Revolution speed

[KAS]

I have noted of this forum that high r.p.m. seems to be the order of the day. But is this important?
I ask because as you are probably aware, I am currently focussing my studies on weight transference and, quite rightly, I have had valuable feedback stating that CF would cause problems.
But if a device were to be designed that would transfer significant mass resulting in producing high torque values, wouldn't a slow revolving system geared to a constant speed prove more efficient?

Any views on the matter?



Kas

[bluesgtr44]

Kas...the referrences to the wheel speed are because of the performance of Besslers devices. Eye witness documents back this up. As I stated on your other thread, I would be happy with a wheel that went 1 RPM...as long as it turned continously. The importance of this information to me, as to the performance of Besslers wheels is concerned...if we already know what they were able to do, it gives us a starting point of understanding what we are dealing with.

The importance of this information is not the fact that a 40 rpm wheel is better than a, say 3 rpm wheel...but, with an understanding of the reaction forces and their capabilities...it was not a problem for this guy at 40 rpm's. Now, that is an important bit of information IMHO.

Kas...you get one to turn slowly, I have no doubt that it will not take you long to get it up to speed. It's the principle...and once you unlock that...You will know what to do.


Steve

[P.T.]

KAS -

Steve is dead on the money - the principals of the mysteries are what need to be solved. But I'm with you the torque - the ability to do work is what will eventually count. I don't care if it goes 1000 rpms, if I can stop the axel with a paper clip it's great principal - just not very useful.

[ken_behrendt]

According to Bessler 4th Law of Motion, the power output of an overbalanced gravity wheel should increase proportionately to the increase in its rotation rate, ω. And this would, of course, happen if the wheel could maintain the location of its weights' CG with increasing wheel speed. Unfortunately, that apparently does not happen. As wheel speed increases so does CF which tends to impede the functioning of the weight shifting mechanisms within the wheel. When this happens the CG of the weights begins to drop down toward the wheel's punctum quietus and results in a drop in torque and output despite the increased wheel rotation rate.

So, my advice would be that, for maximum power output, one keep the rotation rate of one's overbalanced wheel as low as possible! Yes, a wheel spinning as hundreds of rpm's might be impressive to the uninformed, but such a wheel will be good for little more than use as a fan to move air about!


ken

[jim_mich]

Horsepower is what is important! Horsepower is a combination of torque force times rotational speed. You can have a slow wheel with a lot of torque or you can have a fast wheel with little torque.

[bluesgtr44]

I absolutely agree that it needs to do work. Horsepower is going to be the main objective. I just want a starting point to get there....and he left us with one. He had to demonstrate his wheels and from this information we know what they were capable of.

His one directional wheels had to be tied off...they were locked and loaded from the get-go. Once the cord was released, the Dratschitz wheel reached about 50+ RPM's in about 2-3 revolutions....Now, I know you guys hear me banging this drum a lot...please just think about this. What a phenomenol feat! This tells me that the offset of balance on this thing was pretty tremendous even as it accelerated...not a whole lot of resistance on the ascending side. The maximum RPM rate is a result of the proportion/ratio of the mechanism and the weights to the diameter of the wheel....all of this is theory....not a "law"...and other factors could be involved, but since I don't have a working model to present....theory...theory....


Steve

[ken_behrendt]

Steve wrote:

His one directional wheels had to be tied off...they were locked and loaded from the get-go.

What do you mean by the word "loaded"? This seems to imply that Bessler had to somehow prepare the one-directional wheels for a startup by somehow doing something to the spring mechanisms within them prior to startup.

However, the people who examined the wheels would have realized this and reported it. They probably were allowed to stop and start this one-directional wheels from any initial starting position and no "loading" or preparation was required. I think this is a misleading word to use considering that we still do not have the exact details of the secret mechanism he used...even, though, most likely, it relied upon springs to function.


ken

[rlortie]

IMO, The word "loaded does not imply any thing was required when the wheel was untied.

It is said that to stop it, would lift a man from the ground, I would say that it was held while being secured. All that transpired was stopping a potential energy source and then releasing it later. It was always loaded and no preperation was required. Locked and already loaded would be my way of stating it!

Ralph

[bluesgtr44]

Ken, Ralph...I was just speaking metaphorically with "locked and loaded". It does appear that the one directional wheels were chronically OOB. That was my meaning...sorry for the confusion.

But, there may have been some "sweet spots" that were of better choosing as the starting point....merely for demonstrational purposes. I have pointed this out in the "Steve's Street" thread. Bill had brought up the point of trying to spin the wheel in reverse...it would fight the whole 360 degrees...basically, there would not be a punctum quietous zone...it is chronically OOB.

A couple of questions here.

1. Gravity being a constant force and all...could he have used it to maintain the mechanism within a certain set of parameters inside the wheel as well as the force to drive the weights?

2. Could there be a transferrence of energy taking place between two components that might be tremendously diminishing the reaction forces on the ascending side of the wheel.

3. Now, if the above two can be true...the addition of springs would (maybe) add to the power of the wheel, not just keep it going. So, if we can maintain the mechanisms position (offset CG) and overcome the reaction forces (transferrence), he just needed to increase the power output.

Why? Because his first wheel did not put out much power. He thought the cash cow was the principle...oh no, they wanted more power...so, he gave it to them. He already had the principle. To add springs and direct their forces where he wanted them was not a problem.

Just some more random thoughts.....

Steve