MTs, WM2D, and WM Basic Language Script Code

[Wubbly]

This is a spreadsheet that converts between various rotational velocities. (spreadsheet attached later)
It shows the period T (time for one complete revolution),
RPM (revolutions per minute),
Angular velocity (in degrees per second),
and angular velocity (in radians per second).
Find the green cell that contains the data you know, enter it, and it converts to the other angular velocities.
It’s easier for me to think in terms of degrees per second. Count out one second in your head and visualize the wheel turning through that many degrees.

------------------------------------

Also attached is a rotation conversion chart that counts up in 10 degree increments from 10 to 360 degrees per second.
Bessler’s wheels are highlighted to show where they fall on the chart.

[Wubbly]

This spreadsheet shows Centrifugal Force at various radii.
The Angular Velocity is constant.
The user can enter 3 mass values and a constant angular velocity value.

Bessler’s wheels each ran at a constant angular velocity. You can enter the angular velocity of one of his wheels, a mass value of what you believe was one of his weights, and you can see the centrifugal force (CF) at various radii. It’s interesting to note that for a constant angular velocity wheel, the relationships are linear.

[Wubbly]

This spreadsheet calculates the work required to move a mass inward against centrifugal force in a wheel with a constant angular velocity, and in a horizontal plane.
If the angular velocity of the wheel is a forced constant, then the work is the average CF times the distance moved.

[Wubbly]

This spreadsheet adds in the gravitational force vector (GF).
The Centrifugal force vector is always radially outward.
The Gravitational force vector is always straight down.
If a mass in a rotating wheel is at the 90 degree mark (TDC), centrifugal force is upward, and gravitational force is downward.
If the wheel is at rest, then CF = 0. As the angular velocity of the wheel increases, the CF value increases to a point where its magnitude is equal to the magnitude of the gravitational force vector GF. At this angular velocity the mass is ‘weightless’ in the wheel at 90 degrees.

If you add the CF and the GF vectors together and plot the y component at 90 degrees as a function of angular velocity, when the line crosses through the Y=0 mark, the mass is weightless at 90 degrees.

In this spreadsheet you can enter a radius of one of Bessler’s wheels and see at what angular velocity the CF+GF vector crosses through the zero mark. Compare that value to the actual angular velocity of Bessler’s wheel to see if a mass was weightless in his wheel.

[Wubbly]

This spreadsheet calculates at what angular velocity and radius a mass becomes weightless in a rotating wheel (at 90 degrees).
It’s interesting to notice that mass drops out of the equation.
Bessler’s 4 wheels are plotted on the graph.
If a dot for his wheel is above the red ‘weightless’ line, then a mass at the outer radius of that wheel was weightless at the wheel’s angular velocity.
It’s interesting to notice that only the Kassel wheel is below the red 'weightless' line, but this is the ‘loaded’ angular velocity. The unloaded version (not plotted) is above the red weightless line.

[Wubbly]

This spreadsheet shows the Centrifugal force vector plus the Gravitational force vector (CF + GF) at 90 and 270, in Bessler’s 4 wheels.
It breaks the radius down into increments of 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, and 1 x radius.

If the cell is colored red, then gravity is winning and the mass is not weightless (at 90 degrees).
If the cell is colored blue, then CF is winning and the weight is more than weightless.

Also attached is the spreadsheet if you want to enter values.

[agor95]

Thank you Wubbly much appreciated.

cheers

[Fletcher]

Wubbly .. have you been able to draw any conclusions from your study above ?

[Wubbly]

The fact that 3 of the wheels were all "above weightless" at the rim and 1 was not was a bit confusing.

If the mechanism required a weightless portion, this makes the Kassel wheel the outlier because there was no weightless portion anywhere in the wheel.

If the mechanism was required to drop in a gravity field, this would be difficult traveling at the angular velocities of the first 3 wheels unless the mechanism was operating closer to the axle.

It makes me wonder if he used the same principle on all his wheels. I'm guessing he probably did, but it's just a guess.

Currently I am investigating CF as the driving factor, but others have gone down that road and failed, so the handwriting's on the wall.

You can't escape CF in a rotating system, unless as Bill suggested the weights don't go in and out, but I can't envision what would drive that movement other than something else that goes in and out.

[Fletcher]

If the mechanism was required to drop in a gravity field, this would be difficult traveling at the angular velocities of the first 3 wheels unless the mechanism was operating closer to the axle.

Thanks Wubbly ..

A lot closer to the axle, which would reduce Cf's.

Another thought is to increase the number of sectors i.e. disregard 8 sounds per revolution (may not be related to weights per se) so there is a lot less vertical distance to fall. That might make a difference and increase tolerances ?

Just being a jerk ;7) .. a 3rd option might be to have weights falling incremental (short) distances in a number of sectors simultaneously i.e. staged jerking or snatching forward. That also might be a workaround to the problems of weightlessness ?

[silent]

Don't forget Wubbly that you can change the distribution of weight on the rim. Imagine your fingers are spokes and your fingernails are weights. Spread your fingers out and that becomes the lighter side. The other side has the fingers together. You can prove this by taping coins around a rim. On one half of the wheel, evenly space 4 coins. On the other side, bunch them up together. That bunched up side is seen as heavier.

All weights stay the same distance from the center but redistribution makes one side heavier.

This is how mt 134 works but the trigger ring is too heavy and cumbersome. I'm beginning to wonder if flexible spring like arms that are drawn together with cords and pullies could make it happen, but then how to create the pulling action without changing the CoG?

Silent

[ovyyus]

You can't escape CF in a rotating system, unless as Bill suggested the weights don't go in and out, but I can't envision what would drive that movement other than something else that goes in and out.

If the weight/weights could only move around the rim then a lifting force might likewise also only act around the rim. If that was the case then perhaps nothing moved in and out inside Bessler's wheel.

[agor95]

Spread your fingers out and that becomes the lighter side. The other side has the fingers together.

...

All weights stay the same distance from the center but redistribution makes one side heavier.

... but then how to create the pulling action without changing the CoG?

That is a good concept with an additional mover.

If there was a bar placed across the center that dropped down. That then could be used to cause the 4 weights around the bottom to spread out while pulling the top 4 weights together.

The weights are all on the rim so no CF effect.

However the CF would increase the dropping effect on the bar started by gravity.

cheers

[WaltzCee]

If there was a bar placed across the center that dropped down. That then could be
used to cause the 4 weights around the bottom to spread out while pulling the top 4
weights together.

What a cool idea, if m1 and m2 were directly connected. That would put their blue Berry
Center right in the middle of rotation. Cool way to eliminate centrifical force.

You could look at the mb series of weights like fingers on a hand, except the hand got
caught in a saw.

[murilo]

The fact that 3 of the wheels were all "above weightless" at the rim and 1 was not was a bit confusing.

If the mechanism required a weightless portion, this makes the Kassel wheel the outlier because there was no weightless portion anywhere in the wheel.

If the mechanism was required to drop in a gravity field, this would be difficult traveling at the angular velocities of the first 3 wheels unless the mechanism was operating closer to the axle.

It makes me wonder if he used the same principle on all his wheels. I'm guessing he probably did, but it's just a guess.

Currently I am investigating CF as the driving factor, but others have gone down that road and failed, so the handwriting's on the wall.

You can't escape CF in a rotating system, unless as Bill suggested the weights don't go in and out, but I can't envision what would drive that movement other than something else that goes in and out.

Wubbly!
Wow! Glad to 'see' inside your mind!
Generally I just can't 'think' without pictures, even mind pictures.
Be my guest at my site .......avalanchedrive.com
At a few days, at 76, I found an incredible matter that I recommend to all a search ''Asperger Syndrome'!!!
I didn't know I have a kind of autism!
Best!
Murilo :)