Sweet Spot, For R.P.M.

[BARRELL98]

Bessler's wheels,

I have read some old posts and are wondering about the Peacocks Tail, Pair of Pairs, Pendulums and his RPM.

The Peacocks Tail makes me think of a feather with 3 or 4 weights, possibly with different amounts, of each weight, of each pair. I say this with regard to the saying, about Pair of Pairs, meaning if you had one feather or spoke on both sides of a hub, the spoke could have 3 or 4 weights on each of them. With this in mind, I can see how he may have meant, that a pair of weights would move on the spoke and then another and another. A Pair of Pairs.

Pendulums just do not seem to be able to swing fast enought to keep up to the RPM that is talked about. Maybe they are a govenor, in some way?

If you are now lost in my thoughts, you are not alone.
Alot more thinking is required. I think I have just dug a deaper hole, full of more questions then answers

It now seems that the only curcumfrence that has changed, is the bald spot I've been scratching.

Barrell98

PS I will put more thought into my next post.

[bluesgtr44]

LMAO...this was me about a year and a half ago. I had started a thread about wheel acceleration, you see...that was what amazed me at first. How his wheels accelerated up to speed so quickly! I realized that I had so many more questions and they were not getting answered quickly enough. So, I bought the books and have no regrets! Oh, I still have a bunch of questions, but so many have already been answered.


Steve

[Fletcher]

Greg .. another option is that the shifting weights were not located, at or near the rim, but perhaps around mid radius.

Then CF's are not so important. If gravity shifted the weights then CF might have had little or no further bearing on the wheels performance, though this state is hard to imagine. It may even have helped some.

One reason his mechs could have been located mid-station is because they may have been of large or wide proportions. The weights were only part of the total mech imo.

Further, a quickly accelerating wheel (in 2-3 turns) could indicate that the wheel was truly OOB, but because of the quick acceleration up to speed this would seem to indicate that the wheels majority of mass was located towards the axle rather than the rim, which otherwise would have meant a slower gathering of pace, due to translational rotational inertia properties. JMHO.

I think most here, except possibly Ken, think that weights attached to levers without any degrees of freedom to move, independently of their attachment at some point in the rotational cycle, can never escape the back torque issues always apparent in rigidly connected designs i.e. torque symmetry is always present.

[ovyyus]

VANDUSEN

[KAS]

While we are on this subject. I may be wrong but I suggest that Bessler used a governing device in his wheels to achieve a constant RPM.

If, as evidence suggests, he designed his wheels in such a way as to use gravity to constantly transfer the weights to from one side of the wheel to the other, then (with current knowledge of his systems) a constant speed could not be achieved without a governing device. I'll explain:

Centrifugal Force:
With the above setup, constant overbalance would be achieved as long as the wheel was not allowed to spin to a speed where CF would prevent this from occurring and impose governing forces right?
In this scenario, CF would be his enemy as it would significantly reduce energy if allowed to come into play.
In addition, a pulse moment would be evident with a constant increase and decrease of energy as CF came into and out of play.
If CF was used, I have a problem with this as (as far as I am aware) no mention of pulse energy was recorded.
This only leaves a governing device or friction.

Friction:
Again, if Bessler used friction to keep a constant PRM, his wheels (especially the long run test version) would have caught fire with the heat produced.

So, By power of deduction, a governing device of some kind had to be used in some way.


Please respond.

Kas

[ken_behrendt]

KAS...

I my view of his wheels, their ability to quickly accelerate up to a terminal rotation rate was due to the slow increase of CF affecting their mechanisms' weight shifting abilities as rotation rate increased. Only when each of a wheel's mechanisms was functioning unimpaired by CF could it completely shift its weights so that the CG of all of the mechanisms' weights would have their maximum horizontal displacement onto the wheel's descending side and the wheel would, thus, have its maximum driving torque when standing still!

As wheel speed and CF increased, the mechanisms would become progressively more disabled in their ability to self-shift their weights. The result of this is that the CG of all of the weights would slowly sink down toward a position below the wheel's axle (the so-called punctum quietus location), but never quite reach it. As this happened, wheel torque would decrease and a point would be reached at which the dropping torque of the wheel exactly matched the counter torque created by the air resistance acting on its drum and the various frictions in its bearings. At that point wheel velocity would become steady and remain so unless a load was applied to the wheel.

All of this seems so obvious to me. All that I lack is the "simple" mechanism that makes it all possible...


ken

[KAS]

I understand what you mean Ken but when a load is applied, wouldn't the wheel slow then speed a little then slow then speed (causing a jerky movement) until the new natural RPM is achieved?

If so, there was no record of this occurring.

Kas

[jim_mich]

I my view of his wheels, their ability to quickly accelerate up to a terminal rotation rate was due to the slow increase of CF affecting their mechanisms' weight shifting abilities as rotation rate increased.

You don't get both a quick acceleration and a slow increase in CF. They are directly proportional. They both increase at the same rate.

As wheel speed and CF increased, the mechanisms would become progressively more disabled in their ability to self-shift their weights. The result of this is that the CG of all of the weights would slowly sink down toward a position below the wheel's axle (the so-called punctum quietus location), but never quite reach it.

But what if increasing CF caused the weights to want to shift more easily rather than disabling them?

Imagine if you will a giant turntable with two dancing couples (a pair of pairs). The couples are on opposite sides of the turntable. As the table rotates CF flings the dancers off the rim. But these couples decide they want to dance so they take a long rope and tie the guys to opposite ends of the rope. Now with the guys tied together they hang onto their gals and can dance there hearts out without CF flinging them from the table. Next these dancers find that if the guy and gal hold hands and one twirls around in the direction of wheel rotation they get more CF and get pulled near the rim. If they twirl against the wheel rotation they get less CF and the other couple on the other side of the turntable pulls them back inward by way of the rope. When at right angles to the rope they get twirled around by CF but when inline they don't get twirled. The guys weigh more than the ladies so they need to be careful how they dance. With careful choreographics and the use of the interconnecting rope they find that they can dance on a spinning turntable and make CF twirl them rather than flinging them from the table. They find they can dance all night long without getting tired. If the turntable speeds up then CF increases and they twirl faster.

The limiting factor is momentum rather than increasing CF. It takes time to swing your partner.

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Ken....

At that point wheel velocity would become steady and remain so unless a load was applied to the wheel.

Not if there is any truth to J. Weise eyewitness account. He claims that one extraordinary feature he witnessed is that the wheel reached the same velocity when lifting the load as it achieved when unloaded. He made extra effort to point this out.

All of this seems so obvious to me.

...because you have become myopic in your approach. (apologies)

One might also think of a way to dominate over the CF. I mean, if it has to be dealt with...overpower it! Hmmmmm.....


Steve

[Gregory]

Then CF's are not so important. If gravity shifted the weights then CF might have had little or no further bearing on the wheels performance, though this state is hard to imagine. It may even have helped some.

One reason his mechs could have been located mid-station is because they may have been of large or wide proportions. The weights were only part of the total mech imo.

Further, a quickly accelerating wheel (in 2-3 turns) could indicate that the wheel was truly OOB, but because of the quick acceleration up to speed this would seem to indicate that the wheels majority of mass was located towards the axle rather than the rim, which otherwise would have meant a slower gathering of pace, due to translational rotational inertia properties. JMHO.

Hi Fletcher... It's an interesting imagination. The proportions of his mechs and the location of the CG in his wheels were possibly represent your thoughts... Thanks.