Besslers prime mover and its enabler.

[Trev]

Maybe the reason they quickly accelerated up to an operating RPM and then immediately settled at that speed, was because the wheel and mechanism was then balanced - the COM being to the right of the wheel centre.

As B said not only are they prevented from attaining their desired equilibrium or 'point of rest', but they must for ever seek it.

[Roxaway59]

Fletcher wrote -

So for me there are 2 potential scenario's coming to mind in explanation of this Topped-Out RPM ..

1. .. a moment before that particular RPM was reached there was no more overbalance torque produced or to be seen i.e. the overbalancing weight system was maxed-out - the system COM was as far right as it could circulate - it could not shift any further right, hence it ran out of additional torque to cause further acceleration and RPM increase .. "the runs out of puff theory" ..

2. .. the overbalancing torque from weights displacement wasn't the top-end RPM limiter - perhaps the acceleration was manually restricted by the wheels competing internal mechanics physically choking or governing the maximum RPM it could achieve ..

i.e. say we have 2 competing mechanical systems to a runner - say mass in rotational motion, and mass in reciprocating movement - they interact in a designed feedback loop producing a natural harmonic ( frequency ) - that is the operating RPM reached .. let's say for arguments sake that the reciprocating movement is a pendulum-like movement of near-continuous falling and rising as it swings back and forth - at the end of each rise it must physically be brought to a complete halt and its direction almost instantly reversed ..

Q. .. would the aggressive braking to a complete stop at Top-Of-Climb ( TOC ) be a limiting/constraining factor to top-end RPM achievable ? - or could a wheel just get faster and faster even tho there are 2 forced direction reversals as the pendulum swings back and forth etc ? - when would the direction reversals "physicality" become a seriously RPM limiting factor from a practical mechanical application standpoint ? .. this is "the wheel RPM was choked theory" ..

The way that I visualize the wheel reaching is maximum RPM is from what I have noticed about a lot of Algodoo designs as they get faster.

Very often the mechanism changes shape as it gets faster and on some designs I have seen the nice movement becoming more irregular as it speeds up sometimes to the point of destabilizing itself and momentarily slowing down before speeding up again.

I have always felt that Besslers wheel changed shape at its maximum speed which effectively moved its CoM closer to the axle. When the wheel was loaded its CoM automatically moved further out resisting the slowing down of the wheel.

I made a wheel in Algodoo with a fairly neat reciprocating mechanism on it and I have been trying to find it again for the past few weeks. I think I must have overwritten it. I’m a bit cheesed off about that because I like reworking idea’s.

Graham

[Fletcher]

Weights undoubtedly fall, ... Moral, "drop some weights"

Maybe the reason they quickly accelerated up to an operating RPM and then immediately settled at that speed, was because the wheel and mechanism was then balanced - the COM being to the right of the wheel centre.

As B said not only are they prevented from attaining their desired equilibrium or 'point of rest', but they must for ever seek it.

Mornin fellas ..

We are all trying to connect the dots to a "runner" - we use the public record, our experience, and our knowledge to hopefully cull the options and narrow the search down to something approaching feasible - maybe not an obvious answer at first, but following cause and effect mechanics it perhaps leads us to an improbable but not impossible solution, if we are lucky ..

From my experience with sims, a wheels top RPM is usually due to it reaching balance, as you say Trev i.e. forces in balance = no more torque - if we follow thx4's recommendation to drop weights then as he says the wheel will rotate to an RPM where the internal weights can not actually "fall" with any imparted force any longer .. in my experience this has a very curved acceleration/RPM profile - starts off with a gentle climb and then tapers off to a flat line at that RPM " like a leaned over r " - because these wheels accelerated so quickly and forceably in only 1 or 2 turns it conjures another shape profile to mind, more resembling a steep " / " and then immediately to horizontal - iows, they accelerate like a scalded cat from the get-go and then slam on the brakes, it seems ..

Both Graham and myself have doubts about the traditional "passive" displacement or dropping weights approaches - for me, mainly because if they worked then once you found the secret of breaking the Law of Levers and MA there should be plenty of upside and potential to improve the Power Outputs relatively easily - even a small wheel of Gera diameter could be engineered to output like on steroids - but by all accounts B's. wheels had limited power output, even the giant ones - something was restraining their potential for CoG/CoM displacement and improving their power output potential if that was the only game in town ..

Secondly, for a number of reasons, we both have feet firmly in the camp that a B. runner had a natural " oscillating" frequency, which it raced up to and then maintained ( even under load ) - to have a 'preferred' stable frequency there usually is a haptic ( tactile) feedback loop between device components where it wants to comfortably oscillate at - i.e. top-end RPM ( wavelength analogy ) ..

I think the evidence and logic points to internal mechanics comprising rotational motion working with, and interacting with, a reciprocating movement - and together because of their unique dynamic attributes they form a machine harmonic/frequency that grows and sustains a very real unnatural overbalance, but with limited scope for massive improvement and external Work capability ..

.....................

[Fletcher]

Hope you find it again Graham .. IINM these sims are always motor driven i.e. a regular energy input, and internal parts must follow the wheel ..

ATEOTD we only have, mass, inertia, momentum, and gravity force to work with - to cause a sustained repeating overbalance, imo ..

[Sam Peppiatt]

With no load, the main limiting factor to RPM would be the acceleration do to gravity and, normal losses due to friction. A wheel can't turn any faster than what a weight can fall. Seams like a smaller wheel would turn faster than a larger one, other things being equal. Also James L. claimed, weights falling along a curve would be a little slower than down a straight path, some thing to do with pi. He had a way to calculate it but, I'm not a math guy so could never figure it out-----------------Sam

[Daniel.R]

Secondly, for a number of reasons, we both have feet firmly in the camp that a B. runner had a natural " oscillating" frequency, which it raced up to and then maintained ( even under load ) - to have a 'preferred' stable frequency there usually is a haptic ( tactile) feedback loop between device components where it wants to comfortably oscillate at - i.e. top-end RPM ( wavelength analogy ) ..

My observations tell me that an oscillatory system needs to have low damping to oscillate with any meaningful amplitude. To me, it seems contradictory and illogical for a wheel to seek a natural frequency even under load, which definitely counts as a damping factor.
However, if the oscillatory motion is decoupled or reactionless, meaning it retains its free movement and amplitude even when under load, and also is able to do work, then such a system might be a step in the right direction. Bessler said specifically that his perpetual structures retain their free movement:

AP. 291 m. "I've nothing to hide, for all the inmost parts, and the perpetual-motion structures, retain the power of free movement"

The only mechanical arrangement that I have witnessed exhibiting such mechanical decoupling are gyroscopes. That's why I have mentioned them several times. They can show weird behaviors when reacting to gravity, especially when they are mounted within a rotating wheel, and their reactions happening without depleting the rpm of the gyroscope itself. This kind of violates conservation of angular/momentum. Especially if their precession force is harnessed to accelerate the bigger wheel. Although gyroscopes have the benefit of reacting/accelerating very quickly, which is somewhat needed I think for a working wheel, it is still very questionable if a gyroscope can create positive torque in a wheel setup, you still need to overcome N3.
Enough about gyroscopes... they are interesting but not so nice to work with. I rather find a principle in a simple lever system, it would be more fun and satisfying, lol.

Another thing I've contemplated is how Bessler seemed to have discovered the principle in the form of a wheel. He built his first prototype, which only revolved a little. To me, this suggests that he found a mechanism that shifted the CoG to one side of the wheel by a minuscule amount. It does not sound like he discovered a principle with 1500% overunity lifting, as such a principle would not result in the wheel revolving just a little. I wonder what came first: the wheel overbalancing, which manifested a gain in gravitational potential energy (GPE), or the principle of lifting weights themselves, which he then incorporated into the wheel to make it revolve.

/Daniel

[Roxaway59]

With no load, the main limiting factor to RPM would be the acceleration do to gravity and, normal losses due to friction. A wheel can't turn any faster than what a weight can fall. Seams like a smaller wheel would turn faster than a larger one, other things being equal. Also James L. claimed, weights falling along a curve would be a little slower than down a straight path, some thing to do with pi. He had a way to calculate it but, I'm not a math guy so could never figure it out-----------------Sam

I calculate that if gravity was one of the main limiting factors on the speed of Besslers 12 foot wheel then its speed would have been around 286 RPM.

Graham

[Trev]

Could Fletcher, John Collins or anyone else help me with this, I seem to remember hearing of a quote of B's that I can't find anywhere. It went something like: The principle/s of my machine is/are in every mechanics/physics book. Thanks,
Trev

[Roxaway59]

Fletcher I think your post and others about how Besslers wheel maxed out needs to be the subject of my next block diagram.

I've been running simulations all day and I am trying to concentrate on different ways in which a wheel can move its CoM far to the right.

Graham

[Sam Peppiatt]

Forget it!!-------------------Sam

[Sam Peppiatt]

I meant forget my post. I would gladly delete if I knew how-----------------------Sam

[johannesbender]

With no load, the main limiting factor to RPM would be the acceleration do to gravity and, normal losses due to friction.

Correct , the upper limit for falling weights or some mass being gravity accelerated in our planet in open air , is air resistance , friction , and ofcourse anything design related that would stop it from reaching that upper limit .

[Sam Peppiatt]

jb,
That's what I was talking about, the theoretical maximum RPM attainable. At least I thought that was what Fletcher was talking about. However, I forgot to qualify every thing 3 ways for Sunday------------------Sam

[Robinhood46]

This all makes sense if, and only if, the wheel is receiving the motive force directly from the falling weights.
If there is any additional mechanism, with the weights falling, that cause the wheel to turn via cogs, gears, belts or any other form of multiplier, then the wheel can have an RPM superior to a falling weight.

[Roxaway59]

It seems logical to me that gravity was driving the wheel but if gravity was the limiting factor in how fast the wheels turned then I estimate they would have been turning much faster.

This is an important point and its one that we need to agree on.

Graham