Besslers prime mover and its enabler.

[eccentrically1]

Once again!

Are you sure the rope and rope sections formula is valid? Are you confusing that with a pulley system where one of the pulleys is NOT fixed, i.e. , a movable pulley?

You're correct, and I appreciate your clarification. I misspoke in my previous responses. I apologize for the confusion.

The formula I provided, which uses the number of ropes and the number of sections of rope, is more applicable to systems involving movable pulleys rather than fixed pulleys. In the case of a fixed pulley system, the mechanical advantage is more directly related to the ratio of the diameters of the pulleys.

For a fixed pulley system like the one you described, the mechanical advantage can indeed be calculated based on the ratio of the diameters of the pulleys. So, the correct approach for determining the mechanical advantage in your setup is through the ratio of the pulley diameters, as we discussed earlier:

Mechanical Advantage (MA)
=
Radius of larger pulley
Radius of smaller pulley
Mechanical Advantage (MA)=
Radius of smaller pulley
Radius of larger pulley
​


MA
=
8
inches
/
2
2
inches
/
2
=
4
1
=
4
MA=
2 inches/2
8 inches/2
​
=
1
4
​
=4

Therefore, in the case of a fixed pulley system like yours, the mechanical advantage is determined by the ratio of the diameters of the pulleys.

Thank you for your patience and for bringing this to my attention. If you have any further questions or need clarification, please feel free to ask.

[eccentrically1]

For those that aren't familiar, cgpt has a disclaimer at the bottom of the page:

"ChatGPT can make mistakes. Consider checking important information."

So the MA is only from the pulley ratios.
Maybe B. knew this in advance or discovered it when he tested his wheels.
The witness who complained of the slow lift because of the 5?x pulley reduction could have been referring to those two fixed pulleys.
The pulley reduction for the wheel and its axle was ≤ 18x so I don't think he was talking about that.
If he had been referring to a block and tackle system, it seems that would have gotten more than one witness's attention, especially with that many ropes and pulleys.

[Roxaway59]

Hi eccentrically1, we are talking about a single piece of rope aren't we like the one in the picture?

Graham

[eccentrically1]

Notice the floor pulley is larger than the roof one.

[eccentrically1]

I tried measuring the two pulleys. The one on the ceiling is half the diameter of the one on the floor.

[daxwc]

ChatGPT is wrong in its numbers in my opinion. There is no multiplication of force mechanical advantage. There is though a slight mechanical advantage or disadvantage if you go strictly by the picture due to the diameter of the pulleys involved. That said the advantage isn’t that big and ChatGPT is wrong it’s using the wrong formulas.

This happens to me all the time using a large language model to do physics.

[Robinhood46]

I think Sam is right.

I think you better find a new ChatGPT; It's full of shit---------------Sam

The only mechanical advantage observed in Bessler's wheel with the 3 pulleys is the advantage created by the different diameter of the wheel itself and the axle with the rope wrapped around it (pulley).
When a weight at the perimeter of the wheel moves 10 cm the rope on the axle moves 2 cm. This is probably the 5 to 1 ratio mentioned.
If the rope was wrapped round the perimeter of the wheel it would have been considered to be a direct drive, hence the remarks about it being raised slowly because of the 5 to 1 ratio.

[daxwc]

So the following video I think addresses what what kind of mechanical advantage you are getting at 10:32
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_XJrY2sKfFQ

So larger diameter sheaves what you are getting more friction making it easier and also less stress on the rope; which really helps if the radius is sharp and it is thick wire rope because energy goes into bending it.

[daxwc]

You
"However, the text also mentions a formula involving the ratio of the radii (or diameters) of the pulleys. This formula is used to calculate the mechanical advantage in a system where one pulley is larger than the other. The formula is:
Mechanical Advantage (MA)=Radius of smaller pulley Radius of larger pulley​" - but both sheaves are fixed. Therefore just mostly a redirection of force because that radius cant move on pulley faster to the other. Or is that wrong?

Copilot
You’re correct. In a system with two fixed pulleys of different sizes, the mechanical advantage is not determined by the ratio of their radii or diameters. Instead, the pulleys serve to redirect the force. The mechanical advantage in a fixed pulley system is typically 1, meaning the force you apply is equal to the load you’re lifting, regardless of the pulley sizes.

The formula involving the ratio of the radii (or diameters) of the pulleys is more applicable to a system involving a belt and pulley where one pulley is driving another. In such a system, the speed and torque can be adjusted based on the ratio of the pulley sizes, but this is not the same as mechanical advantage in the context of lifting loads.

So, in the context of your question, the statement about calculating mechanical advantage based on the ratio of the pulley diameters would be incorrect for a system with fixed pulleys. The mechanical advantage in such a system is primarily about changing the direction of the force, not amplifying it. I hope this clarifies the matter! If you have any more questions, feel free to ask.

One thing I find useful is if you are using Bing browser and on a thread or the forum. You can highlight what somebody said then hit the copilot button on the top right and it will open up and you can have it look at everybody's answers to help explain their position. Or like mine just tells me I am wrong.

[daxwc]

What was getting me mixed up conceptionaly is the sheaves are not driving anything. So yes one sheave is turning faster than the other sheave but so what; nothing is attached to them.

[eccentrically1]

I think Sam is right.

I think you better find a new ChatGPT; It's full of shit---------------Sam

The only mechanical advantage observed in Bessler's wheel with the 3 pulleys is the advantage created by the different diameter of the wheel itself and the axle with the rope wrapped around it (pulley).
When a weight at the perimeter of the wheel moves 10 cm the rope on the axle moves 2 cm. This is probably the 5 to 1 ratio mentioned.
If the rope was wrapped round the perimeter of the wheel it would have been considered to be a direct drive, hence the remarks about it being raised slowly because of the 5 to 1 ratio.

The advantage of the axle to the perimeter is 144/8 = 18, not 5.
If a weight moves 180 cm at the perimeter the rope on the axle moves 10 cm.
if the floor and ceiling pulleys were 12 feet wide, the 18x advantage would be reduced to 0 (directly driven).

[preoccupied]

https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/view ... 76#p207376

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

https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/view ... 94#p207394

https://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/view ... 82#p207382

The gears apply MA based on the size of the gears and the pulleys provide mechanical advantage based on how many strings are supporting the blocks. So in my analysis and Dax assumption the size of the pulley plays a role because of how much string it unravels because it's unraveling at the wheel. In my analysis the second pulley is the same size as what unravels at the wheel which makes the gear ratio that I put on the second pulley is equal to the wheel's speed if it has the same size gear as is attached back to on the wheel. It does not. The gear it attaches back to on the wheel is smaller making the gear move faster than the wheel causing the gears to grind which would cause friction but I am winding a spring instead. The next part of my analysis is the over unity part which is that the gear that is on the the second pulley is smaller than the pulley's gear, it is the pulley gear attached to a smaller gear on it and that smaller gear attaches to the wheel which has a smaller gear on it which cause that smaller gear on the wheel to turn faster winding the spring at a MA because the gear attached to the pulley is smaller than the pulley's gear. This is the best analysis of what you guys are talking about, isn't it obvious? Fletcher come on, man, you have the best mind here. I'd appreciate your input. I'd appreciate ALL of your inputs.

[Roxaway59]

This is just a single piece of rope being fed through 2 fixed pulley's.

If you pull one end of the rope a certain distance the other end will move the same distance.

The pulley's are there to redirect the force and they add a little bit of friction and loss to the system.

That's it there isn't anything else to know as far as I can tell.

Graham

[Robinhood46]

I think Sam is right.

I think you better find a new ChatGPT; It's full of shit---------------Sam

The only mechanical advantage observed in Bessler's wheel with the 3 pulleys is the advantage created by the different diameter of the wheel itself and the axle with the rope wrapped around it (pulley).
When a weight at the perimeter of the wheel moves 10 cm the rope on the axle moves 2 cm. This is probably the 5 to 1 ratio mentioned.
If the rope was wrapped round the perimeter of the wheel it would have been considered to be a direct drive, hence the remarks about it being raised slowly because of the 5 to 1 ratio.

The advantage of the axle to the perimeter is 144/8 = 18, not 5.
If a weight moves 180 cm at the perimeter the rope on the axle moves 10 cm.
if the floor and ceiling pulleys were 12 feet wide, the 18x advantage would be reduced to 0 (directly driven).

I used the word "probably", intentionally, when i said "This is probably the 5 to 1 ratio mentioned".
I agree that the proportions observed in the drawing certainly don't look anywhere near the 5 to 1 ratio.
We know it was mentioned that the speed was reduced because of a 5 to 1 ratio, and i don't know where else a 5 to 1 ratio can be found, with the information we have.

The diameter of the pulleys, the length, thickness and type of the rope, the presence or non presence of lubricant all have an effect on the force needed to raise the weight, but none of them would be considered to have a mechanical advantage, and most certainly none of them would give someone the idea of describing any variations with "a 5 to 1 ratio".

As Roxaway keeps mentioning, the distance you pull the rope (or the wheel does the pulling) is the same as the distance the load would be raised. This alone allows us to understand that there is not any mechanical advantage.
How can there be an advantage, if you move the rope 20cm to lift a load 20 cm?
The 5 to 1 ratio would imply that when the rope is moved 10 cm the load moves only 2 cm, therefore you need 5 times less force for 5 times more distance.
The total work must always be 1 to 1. The work on the pulled end of the rope must always equal the work on the end doing the pulling (the load). Less friction losses, but these aren't considered as mechanical advantage ratios, (and the same goes for pulley diameters).

The 5 to 1 ratio mentioned is interesting, and knowing what it was they were talking about, is a valid discussion, but we need to keep it real.
The best i can come up with is that the drawing isn't representative of the exact setup, and the 5 to 1 ratio was the estimated difference between the wheel circumference and the axle acting as the driving pulley for the rope and pulley system between the wheel and the load.

[daxwc]

Hopefully my diagram puts away any doubts about the sheave discussion.

Robinhood46: As Roxaway keeps mentioning, the distance you pull the rope (or the wheel does the pulling) is the same as the distance the load would be raised. This alone allows us to understand that there is not any mechanical advantage.

I disagree there is a mechanical advantage. Is there a mechanical advantage to using a wagon? Nobody is going to disagree because it beats carrying it. The pulley though is a type of wheel and axle and so where is its advantage. Well like the wagon I don’t have to lift it as in use my muscles; I can use my weight to lift it.

I agree there is no distance loss in the rope just as there is no distance loss in pulling the wagon.