Part Three is the Charm

[SHADOW]

J'ai mis les centres de masse uniquement pour les rouleaux désaxés.
les autres étant au point bas de l'anneau, ils s'équilibrent.
On peut encore d'désaxé en mettant une butée coté gauche du rouleau.
Je ne sais pas ci cela fonctionnera!!!
J.B

I put the center of mass only for the skewed rollers.
The others being at the low point of the ring, they balance.
You can still go crazy by putting a stop on the left side of the roll.
I don’t know if this will work!!!
J.B

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi Shadow,
That is beautiful! You have original Ideas. I love it! I never would have thought of that. However, the 'flat' has to be on a radius like the spoke of a wheel, to the direction of rotation. At 3:00 the rollers have to roll all the way out to the rim of the hoop. They have to do that, to make the wheel out of balance,(OOB), going down.

The plate acts like a short cut, or short path, to the outer rim. The curve is like the long way. There's three steps to it. 1. The rings lift the rollers up, back up to the top. 2. The flat shoots them, (CF helps), outward @ or about 3:00. 3. Then the rollers drive the wheel down to 6:00. And it's all continuous, the rollers never stop. Noisy as hell though. Have to do some thing about that.

I've tested this; it works but, two isn't enough. Can you draw me 4 big rings and rollers in a cluster? I'll give you 3 1/2 "at a boys", for doing it-------------Sam

PS I'm sure every one is thinking how can that be right? On the other hand, how can it not be------------------

[eccentrically1]

The Draschwitz turned 50 times a minute. The Merseburg 40 times either direction . So the D wheel’s weights were going 6-12 in almost a half second.

The M weights went 6-12 in less than a second. What mechanism would you need to control ( if that’s the right word) weights moving that fast?

Springs? Possibly. I’m just wondering given the rpm, how small the window of time was for the weights to do anything at any point in one revolution.

Not enough time to move anything a significant distance - just a short distance at best I would guess (maybe just inches) - hence why they had little working torque and energy density for their size.

My theory in the past is that the Prime Mover required the internal area and volume to operate properly, and I think that's still a valid theory.

Yes, I seem to remember the HP was low. Does anybody have that page that used to be in the wiki?

Just for fun I've tried to estimate some of the performance characteristics we need to match. Some things to think about.

At 50 rpm the Draschwitz or Meresburg wheels would have raised a 60-70 pound weight about 24-25 feet in 10 seconds (5.6" axle diameter). Unless the quote "but to achieve this the pulley had to be reduced more than four times, making the lifting quite slow" (Wolff, same document as before) is referring to a block and tackle setup, then it could have been up to 40 seconds-ish ( I know that was in reference to the Meresburg, but it was probably true for the D wheel as well). That would seem quite slow to me compared to 10 seconds.

It would seem logical the weights were near the circumference both for Mechanical Advantage and flywheel (max Moment of Inertia) effect, and also from Wolff's eyewitness statement.

At 9 feet the MA would have been 108/5.6 ~19.28 (Draschwitz). So the 60 or 70 lb load needed 60/19.28 or 70/19.28 = 3.11 or 3.63 lbs of effort. Which is about what the weights were judged to be, about 4 lbs. The Meresburg was 2 feet wider so not quite as much effort needed for the same load, about 2.54 or 2.96 lbs. if the block and tackle were used, then the effort was much less in both cases.
Anyway, on a similar tangent, let's not forget part of the effort was provided by the framework. How much is speculation. I remember some pretty wide ranges of estimates for the weight of one of those two way wheels was anywhere from 175 lbs (mine) to 300-400 lbs.(Jim_mich iirc). So we could be talking about 2 lbs., or less, of effort only needed for the short lifts.

It doesn't seem so daunting when you imagine that large of a wheel and axle spinning that fast only needing to exert that much effort for 10 or 40 seconds. Has anyone here ever built a 12' wheel? And spun it to 50 or 60 rpm? I've thought about it, but I wouldn't bother unless I knew I could get it to spin for several weeks.

If the weights only moved a few inches, they didn't lose much MA or MoI (or GPE). The less they moved, the less they lost.

Some things to think about.

[Tarsier79]

According to:
http://www.orffyre.com/measurements.html

Draschwitz was about 9.3 feet and 50rpm

Merseburg 12 foot and 40rpm

KAssel 12 foot and 20rpm

A weight at the extreme circumference of the Merseburg wheel would be travelling around 7.5m/s or around 27km/h.

I spun up my 6 foot wheel (the fool) to 40rpm. You have to make sure it is built well, because you don't want a weight flying off and smashing a window. 40RPM is quite fast. CF can become a problem.

[Fletcher]

This is Wubbly's sims of the 4 wheels - it gives a great appreciation of the size and speed they turned at.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1PEs1Jcg1s

[eccentrically1]

According to:
http://www.orffyre.com/measurements.html

Draschwitz was about 9.3 feet and 50rpm

Merseburg 12 foot and 40rpm

KAssel 12 foot and 20rpm

A weight at the extreme circumference of the Merseburg wheel would be travelling around 7.5m/s or around 27km/h.

I spun up my 6 foot wheel (the fool) to 40rpm. You have to make sure it is built well, because you don't want a weight flying off and smashing a window. 40RPM is quite fast. CF can become a problem.

Yes, that's one reason I don't think it was a classic "unbalanced" wheel. Something that big, rotating that fast, had better be balanced. Especially on a 1/4 inch bearing (Wolff, same document) !

Yes CF would increase the inertia of the weights significantly. Another reason they probably didn't move very far. imo

[agor95]

Hi eccentrically1

Thanks for your post - quality

[eccentrically1]

Thanks agor.

[WaltzCee]

The Draschwitz turned 50 times a minute. The Merseburg 40 times either direction . So the D wheel’s weights were going 6-12 in almost a half second.
The M weights went 6-12 in less than a second. What mechanism would you need to control ( if that’s the right word) weights moving that fast?
Springs? Possibly. I’m just wondering given the rpm, how small the window of time was for the weights to do anything at any point in one revolution.

https://besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopi ... 21#p170221



and you're not the only one. Any design course ignoring that is most likely outside the parameters of something that will work.



a job for up*in*a*flash technology.

Need to waaaarp time . .. .. .

and also rinse the swinging gyros out of somebody's nappie.

[Fletcher]

Hey Walt and ECC1 ..

It's the main reason I said a month or so ago that it may be that the one-size-fits-all (imo) Prime Mover can be cuckooed to just about any OOB wheel.

Providing the OOB weights system transition very small distances there and back and Cf's don't have a major effect as it turns at those high rpms (iow's little practical influence other than being flywheel-like). Usually Cf's at higher rpms cause a severe lag effect and the system COM / COG moves further to the ascending side and opposite of what we want for self-rotation.

And why I also postulated it may be that the Prime Mover apparatus doesn't even need a host OOB wheel, and a flywheel backing-wheel would do just as well. But it does need plenty of space to go thru its movements / actions (proportional to power), which is possibly why the wheels are large diameter. And why B. could say "I (can) make my machines in such a way that, big or small, I can make the resulting power small or big as I choose".

B. wanted to solve the age old problem of the Perpetual Motion Wheel - what better way to claim that prize and have the last laugh - he could make all of them into runners and hide his Prime Mover behind the smoke screen, and have everyone scrambling and turning over every rock and pebble for centuries more. No breaking Law of Levers, no fast or ''lift like lightening' required. No time invariance either for that matter.

Sounds crazy .. but is it crazy enough to be true .. if so .. the jokes on all of us .. time will tell.

[agor95]

Could we be looking at O.O.B. in the wrong why?

We focus on gravity effects as the driver to increase rotation.
Could it be an assist and the driver is something else?

Did ancient aliens pick their figures?

Oops excess question marks triggers B.S.

We are aware a pendulum rotating has momentum.
If the length shortens then the pendulum will rotate faster because momentum & distance traveled.

What shortens the length is the tension of a spring.

At a set rotation rate the spring needs different tension depending on pendulum length. But it is possible to implement.

The pendulum lengthens with the pull of gravity.

The momentum increases due to gravity plays it's part.

So the driver is the conservation of momentum during the shortening stage.

Has anyone studies this dynamic?

Alien or otherwise [Other Wise]

[johannesbender]

@agor , CF pulls max on 6 and min on 12 because gravity and CF adds up , at 6 CF and gravity adds up to a bigger value than at 12 .

CF direction vector is always away from the center of rotation .

When the weight is below at 6 , gravity and CF direction vectors are in the same direction so the forces adds up together.

When the weight is above at 12 , CF and gravity direction vectors are in opposite directions , so the forces dont add up together.

So if a spring would be stretched by CF from a weight , it would stretch at 6 and not at 12.

If the force directions of gravity worked in the opposite direction , we could have created a mechanism that releases outwards at 12 and pulls inwards at 6 such that a weight is out on the one side and in on the other.

[johannesbender]

@eccentric @Fletcher @waltz , that is true it did not leave much time for a weight traversal across a large distance.

[agor95]

Hi johannesbender

I agree with everything in your post.
I choose to use different words that are equivalent.

In other words

The mass's momentum is tangential to it's current position's curve path. During the leading lower quadrant the mass is decelerating vertically. A mass in free fall should be accelerating vertically. The resistance to the mass's momentum combine to create stress. If the mass is on a disc then this would be maximum at 6.

However the mass is on a variable length rod. This allows the mass to follow more of it's tangential path with the assistance of the vertical stress.

The spring acts against this stress. The spring over-extension while modifying the tangential path. The path is a local curve not a wheel circular curve.

This radial stress points not to the pivot point but in front.

The mass's momentum sends it in an upward direction.
That is modified by the spring return causing the mass to bypass the 12 position.

The mass has minimum stress during this phase. Any stress is from the spring return.

This can be a chaotic dynamic when not managed.

That is resolved when the mass impacts the leading lower quadrant length limit.

Summary

The mass's path is not circular therefore the radial C.F. needs to be localized.
A mass experience stress not weight when prevented from following it's momentum's preferred path.

Regards

[Sam Peppiatt]

Maybe that's what Bessler meant by;---" putting the horse in front of the cart". I.E., The horse or weight, has to lead the wheel,(cart). IOW, the weight or weights can't lag behind the speed of the wheel. Which means the weights have to shift faster than what the wheel is turning and there for, faster than the acceleration due to gravity.

About the only other thing that could be, is centrifugal inertia forces; what say yee-------------------------Sam