Besslers prime mover and its enabler.

[Sam Peppiatt]

ecc1,
A small pulley belted to a larger one would make a difference. But a rope running over different shives won't change the MA------------Sam

[eccentrically1]

I’ll take a 10 speed every time.

[Robinhood46]

I’ll take a 10 speed every time.

That has nothing to do with the price of fish.
You are actually validating what Sam and i are saying, that pulleys need to be acting as gears for any change in ratio. The ten gears on your bicycle may well have different sized pulleys with teeth, but the pedals are at a constant diameter and the tyre too.
To apply this to pulleys would mean you add a small pulley to a big pulley, and have the big pulley being turned by a rope and another rope being turned by the smaller pulley. That is not how pulleys work, that's using pulleys as gears.
Pulleys work by increasing the distance the rope needs to be pulled to raise a weight a given height.

[eccentrically1]

Pulleys ,wheels (peritrochium), levers, gears. They all are mechanical advantaged simple machines.
Let’s move on.

[Roxaway59]

I just wanted to post this for Algodoo users.

I don't know of any easy way to add realistic friction to bearings so I recently came up with the simulation below.

The black doughnut shape is fixed to the background the red central circle has the motor and the larger wheel attached to it. The small rectangle is attached to the black doughnut and is just about touching the red circle creating friction.

If you click on the rectangle you will see that it has no friction. This is not true and it just simply is not registering. The actually friction is about 0.0000001 if memory serves but you can input anything you like. Just don't click on the box afterward or it will revert back to zero.

If anyone knows an easier way to input friction for a bearing please let me know.

[Roxaway59]

One thing I forgot to mention is that if you alter the accuracy and take it higher this will increase the friction and vice versa.

Graham

[Fletcher]

... I don’t know. I think Fletcher is onto something even if the advancements we take for granted today might not have been as apparent back then into making it into an automobile were taken into consideration.

If we look hard enough and critically enough B. couldn't help but give some "tells" to the internal mechanics etc .. as did the various witnesses and commentators, even if they didn't recognize it as such, or see it as important at the time ..

B. died destitute and starving 33 years after inventing and displaying various iterations of a miraculous machine - his wondrous self-running wheel that needed no apparent fuel or energy - it simply, according to him, always had torque in any position it was stopped at ( for the one-ways ) - i.e. a constantly replenishing imbalance force to cause it to turn "forever" as its natural and preferred state of being ..

But .. he never adapted the technology of his mechanics to a more exciting future and the prospects to a far greater and marketable audience ( value adding ) such as self-moving boats or carriages etc - even tho he and his family were short on food and cash, and a comfortable living arrangement .. he never took that step, not even to spruik it and make it more attractive to a desperately needed buyer .. he couldn't because the technology was not up to it, and so you have to wonder what technology could be that susceptible to errant movement and "sway" - enough to cause the fear and rebuke of it stopping working apparently ..

As Rox said B. paraphrased said it could always be stopped by an misplaced shove or parts "rubbed" ( stuck/friction bind ) as W. detailed, bringing it to a halt .. so altho it was a rocking machine it couldn't stand ( mechanically endure ) even a little rock 'n' roller ..

Next we have that his wheels were always connected to sturdy supports from floor to ceiling ( bolted ) - never in a free-standing cradle/stand in which it sat ( on wheels or not ) - not even for the translocation test of the Merseburg wheel .. these supports were notched to allow the wheel to be lifted and then dropped into the new notch and its weight held it down securely - Borlack provided an independent engraving of these rigid floor to ceiling supports at Merseburg - he also told us that one support lifted up and dropped back down again once per revolution indicating a periodic upwards force vector, which B. conveniently ignored entirely - hence another reason for it to be rigid floor to ceiling supports as a cradle might "hop" and "flex" ..

Then we have that Karl said to his ministers that it was easy to understand and simple to build, once the internal mechanics had been seen, as he had - this means that there was nothing terribly exotic or vexingly unfamiliar to your average government minister .. which begs the question - what hands-on skill sets had B. acquired that prompted him with a mechanical solution eventually, but was so very simple ( B. in AP .. yet deeply hidden ) ? - we know he mentions organ building as assisting him on his path to discovery - but my money is on his clock making and repairing skills - pendulum clocks were well known, were probably in most affluent households ( of ministers ) and were relatively simple and straight forward to understand - pendulums don't respond well to "sway and flex" - and pendulums featured heavily in his various engravings of his wheels, perhaps imo as a "tell" to the provenance of his genius self-winding mechanism constituting his "perpetual motion principle" finessed into a wheel capable to doing external Work - just don't ask it to power a boat of car because the true mechanical PM Principle is very unforgiving to errant and unpredictable movements - but at the same time very gracious and accommodating to an ounce here or there not making a jot of difference to its performance ( paraphrased from B. ) ..

Ponder at will ..

[preoccupied]

I’ll take a 10 speed every time.

That has nothing to do with the price of fish.
You are actually validating what Sam and i are saying, that pulleys need to be acting as gears for any change in ratio. The ten gears on your bicycle may well have different sized pulleys with teeth, but the pedals are at a constant diameter and the tyre too.
To apply this to pulleys would mean you add a small pulley to a big pulley, and have the big pulley being turned by a rope and another rope being turned by the smaller pulley. That is not how pulleys work, that's using pulleys as gears.
Pulleys work by increasing the distance the rope needs to be pulled to raise a weight a given height.

Right on Robinhood. I didn't know we were not all on the same page on that. I believe I went as far as you can go analyzing, based on what you are saying when I posted here earlier in the thread.

https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/view ... 66#p207366

There are two components we are discussing. String movement which does not change without change in mechanical advantage. And lever movement which does not change without a change in mechanical advantage. But can you have string movement that moves lever movement that forces the gears to grind together causing friction or pushing a spring. The spring can pull an extra amount of force, which might be able to be an over unity amount of force if the gears are oriented as such that the gears placed on the pulley points are compound gears that have little gears attached to big gears and it would apply this FREE Mechanical Advantage into the wheel to the spring if the gears still grind by the gear ratio being faster than the wheel. The gear on the pulley positions can be equal to the pulley string wrapped around the wheel be compound gears that have MA and move faster than the wheel allowing it to put that MA into a spring. It would all move in the same direction but there would be extra force possibly from the spring and maybe that can help lift something extra. The spring assist method. I'll coin that right there. The spring assist method. Hey bada bing I just coined a physics concept.

[preoccupied]

... I don’t know. I think Fletcher is onto something even if the advancements we take for granted today might not have been as apparent back then into making it into an automobile were taken into consideration.

But .. he never adapted the technology of his mechanics to a more exciting future and the prospects to a far greater and marketable audience ( value adding ) such as self-moving boats or carriages etc - even tho he and his family were short on food and cash, and a comfortable living arrangement .. he never took that step, not even to spruik it and make it more attractive to a desperately needed buyer .. he couldn't because the technology was not up to it, and so you have to wonder what technology could be that susceptible to errant movement and "sway" - enough to cause the fear and rebuke of it stopping working apparently ..

I thought that I read in something I owned as a kid that Bessler speculated on making a carriage with his perpetual motion concepts. What is lacked was IP protection I think. I don't remember my source, you know it was probably that diary that I thought that I bought for 5 billion dollars when I was a kid but I'm out of contact with any such money right now. I think he probably could have made such things but the time put into designing would eat up time he could make windmills with maybe. Survival might not have spared him enough time without the allure of IP protection or a lump sum earned from a basic concept on a gravity wheel.

[Roxaway59]

Hi Fletcher, I have been getting back to experiments involving pendulums and the thing that strikes me about them is the possibilities that arise. There seems to be some definite do's and don'ts and I want to start asking questions and see what other people say.

For example is there any length and weight of a typical pendulum that will behave itself at the speeds of Besslers wheels? I don't think there are. Other styles of pendulum though are capable of being stable.

Graham

[Roxaway59]

As an example of what I mean take this wheel up to 25 rpm then to 50 rpm and you will see very little difference. You can think of the pendulums as reference points. Or stable elements in a dynamic system.

Graham

[daxwc]

Query: I wish to talk about a sheave or a pulley but used as a sheave. Does the diameter of a sheave matter? So in the scenario of a fixed sheave on a ceiling and one end of the rope to a man the other end to a load. Can I lift more using different diameters sheaves?

ChatGPT
Yes, the diameter of a sheave or pulley can indeed affect the mechanical advantage and the amount of force required to lift a load in a system like the one you described.

In a simple system like the one you mentioned with a fixed sheave on the ceiling and one end of the rope attached to a person and the other end to a load, the mechanical advantage is influenced by the diameter of the sheave. The mechanical advantage is the ratio of the output force (the force exerted on the load) to the input force (the force applied by the person pulling the rope).

A larger diameter sheave will provide a greater mechanical advantage because it allows the rope to make more turns around the sheave, increasing the length of rope that the force is applied to. This effectively reduces the amount of force required by the person to lift the load.

Conversely, a smaller diameter sheave will provide less mechanical advantage, requiring the person to exert more force to lift the same load.

So, in short, yes, you can lift more using different diameter sheaves, with larger diameter sheaves providing more mechanical advantage and thus requiring less force to lift the same load.

I know it makes a difference because I have seen it when we were having trouble moving a piece of equipment.

This is because a larger pulley allows for a longer section of rope to be pulled, resulting in a greater distance over which the force is applied. This effectively reduces the amount of force required by the person to lift the load. I think this is similar to the wagon where you have a mechanical advantage with no distance loss.

[SHADOW]

Bonjour à tous,
Robin des bois, je préfère acheter de l'aigle fin car la morue il faut la dessaler et cela a un cout :(
Je partage votre point de vue concernant la transmission de mouvement par poulies (hors glissement).
Pour le levage, ce qui est un autre cas d'utilisation, l'utilisation d'un volant plutôt qu'une poulie cela réduit la striction de la corde sur l'angle de contact sur le volant et augmente l'adhérence donc moins d'effort théorique pour compenser le glissement de la corde.( ref : la friction dans les nœuds de cordage et les cabestans).

Fletcher, si les roulements d'essieux étaient ouvert, comment la roue pouvait elle transmettre des mouvements parasites dans les poteaux hormis de mouvements horizontaux, quelque chose m'aurait il induit en erreur sur la description du montage?

Nota: un engrenage classique, transmet l'effort sur une seul dent, celle en contact.
L'efficacité d'une transmission par chaine et fonction de l'angle d'enroulement de cette dernière sur le pignon.
L'efficacité d'une transmission par courroie plate et fonction de l'angle d'enroulement de cette dernière sur le galet, d'où l'utilisation par les anciens d'apport de résine sur les poulies. Les systèmes de transmissions par courroies ont évolués vers les courroies trapézoïdales et courroie crantées pour réduire le glissement.
Mais cela vous le savez tous!

J.B

Hello everyone,
Robin Hood, I prefer to buy fine eagle because cod must be desalinated and that has a cost:(
I share your point of view regarding the transmission of movement by pulleys (excluding sliding).
For lifting, which is another use case, the use of a flywheel rather than a pulley reduces the striction of the rope on the contact angle on the flywheel and increases the grip thus less theoretical effort to compensate for the slippage of the rope.( ref: friction in rope knots and capstans).

Fletcher, if the axle bearings were open, how could the wheel transmit parasitic movements in the poles apart from horizontal movements, something would have misled me about the description of the assembly?

Note: a conventional gear, transmits the stress on a single tooth, the one in contact.
The efficiency of a chain transmission and function of the winding angle of the latter on the pinion.
The efficiency of a flat belt transmission and function of the winding angle of the latter on the roller, hence the use by the old resin filler on the pulleys. Belt drive systems have evolved to V-belts and toothed belts to reduce slippage.
But this you all know!

J.B

[Robinhood46]

Bonjour Shadow.
I don't get why you disagree with sliding.
Sliding isn't a ratio problem, it doesn't have an effect on the ratio between the load and the effort.
It is a friction problem and has an effect on the overall efficiency of the mechanism.

Sliding occurs when the resistance to rotation (bearing/pivot) overcomes the friction between the rope and the pulley, which is totally different than if the pulley is doing the work, in which case sliding occurs when the friction between the rope and the pulley is insufficient to supply the force needed to lift the load, and overcome rotational friction of the pulley.

[Fletcher]

Shadow wrote .. Fletcher, if the axle bearings were open, how could the wheel transmit parasitic movements in the poles apart from horizontal movements, something would have misled me about the description of the assembly?

Fletcher, if the axle bearings were open, how could the wheel transmit parasitic movements into the posts apart from horizontal movements, has something misled me in the description of the assembly?


See below Shadow .. presumably the short metal tapered axle stub was fitted into a bearing/ trunnion in the support structures which were open to examination .. afaik no other detail is given ..

Google .. A trunnion (from Old French trognon 'trunk') is a cylindrical protrusion used as a mounting or pivoting point. First associated with cannons, they are an important military development. The trunnions are the protrusions from the side of the barrel that rest on the carriage.

Merseburg ... - Certificate for wheel tested at Merseburg, signed 31st October, 1715

The inventor first put in motion his six ells (11.15 feet) in diameter and one foot thick machine, which was still resting on the same wooden support upon which it had previously been mounted. ... Furthermore the inventor, Orffyreus, in front of everybody, lifted the perpetual motion machine described above, from its original wooden support. The timber posts were carefully examined both from the top and bottom as well as in the middle, particularly where a small cut was noticed. The same careful examination was devoted to the iron journals of the shaft and to the bearings. However there was not the least vestige of suspicion of fraud observed.

By way of additional proof about its internal motive power, the perpetual motion machine was translocated to another support in such a way that the whole assembly could see over and under, and both sides of the machine; and all present were invited to visit the bearings, but no holes were found, all present examined them with their eyes, but no sign of fraud was there seen. It was possible to translocate the machine and turn it left and right as many times as was asked by the assembled respectable Commission. The machine regained its strong, even and fast rotation each time.

' Merseburg ... - Christian Wolff, letter to Leibniz, examination of Merseburg wheel, 19th December, 1715

When Orffyreus exhibited the extraordinary machine which he had built, to refute the malicious rumours being spread that it is fraudulent, I was deliberately present. ... When the machine was ready to rotate, all adjacent rooms were opened and the bearings were completely uncovered.