THE wheel fatal flaw that no one notice

[daxwc]

Fletcher: Hi dax .. B's. first public wheel was only 10 cms deep (4 inches) and that's the outside dimensions. There was barely any room for anything to move in the vertical plane (x,y) let alone the z plane

So 4’’ in z plane means travel movement of 8”; It is 4” left + 4” right = 8”. On a 3 foot wheel chord length from 11:30 PM to 00:30 Pm is approximately 8”. So it works out approximately equal. We have no idea the radius the weight actually takes inside. Trying to limit constraints by the shell is wrong it only works on limited maximums.

[agor95]

... then a likely candidate would be a momentum transfer between the wheel and the earth system. With the wheel gaining a small amount of local momentum (increasing rotation rate) and the earth losing an
infinitesimal portion of its aggregate momentum in compensation. A symmetric relationship. However TOTAL local momentum is conserved.

That is a reasonable way forward. space probes are pull towards a planet so momentum is transferred.

Therefore momentum is transferred by the Prime Mover by pushing down against the planet.
The wheel's dynamic environment is in it's rotation rather than a translation as in the space probe.

So the mass of the Prime Mover needs to gain momentum without taking it from the wheel.
Direct that momentum down to push against the Earth and then redirect the collision impact into
rotation of the wheel.

Regards

[Sam Peppiatt]

FWEIW,
Fletcher, again, I think you brought up an important point. I.E, how thin the first wheel was. What ever was inside of it, turning the wheel, must have been only about three inches thick! There is only one single thing that has to happen, and it's been known for 100s of years; for a wheel to turn. That is, the weights have to shift in on the up side and out on the down side. But, how to do that?

What I'm trying to suggest is the possibility that Bessler's first wheel had two thin wooden rollers, @ an inch thick and maybe 3 1/2 feet in diameter, side by side. And, that somehow they alternated, rolling back and forth, shifting in on the up side and out on the down side. Yea, I know the standard answer, build the f@cken thing and try it-----------------------------Sam

[Fletcher]

Fletcher: Hi dax .. B's. first public wheel was only 10 cms deep (4 inches) and that's the outside dimensions. There was barely any room for anything to move in the vertical plane (x,y) let alone the z plane

So 4’’ in z plane means travel movement of 8”; It is 4” left + 4” right = 8”. On a 3 foot wheel chord length from 11:30 PM to 00:30 Pm is approximately 8”. So it works out approximately equal. We have no idea the radius the weight actually takes inside. Trying to limit constraints by the shell is wrong it only works on limited maximums.

Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong dax ..

Assuming the first wheel diameter was 3 foot (36 inches) => radius is 1.5 feet (18 inches).

Circumference length is 2 x Pi x r => 2 x 3.1416 x 1.5 = 9.425 feet.

=> 9.425 feet / 12 = 0.785 feet (between 11.30 & 0.30 o/cl) => 0.785 feet = 9.4 inches or ~ 25 cms.

As Sam says in a later post, that is the outer dimension of 4 inches deep for the disk. Allowing for structural support posts etc 3 inches of available space might seem optimistic and 2 to 2 & 1/2 inches more realistic. So this could limit chord movement to 4 to 6 inches.

AND .. as you say we don't know where the mechs were located, right at the rim or at a closer radius.

IF there was a z plane movement then building it so narrow must have been a premeditated plan to disguise this z plane movement .. or .. the mechs moved in the vertical plane of the wheel.

[Fletcher]

FWEIW,
Fletcher, again, I think you brought up an important point. I.E, how thin the first wheel was. What ever was inside of it, turning the wheel, must have been only about three inches thick! There is only one single thing that has to happen, and it's been known for 100s of years; for a wheel to turn. That is, the weights have to shift in on the up side and out on the down side. But, how to do that?

What I'm trying to suggest is the possibility that Bessler's first wheel had two thin wooden rollers, @ an inch thick and maybe 3 1/2 feet in diameter, side by side. And, that somehow they alternated, rolling back and forth, shifting in on the up side and out on the down side. Yea, I know the standard answer, build the f@cken thing and try it-----------------------------Sam

Unfortunately Sam the acid test is always the build, unless the math can be shown to be conclusive that a gain in momentum advantage can be had. Doesn't stop all of us speculating before we go to the build POP. It'd be a dull discussion board if we had nothing to discuss and think about while we waited for only builds to appear and discuss.

Generally weight shifting philosophies required input "energy" to overcome the innate closed path conservatism of gravity-only. How to do that ? (as you say), is the ever pressing question that needs answering for every theory of operation.

[Tarsier79]

You can simulate Z in the X-Y plane, just as I have seen done in sims. That means we could easily get the equivalent of that Z flip movement without any actual Z movement. But, what is the advantage? Our goal is to get back all of our PE. If you flip Z (or equiv) 11-1, the original problem isn't solved.

[Fletcher]

You won't get any argument from me Tarsier ..

[Sam Peppiatt]

I never learn. Like John Collins said, no one cares-------------------------------------Sam

[daxwc]

Fletcher: IF there was a z plane movement then building it so narrow must have been a premeditated plan to disguise this z plane movement .. or .. the mechs moved in the vertical plane of the wheel.

Can you think of a better deception?

T79: You can simulate Z in the X-Y plane, just as I have seen done in sims. That means we could easily get the equivalent of that Z flip movement without any actual Z movement. But, what is the advantage? .

Well I guess if you flipped to the same radius as it came from on the other side you no longer have to pick it up. Instead of throwing mass up to get increased torque from further radius then having to pick it up again; the most efficient way is to move mass laterally. I don’t know if it is the answer, but it isn’t off the table of options.

T79: Our goal is to get back all of our PE. If you flip Z (or equiv) 11-1, the original problem isn't solved.

Correct; that is why something needs to happen when there is still momentum in the wheel.

[Fletcher]

... then a likely candidate would be a momentum transfer between the wheel and the earth system. With the wheel gaining a small amount of local momentum (increasing rotation rate) and the earth losing an infinitesimal portion of its aggregate momentum in compensation. A symmetric relationship. However TOTAL local momentum is conserved.

That is a reasonable way forward. space probes are pull towards a planet so momentum is transferred.

Therefore momentum is transferred by the Prime Mover by pushing down against the planet.

The wheel's dynamic environment is in it's rotation rather than a translation as in the space probe.

So the mass of the Prime Mover needs to gain momentum without taking it from the wheel.

Direct that momentum down to push against the Earth and then redirect the collision impact into
rotation of the wheel.

Regards

As I've said on previous occasions Agor we can build a theory of where the momentum gain comes from from the 'bottom-up' (design a mechanical model and cross our fingers that it will work) .. or .. from the 'top-down'. i.e Before building a mechanical model attempt to identify where that momentum gain could be coming from (within known Laws). Applying Ockham's Razor it would seem reasonable to me that the momentum gain was of a parasitic nature (robbing Peter to pay Paul), rather than momentum from sprinkling pixie dust on our wheels. If it were the latter then Conservation of Momentum Laws would be thrown out the door, and I'm not brave enough to do that ;7)

Yes, the Prime Mover apparatus causes a gain in whole-of-wheel rotation rate, rather than an increase in probe straight line velocity (translation) as the comparison. And if it causes such a gain in all-of-wheel momentum then the "wheel" is not dissipating it away again in equal measures, to keep the analogy uncluttered.

The sling-shot effect of probes and satellites gaining straight line speed thru momentum transfer is well known. But it was not in B's. time and I doubt he knew much about such things, as we do today. However he faced the same problems we do. His OOB wheels needed 'energy' input to restore PE (as Kaine said) because of frictional energy losses etc and conservative gravity-force. Or .. he could mechanically try something else to get it to restore GPE and maybe have some residual momentum gain over the top as we've been discussing. I doubt he was thinking in momentum transfer terms as per our actual real probe examples everyone knows about today. He just wanted it to restore GPE and if it had extra velocity all-the-better. He was successful, and Karl described it as innate momentum gain, while he called it excess-impetus / preponderance / excess-weight etc. They both knew about momentum very well, as KE (m0.5v^2) math and energy equivalence (f x d) were yet to be formally defined in science as we know them IINM.

Anyhoo .. for those alarmists concerned that millions of "runners" would catastrophically lengthen the day length let me add this. The earth's average day length has been increasing since Adam was in shorts. For two main reasons.

1. As the early earth was bombarded by meteorites and grew in diameter with their aggregation, and the emergence of oceans and an atmosphere over time, the earths average density changed, increasing its MOI - this slowed the earths rotation and the day length began to increase.

2. With the emergence of oceans and an atmosphere frictions occurred with the earths surface - this caused weather patterns and dissipated frictional energy into space. There were also ocean and atmospheric tides (from the earth moon couple) inter-playing which caused a momentum transfer between the two. The moon is increasing its orbital diameter by about 4 cms per year. And reciprocally the earths rotational rate is slowing down in response. IOWs one gains momentum and one is losing it proportionally .. or .. put another way, the moon is gaining GPE while the earth is losing RKE.

The upshot, which will come as no great surprise, is that the earth day has been, and is getting, minutely longer each year and decade.

Proportionally, thousands, if not millions, of runners orientated in every direction, would hardly hold a candle to the mass of the other contributors to the current momentum exchange processes lengthening our days.

An upside to a "runner" .. 24/7 production of energy, no CO2 emissions (for electricity production) and makes the hydrogen fuel cell (also no CO2 emissions) more than viable for transportation and home electricity and heating generation. Potentially a severe dent in the fossil fuel / hydrocarbon economies of first world countries, and for mitigating accelerating global climate change. Yeah yeah .. I know the fuel companies and governments would put a contract out on me ;7) Hardly worth it if the physics and mechanics is no longer a secret, and your own government is a stakeholder in the technology.

End of rant ..

ETA : why hydrogen fuel cells and not straight electricity production ? In short - energy density constraints.

[Trev]

Welcome back Fletcher, I missed reading your contributions while you were away.

Earth's rotation speed has actually started speeding up over the last few years and they're predicting it to continue. (see the graph down the page) https://www.timeanddate.com/time/earth-rotation.html

[MrTim]

FWEIW,
Fletcher, again, I think you brought up an important point. I.E, how thin the first wheel was. What ever was inside of it, turning the wheel, must have been only about three inches thick! There is only one single thing that has to happen, and it's been known for 100s of years; for a wheel to turn. That is, the weights have to shift in on the up side and out on the down side. But, how to do that?

Three or so inches is doable (though it will be a bitch. ;-) It doesn't seem like a lot of room, but in fact there is plenty of space to play with. My own wheel is planned for 4 inches thick (I call the width of a wheel the "wheelbase") with 3.5" of space, not including the plywood cladding to hide the insides. Bessler made his first wheel thin just to be a showoff, and to fit mechanisms in it required some serious building skills... ;-)

[eccentrically1]

Wouldn’t a real pm device work in any orientation? Fatal flaw!

[Fletcher]

Welcome back Fletcher, I missed reading your contributions while you were away.

Earth's rotation speed has actually started speeding up over the last few years and they're predicting it to continue. (see the graph down the page) https://www.timeanddate.com/time/earth-rotation.html

Thanx Trev .. well well, I learn something new every day lol. Not that I'd notice tho.

I think we may have to consider longer time spans ;7) - for instance in the time before dinosaurs and average day length was just 20 hours. And the moon was a lot closer taking up a quarter of the night sky which indicates how much GPE it's gained since then ;7)

Just a little bit off topic for those interested - I was at our place in Fiji - I had plenty of projects to do after 3 years away as you can imagine. I thought 2 months which became 3 & 1/2 mths and I was always busy. No smart phone, no wifi or internet, no email, and no thinking about Bessler (much). I added a new project to the 'to do' list while I was there. 14 years ago I put in 2 bores 500 meters back in the bush from our house, and capped them. A year ago one of two 10,000 liter water tanks (rainwater) was ruptured so in the dry season we could get short with only one left.

I could have gone the traditional way of new tank and motorized pump and header tank gravity feeding to our house catchment. But I decided to use a bit of physics. I didn't know the height of the head in the bores and there were hills and bush in-between. So downloaded an App on a mates phone and we got relative altitudes etc (water front house is about 12 meters above sea level on a cliff). As I suspected the bore heights were about the same height as my tank intake (give or take 3-5 meters accuracy fluctuations). Anyways .. I got some 1 inch poly pipe and built an automated syphon system to top up my tanks when rain water is low (they mix). It was pulling 250 liters sweet water an hour up over large hills and stops when the water level in the tank is the same as the bore head, then restarts etc on demand. Had to spend a few weeks fine tuning the system and showing the boys how it worked and why. As I explained to them everyone knows how to syphon petrol from a tank by sucking etc, but there are 2 more ways which I showed them. I was quite chuffed with the inexpensive fix and zero running costs outcome. Very satisfying work and a good device detox break, refreshing. Anyways back on deck and at the grind stone again. I can now google search how to make a syphon but I don't think I'll bother ..

[thx4]

Glad to see you back with us @fletcher, the discussions will resume an attractive direction.

A++