Hi Everyone,
I am starting this new topic for Georg. Here we can discuss his ideas about in-balance, well-balance, trouble force, increasing resonance, etc...
I will start by copying over some text and images from the old discussion board to give us some context.
Thanks again Georg for sharing!
-Scott
Here is Georg's first installment:
...
Before you show my developement pictures, we must solve our speech 'Babylon'. What we need is a common language, so that we understand what we are talking about.
Therefore I have prepared an excel file to show the first step. What is the difference between 'in balance' and 'well balanced' as Bessler said. Please publish this first. We can discuss this first on the board. The difference is essential to solve the Bessler riddle.
I have seen... that no one is able to follow my thoughts, even when I publish it on my homepage. So I like to explain it step by step.
In the next mail I like to explain 'Storkraft'='trouble force', and we should discuss it also. Then I like to pass over to an oscillating system. After that, everyone on the Besslerwheel.com board should be able to follow my thoughts and understand my development.
Best regards,
Georg
Attachments
gk_01.gif (5.19 KiB) Viewed 42893 times
Last edited by scott on Mon Nov 10, 2003 7:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
When we have a big wheel with the mass M3, we can turn that wheel under the following conditions. The mass and the fall hight (shown with m1 amd m2) must be greater than the friction and the inertia. We can turn that wheel with an external force. It is easy to do that way, because you are unlimited by high and mass.
The second way is more difficult, because you are limited in fall height and mass. We have to calculate the maximal force, which is available in the wheel.
The maximal force is depending on the diameter of the wheel. To calculate the trouble force, we can use the following formular
trouble force = maximal-force * sin ωt
You can see on the placement of the stoppers, that the trouble force is depending on an sine shape and time.
So if trouble force is lower than friction + inertia, the wheel is not able to turn. Therefore anyone, who tries to build a Besslerwheel, and made a model with a small diameter will fall. Now you see, why Bessler used this big wheels and a wood-frame.
Hi Georg;
Nice of you to clarify/share your ideas. I thought you might like to check out this link. It discuss the properties of falling objects according to the authors ideas/beliefs. ( I do not agree with all his concepts but found them interesting).
best regards--Patrick http://www3.sympatico.ca/slavek.krepelk ... pforce.htm
Here is the latest installment (text and image) from Georg K. Thanks a lot Georg!
I have prepared an excel drawing showing an oscillating force, and what
a hit against the hindrance will do. The hindrance in the Besslerwheel is the
inside of the big wheel. So we have now two possibilities that the roller,
carrying an excenterweigth gets potential energy. The first possibility you see
on step 2, the second in step 6. Both technics are used from Bessler in his
wheel, that is my opinion.
Please add the attachment under the point well balanced, on your board.
We have to rollers, carrying an excenterweight, connected with springs.
You can compare this construction with Bessler's clues to the wheel design.
It is more than the half way to rome.
I don't know that I'm allowed to post here, maybe this is only for your ideas and they are to be talked about elsewhere on the site, but I think that last post is a bit of a misnomer. You are not, as far as I can tell, using inertia to gain potential energy, you are using kinectic energy to gain potential energy. Or maybe I'm confused and am either nit-picking or you're using those terms interchangably. However, if I do understand how it is supposed to work, it seems that it would be much simpler to give a rolling object a pretty good speed toward and inclined plane, and then it will go up and exchange kinetic for potential, reaching a height of h=(v^2)/(2g), neglecting friction. Oh, or is it that this device is supposed to save that energy that is lost due to friction?
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
And now turning in the same direction with a hit. Reaction transformed into the direction of rotation. Explained step by step. Formulars from mathematicans are wellcome.
Hi George, Not sure if I can make out your drawings, arrows and so on. Could'nt you draw it by hand and with a lot more detail?? Regards................sevich
I agree, I find paint (the program, not the medium :) ) very useful. But as to Sevich, I think the arrows only look three dimensional, but aren't meant to indicate that. I think they only indicate spinning clockwise or counter-clockwise, not outward or inward (Z-axis).
Disclaimer: I reserve the right not to know what I'm talking about and not to mention this possibility in my posts. This disclaimer also applies to sentences I claim are quotes from anybody, including me.
Running downhill, jumping up. Years ago, a staf-high-jumper could only
cross 3.20. Since they use glas-fibre more than 6 m. They use the technic
very fast up.
All are searching a technic to create unbalance. Like water pumping up and spiraling down. But Bessler did the up with a hit. so the difference between up and down is a maximum. Think of the hit in Besslerswheel on the downgoing side. The hit is used to bring up the weight in nearly zero time.
In several models he made. shown on machinen tractate, he tries to solve the problem, fast up, slow down, until he found, that the hit is the fastest way to go up.
Hi Georg, I feel I fully understand how the WHEEL works !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! And it's true that it's so simple as Carl said. This system is the only way to get the weights to do two things at once, and in that process is created artificial gravity within the wheel to power the turn of the wheel!! Best regards................Sevich
Time will come soon when this simple technic will be shown and presented to all unbelievers. But I don't like to be the front running man, it may be dangerous.
If i can get your email-adress, I will sent you the full descriptions, if you want, but I know, that you don't need it anymore. I don't like to show all details on the board. My email is on the board.
I think now nobody will say that I don't understand mathematics and physics. 1+1 = 3 or ? That was a joke.
And I also think, that my english is good enought to expain that simple technik without misunderstanding. They, which misunderstood, can't
leave old paths.
