Besslers prime mover and its enabler.

[Sam Peppiatt]

OK fine with me, gravity has nothing to do with it, I stand corrected--------------------Sam

[Roxaway59]

What I am saying is that if the velocity of an object in free fall (which varies depending on the object) is the kind of thing we are talking about I would expect the wheel to be going much faster.

Graham

[Kattla]

If the wheel span too fast, whatever was shifting inside could been "locked" against the outerwall because of the centrifugal effect. Like cars driving in a vertical loop.

[prime mover?]

If the wheel span too fast, whatever was shifting inside could been "locked" against the outerwall because of the centrifugal effect. Like cars driving in a vertical loop.

Maybe if they were paired like how Bessler said they worked, you know, in pairs.

p.s., The lock you mention would be either centripetal or centrifugal force. If you search Google, you better know the difference because they aren't the same thing. This gets very much into perpetual motion.

p.s., In calculus, you approach a limit from f(x) = ∆y/∆x ... and lim ----≥ = +/- ?
? = any real or imagined (i) number while i s an imaginary number.

[Robinhood46]

OK fine with me, gravity has nothing to do with it, I stand corrected--------------------Sam

Lol.
Gravity has everything to do with it Sam.
It was the driving force of the wheel. That isn't in question, at least not in my opinion. The question is, did the weights that fall due to gravity, turn the wheel directly or indirectly.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi Robinhood!!
Yea I know, I was just being a bitch----------------------Sam

[Robinhood46]

I thought you were, but it did make me laugh.

[Sam Peppiatt]

I get to the point Robinhood; I don't know what to say to Graham. It's probably best I don't say any thing---Sam

[Roxaway59]

Sam Peppiatt wrote: ↑Fri Aug 02, 2024 8:09 am
With no load, the main limiting factor to RPM would be the acceleration do to gravity and, normal losses due to friction.
jb
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 .

Ok lets try this again.

As far as I can tell its not gravity reaching its upper limit with a falling weight that is the main cause of the limit put on Besslers wheels. I am happy for anyone to show me why I am wrong about that.

I believe that as the wheels pick up speed their CoG shifts towards the axle as the wheels start to balance out more. Normal resistance to the wheels turning then comes into play also but the main thing holding them back is the CoG shifting.

When the wheel is loaded which reduces its speed the CoG once again moves further out resisting the slow down.

I am happy to be proved wrong and as I have said this is an important point so it needs to be understood.

Graham

[agor95]

Hello Roxaway59

Just given your posts a read. I for one am interested in proving you right than wrong.

An object is perceived to accelerate down by adding 9.81 metres in each second.

This is true regardless of the speed it is moving.

So an object on a circular path at the top of it's arch is not moving down but horizontal; in that instant. Then the object is forced to accelerate down to be level with the axis.

The object will have a greater speed at the end when the drop takes less time than the natural drop due to gravity.

Does that make sense to you.

Regards

[johannesbender]

wiki:

Terminal velocity is the maximum speed attainable by an object as it falls through a fluid (air is the most common example). It is reached when the sum of the drag force (Fd) and the buoyancy is equal to the downward force of gravity (FG) acting on the object. Since the net force on the object is zero, the object has zero acceleration.[1][2] For objects falling through air at normal pressure, the buoyant force is usually dismissed and not taken into account, as its effects are negligible.[citation needed]

As the speed of an object increases, so does the drag force acting on it, which also depends on the substance it is passing through (for example air or water). At some speed, the drag or force of resistance will equal the gravitational pull on the object. At this point the object stops accelerating and continues falling at a constant speed called the terminal velocity (also called settling velocity).

An object moving downward faster than the terminal velocity (for example because it was thrown downwards, it fell from a thinner part of the atmosphere, or it changed shape) will slow down until it reaches the terminal velocity. Drag depends on the projected area, here represented by the object's cross-section or silhouette in a horizontal plane.

An object with a large projected area relative to its mass, such as a parachute, has a lower terminal velocity than one with a small projected area relative to its mass, such as a dart. In general, for the same shape and material, the terminal velocity of an object increases with size. This is because the downward force (weight) is proportional to the cube of the linear dimension, but the air resistance is approximately proportional to the cross-section area which increases only as the square of the linear dimension.

For very small objects such as dust and mist, the terminal velocity is easily overcome by convection currents which can prevent them from reaching the ground at all, and hence they can stay suspended in the air for indefinite periods. Air pollution and fog are examples.

The biologist J. B. S. Haldane wrote,
To the mouse and any smaller animal [gravity] presents practically no dangers. You can drop a mouse down a thousand-yard mine shaft; and, on arriving at the bottom, it gets a slight shock and walks away. A rat is killed, a man is broken, a horse splashes. For the resistance presented to movement by the air is proportional to the surface of the moving object. Divide an animal's length, breadth, and height each by ten; its weight is reduced to a thousandth, but its surface only to a hundredth. So the resistance to falling in the case of the small animal is relatively ten times greater than the driving force.[7]

We do not know if his wheels reached their "terminal velocities" or not , if for example all object inside the wheel along with the wheel was driven by a modern electric motor , it would still have a terminal velocity , however it depends on how much of the total drag the motor would be able to overcome .

Its so strange to think that his wheel overcame friction and drag and did work , whilst we know its not suppose to do so according to energy losses.

Anyway one thing he said that bothers me more than anything , is something about "without his principle no mobile could be perpetual" , i mean every design is different right , so what principle could possibly be applied to all kinds of different designs , that does not make a lot of sense to me.

[Roxaway59]

agor95 I think I follow what your meaning is.

What do you believe limited the speed of Besslers wheels?

Graham

[agor95]

agor95 I think I follow what your meaning is.

What do you believe limited the speed of Besslers wheels?

Graham

There are lots of limiting factors. Some are beyond our ability to know.

To start you should be able to deduce an object travelling at a large speed will accelerate down greater than 9.81 in the scenario put forward.

There is a speed where the object does not slow down or speed up when it reaches the axis level.

Let me know if this makes sense. There are ways to clarify this rational.

[Roxaway59]

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

There is obviously a big difference between 286 RPM and 50 RPM.

Besslers wheels were covered so the inner parts and the air were enclosed. Its possible that it would have been able to go faster due to the air having less impact on its movement.

We know that the overbalancing weights were far out as Fletcher showed in his simulations.

Graham

[Roxaway59]

One other thing I would like to add is that his wheels might very well have worked better with the covers on.

The covers might not have just been there to stop people seeing the mechanism.

Graham