created when the wheel is turned from the well balances status some degrees.

from that point the wheel has asymetric torque

friction must not be taken into account one pound one more or less does not count.

Energy lost for the noise(impact) can be ignored.
It is necessary function to create the overbalance.

Moving connections don't exist, so also here no friction.
Air resistance will exist but can be ignored.

[Johndoe2]

Imo there is a ( relatively ) small window that we are shooting for depending on design. My guestimate is probably in the 10 to 15 percent range. This is one of ( Many ) things that makes the search for PMM so diffucult. In a "close" design or less efficient design that could possibly be a runner PMM might not show up at all due to loss of energy from friction. So while some efforts will be very productive I wouldn't waste a significant amount of time on some of the less productive forms of reducing energy loss.

[Johndoe2]

Another reason that it was bolted to the ceiling could be the extra structural support or safety. This does not preclude being in addition to reasons 1 and or 2. We have to consider the additional forces on the wheel for test purposes also. The lifting of the bricks and or stampers depending on how it was designed and specifically if it did not have some type of reduction gear box and was attached to the axle directly these forces could be quite significant in addition to the weight of a stationary wheel.