Part Three is the Charm

[daxwc]

Ecc1: I can't understand why this is a thing that persists. Is it semantics?

It exists solely due to Bessler says it is.

If you found a way to do this, the weights aren't "falling" faster than the wheel is rotating.

You are limited by your imagination. What you see is the drum. Is the visual of your flywheel on your car rotating the fastest rotating object inside the transmission? Obviously there is going to be a speed where CF pins things.

So when they are "rising" they can't rise faster than that.

Not true.

And if the weights were being accelerated beyond gravity acceleration, then it can't be a gravity wheel :)

I do have a big problem with how fast the first wheel rotated, but it has been proved before that it is not rotating faster than the speed of a dropped object free-fall through the middle (remember gravity PE doesn’t care about the horizontal circumference or distance).

[Sam Peppiatt]

It's not complicated,
Weights turn the wheel. The rollers, (with the aid of the toggle linkage), shifts them, the weights, in and out. In on the up side and out on the down side. Again, the rollers gravitate to the center then climb back up. They do the heavy lifting------------Sam

[agor95]

I do have a big problem with how fast the first wheel rotated

A big problem for a small wheel.

The best approach is to look at each quarter of the wheel and analyse what has to happen for the wheel too move at that rate.

[Sam Peppiatt]

How fast, (no load)?
I've always felt that would be one of the most interesting things about a wheel. Then a math guy could figure it all out-Sam

[UbWe]

I think people will find it interesting that no one likes me in this forum. Will it be because ab hammer, jubat, waltzcee, etc. do not like me or because
I actually worked at Bessler's Wheel? It's also possible that no one will ever know his work as well as I do. I've invested over 15 years in learning his
work and have the builds that support that. This is kind of like when the Bible says;
2 Thessalonians 3
10; For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule: "If a man will not work, he shall not eat."
11; We hear that some among you are idle. They are not busy; they are busybodies.
12; Such people we command and urge in the Lord Jesus Christ to settle down and earn the bread they eat.
13; And as for you, brothers, never tire of doing what is right.

I thought I'd honor Bessler's having quoted scripture with this. I'll even be able to use these words from the Bible against Christians because they pray
for food to eat or is it that they prey for their dinner? And with the demonstration I plan on doing at Utrecht University I'll be able to honor Bessler with
these words as well because we both worked and have working wheels. And as a part of the show I will have a math display to show what maths can
help a person to
"taking various illustrations together and combining them with a discerning mind, it will indeed be possible to look for a movement and, finally to find one in them." . Myself, I found MT 24 to be the most interesting drawing because it showed that the function of the wheel was timed.
And at the moment I am on medication because my surgeon wants to put off surgery as long as possible. She told me it's not a matter of if I'll need surgery but when. This means after I have surgery it will only be a matter of time before I need the same surgery again. I've already had it 2 or 3 times so I am used to it.
And if you look at the bottom left and top right of Mt 24 that shows that the balance of the wheel is shifted over a 45º rotation of the wheel. This gets into an interesting aspect of math which I discovered when considering my own design. And as I mentioned in another forum, using leverage to do work like this hasn't been considered before because f(x) = Δy/Δx hasn't been considered before. That basically says being leveraged over time. And it will take a working wheel to verify the math. And with MT 24, it agrees with as one weight moves towards the axle another moves away from it.

p.s., For the surgery I want, I have to work for it. Kind of makes me why the church matters because many churches refused to help me while basically saying it's God's will. And if that's true then why does the Bible say;
1 Corinthians 1:18; For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

Okay, now we know that Christians have the power of God. And what did Jesus ask?
Matthew 12:11; He said to them, “If any of you has a sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will you not take hold of it and lift it out?

Do Christians care about people? I mean there is the story of the paralytic where Jesus helped someone and then told them to go home.

[daxwc]

Sam:
How fast, (no load)?
I've always felt that would be one of the most interesting things about a wheel.

Agor95 was kind enough to give us stacked comparison.http://besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic ... a7015b47d7

[Sam Peppiatt]

daxwc,
I guess I really have to qualify things a lot more. I'll take another stab at it. I think it would be very interesting, knowing how to calculate the no load speed of a given gravity wheel. Once a wheel is operational; again, it would be interesting, (to me), to know how to predict the no load speed of it, disregarding friction--------------------Sam

[mryy]

I believe it is possible for a wheel to rotate that fast. Weights have to be raised "in a flash" says B. I think he was dropping a subtle (or not-so-subtle) hint that it is necessary for a certain movement inside the wheel to occur *very quickly* to sustain the observed rpm of 50 (Gera, Draschwitz). An analogy I suppose would be your computer. For a smooth user interface experience the CPU inside has to perform billions of calculations per second.

[mryy]

Based on my interpretation of MT17 I gave the blade spring a tapered design. See image legend on left.

I know you love it, don't you? Don't you?

[agor95]

Hi mryy

We are not worthy to be in the same forum as a person with your artifice.

Your dedication and creativity is a measure to all that come after you.

[Fletcher]

Fletcher: Therefore we either have to add an acceleration when the weights are falling so they fall faster (Wolff's theory), or we have to lift a weight for less than standard energy (f x d) cost (that'd be breaking the Law of Levers) .. or ..

I agree.

And for the or there is a big clue: Forget all the crap around it and focus the red highlighted.

ChatGPT: They are always two and two; When one thing occupies an external position, The other moves to the wave (axle); This one is soon here, and that one there: And thus it changes back and forth. x (And this principle is precisely it, For which Wagner has blamed me, And falsely attributed to me, I haven't made it known to anyone). For now, each one may still guess, Through what wondrous deeds This heaviness turns toward the center, And that one rises upward. x For in German I may not speak here, Nor open all window shutters; Yet willingly, more or less, I will add this Nota Bene:

So far there is only one way I know of doing this.

To beat CF you have to cancel it.

To cancel mean two wheels in separate directions and to get it to gravitate to center mean a lift through the middle.

Part of MT 48 which follows the marker MT47.

** Remember when I did the big study on the Ramelli Wheel with an Off-Set looped chain attached a few years ago now ? ..

It was the far end of a spectrum I was investigating and theorizing on ..

Generalized as .. Mechanically Mitigating Back-Torque in a wheel to produce a Net Forward Thrust (Impetus) that resulted in a wheel momentum/RKE gain condition and which thereafter could not "keel" once set in motion ..

So I went to the far right of that spectrum of possibilities as I saw it, to get empirical evidence and set a benchmark/bookend ..

i.e. First step Torque Cancellation , or Torque Nulling , and then as a second step, ADDING BACK mass imbalance torque - could it be done so that a wheel could not keel ?

Ans .. NO, as the sims and mockups showed .. not with that arrangement ..

But the hunt and focus never wavered from any mechanical means to mitigate back-torque - as I believe this was the simple and logical goal of B. to find his "runner" - KISS ..

And then we have MT's 44 & 48 - so different from the others he praises - yet with additions of appendages and applications they can be runners - so the method of OOB isn't important (the one moves in and the other moves out) - the Prime Mover apparatus has always been the key to any OOB wheel being a runner imo .. and that allows for reducing/mitigating back-torque conditions by bringing into the system an unrecognised for its potential energy/momentum source, automatically replenishable, but not a 'fuel' per se, imo !

Happy hunting dax ..

[eccentrically1]

Ecc1: I can't understand why this is a thing that persists. Is it semantics?

It exists solely due to Bessler says it is.

If you found a way to do this, the weights aren't "falling" faster than the wheel is rotating.

You are limited by your imagination. What you see is the drum. Is the visual of your flywheel on your car rotating the fastest rotating object inside the transmission? Obviously there is going to be a speed where CF pins things.

So when they are "rising" they can't rise faster than that.

Not true.

And if the weights were being accelerated beyond gravity acceleration, then it can't be a gravity wheel :)

I do have a big problem with how fast the first wheel rotated, but it has been proved before that it is not rotating faster than the speed of a dropped object free-fall through the middle (remember gravity PE doesn’t care about the horizontal circumference or distance).

Help me out here.
How can the weights rotate faster than the wheel?

[daxwc]

Even take a Help me out here.
How can the weights rotate faster than the wheel?

You could gear the drum 2 to 1 with an inner mechanism.
Or look at planetary gears 3:29 in the video the sun gear rotates faster https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ARd-Om2VyiE

There is probably lots of ways when it comes to a drum.

[daxwc]

Fletcher: ** Remember when I did the big study on the Ramelli Wheel with an Off-Set looped chain attached a few years ago now ? ..

It was the far end of a spectrum I was investigating and theorizing on ..

Generalized as .. Mechanically Mitigating Back-Torque in a wheel to produce a Net Forward Thrust (Impetus) that resulted in a wheel momentum/RKE gain condition and which thereafter could not "keel" once set in motion ..

So I went to the far right of that spectrum of possibilities as I saw it, to get empirical evidence and set a benchmark/bookend ..

Yes I like that idea. Although I was more interested in leverage ganging from there.

And then we have MT's 44 & 48 - so different from the others he praises.

Actually MT 44 was the one I had in mind about “to beat CF you have to cancel it. To cancel mean two wheels in separate directions and to get it to gravitate to center I mean a lift through the middle.”
A lift through the eye on 44?
I wonder if an escapement would work in the eye.

[Tarsier79]

To beat CF you have to cancel it.

FYI, the "fool" nullifies CF regardless of speed, and amplifies it compared to the speed of the wheel..... Imagine a fixed drum with another drum of equal diameter rolling around it.