Zeroing in on Bessler's wheel

[johannesbender]

Sam ,we have to understand the problem to approach it with a solution.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi jb'
I guess you are right. I'll never understand now the long way around the barn argument, is the same as the short way------Sam

[eccentrically1]

At this point , which wheel design needs less energy to get back up to 12 ?

They will be very similar . The PE requires the same to lift in both, but shifting the weights in and out will require a little extra due to CF. Shifting the weights (assuming both are paired) will take a little extra to accelerate one arm faster and one arm slower momentarily. Shifting against CF might require slightly more.

Tarsier your thinking further than me at this point with CF..

A) The design with no radius change requires less energy because it has fewer moving parts.
It will probably spin longer as well because the shifting weight will change the MOI of that design; it slows down when the weight is shifted.

[johannesbender]

Lets imagine that there are no moving parts , the focus is on the weight only , like a particle is used to describe some examples except its just a weight , and the weight has to move from 6 to 12 , either via a radius change or via no radius change , for such an example imo there is no advantage to either cases .

But of course it must have parts , and If the weight is in motion with KE loaded , and its swinging around the axle , and has to be moved in and out by something if it were to change radius , extra complexity ads extra friction and resistance , and if it were like a pendulum with a singular rod on an axle then less complexity removes unnecessary friction and resistance , and CF adds up with gravity , in such an example there are certain advantage for one over the other .

But in all these 3 cases , if gravity is the sole cause , fall short in terms of energy available to reset ,my point being more or less that we aren't dealing specifically with failure due to a concept either switching radius or not needing to switch radius , but an energy deficit problem .

[agor95]

There is nothing wrong in a little 'working it out'.

Normally people do not start a study by saying 'This will never work'.
Well maybe one person.

It is useful to think it through for several reasons.

It helps you to shine a light into some dark parts of your knowledge library that you have studied so far.

Also it allows you to think differently to see if there are other options.

There are some interesting possibilities beyond fixed wheel rotation variants.

Good Luck

[eccentrically1]

Lets imagine that there are no moving parts , the focus is on the weight only , like a particle is used to describe some examples except its just a weight , and the weight has to move from 6 to 12 , either via a radius change or via no radius change , for such an example imo there is no advantage to either cases .

But of course it must have parts , and If the weight is in motion with KE loaded , and its swinging around the axle , and has to be moved in and out by something if it were to change radius , extra complexity ads extra friction and resistance , and if it were like a pendulum with a singular rod on an axle then less complexity removes unnecessary friction and resistance , and CF adds up with gravity , in such an example there are certain advantage for one over the other .

But in all these 3 cases , if gravity is the sole cause , fall short in terms of energy available to reset ,my point being more or less that we aren't dealing specifically with failure due to a concept either switching radius or not needing to switch radius , but an energy deficit problem .

I still say the advantage goes to the design with no radius change even if the other design has no moving parts. It would take more energy to move the weight in at 6 and out at 12 if you only consider the energy issue. The energy has to be taken from the wheel's energy; there's no other source. The design with the stationary weight takes no energy from the wheel. The answer is A.

[Tarsier79]

If we disregard rotation, both technically need to lift the same PE. This requires the same amount of energy.

One lifts 2 weights, one at 6 and one at 12. The other lifts 2 weights, one at 3 and one at 9. Lifting the weights is the only way to maintain OB torque.

[bruno]

Mi piacerebbe capire e partecipare ma sembra che in questo sito di condivisione alcuni lo usano per dialogare fra loro senza pubblicare immagini schizzi o foto; perché non usate allora la posta privata? e ancora cosa vogliono significare i simboli PE CF MOI KE OB e altri che non mi sono segnato?
Bruno

[johannesbender]

If we disregard rotation, both technically need to lift the same PE. This requires the same amount of energy.

One lifts 2 weights, one at 6 and one at 12. The other lifts 2 weights, one at 3 and one at 9. Lifting the weights is the only way to maintain OB torque.

Yes the energy required to move the weight from the bottom to the top , no matter the path taken for that height , is the same .

However when we consider complexity , even though we dont know exactly how complex it should be , then one could be more advantages than the other .

But well they still need extra energy , so i was thinking if bessler mentioned the radius change wont get anyone there (presuming of course he was genuine) , then possibly he wrote that in order to show he was not blind to the energy problem anymore.

Anyway everyone has an oppinion.

[johannesbender]

Bruno.

PE = Potential Energy.
CF = Centrifugal Force .
MOI = Moment Of Inertia.
KE = Kinetic energy.
OB = Over Balance.

[eccentrically1]

If we disregard rotation, both technically need to lift the same PE. This requires the same amount of energy.

One lifts 2 weights, one at 6 and one at 12. The other lifts 2 weights, one at 3 and one at 9. Lifting the weights is the only way to maintain OB torque.

Yes the energy required to move the weight from the bottom to the top , no matter the path taken for that height , is the same .

However when we consider complexity , even though we dont know exactly how complex it should be , then one could be more advantages than the other .

But well they still need extra energy , so i was thinking if bessler mentioned the radius change wont get anyone there (presuming of course he was genuine) , then possibly he wrote that in order to show he was not blind to the energy problem anymore.

Anyway everyone has an oppinion.

Non conservative forces are path dependent, so considering only that issue, the radius change design takes more energy to go from 6 to 12.
The shortest path would be the best as far as that goes.
The least complex would be most advantageous.
Didn't your proposal only have one weight per wheel?
He wrote that radius change won't get anyone there; the quote about him 'been there done that, learned all about it' or whatever.
I think he meant OB alone (radius change) is not what he used.

[Sam Peppiatt]

I think you guys may be right.
Changing the radius does make the wheel turn. But, maybe that method is simply impossible to implement. If so I have been wrong for a hundred years, Dam! This could be one of the most important clues, Bessler ever came up with. Thanks jb, for suggesting it.

It put's a new wheel on the wagon; at least for me. Anyway, I'm convinced to try some thing different. I'm going to try putting two bell cranks on each roller, keeping both rollers rolling forward as a way to turn the wheel--------------Sam

[johannesbender]

If we disregard rotation, both technically need to lift the same PE. This requires the same amount of energy.

One lifts 2 weights, one at 6 and one at 12. The other lifts 2 weights, one at 3 and one at 9. Lifting the weights is the only way to maintain OB torque.

Yes the energy required to move the weight from the bottom to the top , no matter the path taken for that height , is the same .

However when we consider complexity , even though we dont know exactly how complex it should be , then one could be more advantages than the other .

But well they still need extra energy , so i was thinking if bessler mentioned the radius change wont get anyone there (presuming of course he was genuine) , then possibly he wrote that in order to show he was not blind to the energy problem anymore.

Anyway everyone has an oppinion.

Non conservative forces are path dependent, so considering only that issue, the radius change design takes more energy to go from 6 to 12.
The shortest path would be the best as far as that goes.
The least complex would be most advantageous.
Didn't your proposal only have one weight per wheel?
He wrote that radius change won't get anyone there; the quote about him 'been there done that, learned all about it' or whatever.
I think he meant OB alone (radius change) is not what he used.

Yes only for forces which are non conservative , but not gravity because gravity is conservative and path independent all work done on a weight against gravity becomes an increase in PE , and PE is as we know GPE=mgh or U=mgh which is mass and height and gravity dependant only ,the change in gravitational PE , ΔPEg = mgh , is independent of any path taken .

Yes the examples i described with one weight each , however 2 opposed would still apply (or whatever amount serves as a good example).

I agree that's the point i am trying to make , radius changes or non radius change wont solve the deficient energy , however some people think it just needs to have weights at different distances from the center and then it should work , which may be what he was saying if i am interpreting it correct.

Anyway whether thats what he intended to mean or whether its just a matter of interpretation , imo worth a mention about simple radius changes or swings or non radius changes not being a solution to energy deficiency .

[WaltzCee]

.

Hi Tarsier,
I still think there must be a way to do it. But, I have to admit, I could be wrong--------------Sam

If I didn't think it were possible, Sam, I'd quit.

I'm still at it though :). 2023 or bust! again!!

ETA
johannesbender post here
https://besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopi ... 32#p201732
is excellent

[eccentrically1]

Yes only for forces which are non conservative , but not gravity because gravity is conservative

So we agree
The path doesn’t matter to gravity. The work done on the weight by gravity from 12-12 is the same for any path no matter how complex the path is.
But for a weight moving 12-12, the net negative work done on it by non conservative forces is path dependent.
So it would seem to me that you would prefer a design that keeps the path to a minimum distance for any given weight mass.

I think I’ve just had an inspiration. Thanks, JB.