How much bigger is better?

[JuddBrooks]

Well. it sure started early. Now you can see why I wanted to do this in a private room till the bugs were worked out. If Jim keeps commenting this software will die a quick death. Sad.

Jim,
Yes concrete is also good. Thats why I added the materials table. So people could learn from it. Still need to add prices to each material. :(
Yes much is in books. Not everyone can afford the books, know which books, have access to right books, how to read and understand the books. But this can seen by all, transmitted around the world in an instant. This excel carries the 'load' of detail calculations and estimates, so the builder can just move on to build.
Could you say one thing positive. Just to show you good side. :) :)
As for you device. I had to translate your specs into what this program accepts right now. so here is my quess.
12 feet.. 45 rpms.. 40 spokes with 125lbs on ends. 9.4" movement inward = excel math comes out around 4.5 hp (SORRY).
Of course once again could be a decimal point problem for one of us. :)
I divided most items by 4 to scale down. Correct?
3 feet 45 rpms, 10 spokes with 31lbs on ends. .2.35 movement. Excel comes out with 50 watts. Close to your results. humm..what am I doing wrong?

Notice we are real close on small one..but way off when scaled up to 12feet.
Now do you see my point about the usefullness of this excel program. One of us is probably off. The discovery process to find which will be a great learning process as to getting 'inside' the wheel math and power curves using gravity as an input, etc.
Now you have books, calculator, and a great mind. NONE of which we can see inside of :) Everyone can see inside this excel program, study it, debate it, 'debug', 'fix', 'improve', and 'learn'. IS THAT NOT WORTH SOMETHING?

I can make changes FASTER than everyone can find the flaws or make suggestions and publish new and improved versions quickly, get the results to this board and around the world instantly. Levels the playing field,etc. IS THAT NOT OF VALUE?

Everyone,
From the above results the most important thing to note is the 'inward movement' (oob) (shorter left side spokes) and the weight on the ends is where the 'extra power' is coming from. Not simply a bigger diameter and re-using your old spokes and weights.

Double the 'inward movement' doubles the power.
Double the 'end-weights' doubles the power.
Doulble the diameter, using same spoke count and weight = 1/2 the power.

John Collin.
I think you asked once why do people build over 3 feet. I hope this excel helps to answer that. Can you imagine working so many years only to find you 'had' the answer but just not quite big enough to overcome 'internal expenses'.

Jim Kelly, Ralph, and any other about to start a 'build' will want to play with this before 'cutting'. You remember 'Measure twice. cut once'.

Observations -
All Wm2d users should consider working at 6-12. As Jim said, You get far more from the torque and might beat the friction and other 'expenses' (avoid keeling) if you give gravity time to work with bigger wheels. Afterall, what can it hurt, It still fits on your computer screen!!!!!

Europe homes power estimates sometimes are 1/2 American.
Sri Lanka powers 12-20 huts/homes off of one 4kw generator
etc.

Bessler only wanted to pump water, stamp, lift 70lbs of rock. He never said that his 12ft would power an American Home!. It is possible if we could ask him, he might say. I made a gravity wheel work, I don't do miracles :)

GRAVITY IS A FINITE INPUT POWER SOURCE. No one has suggested a way thus far to 'turn up' the speed of gravity (so to speak). It should be no surprise that to get more power one must build bigger. It should be no surprise that the amount of power is not equal to that of other forms. In this 1st generation Bessler recreation process, expectations should be more to minimal wattage out of large devices.

If people would volunteer to help 'shake down' this excel, I believe we are going to find it takes alot bigger than anyone imagined to power a house.

Right now (bugs and all).
30 feet, 30rpms, 30 spokes with 1000lbs on each, 3" movement = 8hp. gross before expenses!

SORRY. But this is from 9 different formulas. Not just my opinion. So if the math is wrong/broke/etc...it is in a big way and should be easy to find.

[jim_mich]

Jim,
Now you have books, calculator, and a great mind. NONE of which we can see inside of :) Everyone can see inside this excel program, study it, debate it, 'debug', 'fix', 'improve', and 'learn'. IS THAT NOT WORTH SOMETHING?

It's worth something only if it gives accurate results. So can I have a copy so I can debug it for you, instead of just pictures?

To produce an "average continious Center of Gravity offset" of 3 inches (as I stated) requires an average weight movement of about 9.4 inches. As I said the weights actually move about 14 inches. But it takes time for them to move so their average movement is somewhere near 9.4 inches. If you have two symetrical weights on opposite sides of a wheel and one moves inward 4.7 inches as the other moves outward 4.7 inches (from being centered) then their movement total would be 9.4 inches. But their center of gravity would be only 4.7 off center. And this would be only at 3 o'clock (0 degrees). So the average off center would be 4.7 x (2 / Pi) = 2.99 inches. You need to use the 9.4 figure in the excel program since that is the approximate average movement distance.

30 feet, 30rpms, 30 spokes with 1000lbs on each, 3" movement = 8hp. gross before expenses!

A 30,000 lb wheel?

1000 lbs x 3 inches movement = 3000 inch/lbs torque at 3 o'clock (0 degrees)
3000 x (2 / Pi) = 1909.859 inch/lbs torque average per spoke pair as the wheel rotates.
30 spokes / 2 = 15 spoke pairs.
15 x 1909.859 = 28,647.89 inch/lbs of continious torque.
28,647.89 / 12 = 2,387.32 ft/lbs of continious torque.
30 RPM
Lbs. x Ft x Pi x 2 x RPM / 33000 = HP
2387.89 x 3.1416 x 2 x 30 / 33000 = 13.636 HP
And of course this assumes that the weight moves instantly at 12 and 6 o'clocks.
And assuming you could build a wheel with 15 foot spokes capable of supporting the weight and centrifugal force of 5600 per spoke.


My proposed 6000 lb wheel to power a home...
20 pairs of weights, 250 lbs per pair
250 lbs x 9.4 inches average movement = 2350 inch/lbs torque at 3 o'clock (0 degrees)
2350 x (2 / Pi) = 1496 inch/lbs torque average per pair as the wheel rotates.
20 pairs / 2 = 10 pairs of pairs.
10 x 1496 = 14960 inch/lbs of continious torque.
14960 / 12 = 1246.7 ft/lbs of continious torque.
45 RPM
Lbs. x Ft x Pi x 2 x RPM / 33000 = HP
1246.7 x 3.1416 x 2 x 45 / 33000 = 10.68 HP

--------------------

If you're a wheel enthusiast and can only afford one reference book make it Machinery's Handbook! It's writen in very plain and understandable language. Visit your local library and browse through a copy. Every good machinist I've ever met had their own personal copy. It's about 1600 pages long. It has diagrams showing how to solve triangles. It has tables showing how much power you can get from a certain head of water and how much flow you can expect through certain sized pipes. It tells how much power it takes to compress air. It gives formulas for how much energy it takes to lift or move objects. It gives many examples using the formulas. I could go on and on... I would be totally lost without my Machinery's Handbook. It is like an engineer's bible. I have a couple physics text books with Greek letter symbols that I can hardly understand that I'd never miss. But don't ever take away my Machinery's Handbook or I'd be lost.

[rlortie]

Another good source is Audel Publishers, copy right 1923 forward.

They offer books on just about any trade you wish to educate yourself in. I have a collection of of 12 their books. If and when ever I spot one either in a thrift store or yard sale, I grab it.

Their is a set of three books that cover all you will find in the machinist hand book titled "Machinists Library.

If you should ever run across any book From Audel, please remember I collect them. Contact me with the name and last copyright date.

When we build, let us think that we build forever. Let it not be for present delight nor present use alone. Let it be such work as our descendants will thank us for; and let us think, as we lay stone on stone, that a time is to come when these stones will be held sacred because our hands have touched them, and that men will say, as the look upon the labor and wrought substance of them,"See! This our father did for us."
---------- John Ruskin

Ralph

[james kelly]

JUDD: Ithank you very much for you article. KEEP it up. It is sometimes very dfficult in the forum. I try to build between four and six feet for the reasons you stated. I will be buyin a new copy of excel. thank you agan..... jim kelly

[JuddBrooks]

Jim - sorry I mis-understood your movement to be 3" inward.
revised Jim numbers are as follows:
diameter 12 rpms 45 Spoke end weight 125 spokes 40 Inward movement 9.4 = excel output gross hp 4.5 gross watts 33,142

diameter 3 rpms 45 spoke end weight 31 spokes 10 inward movement 2.35 = excel output gross hp .06 gross watts 50

Jim - why am I so close on small and so far from your numbers on large using same math formula for both? actually 9 different formulas for both? lol. :)

More importantly, these numbers are assuming instant movement at 12 and 6 o'clock. I call this theoritical maximum (or gross hp). It will only go down in real world. I call this the 'Expense Factor' like wind, friction, cost of pendulums movements, Cf, levers, springs, etc, etc. Correct? Anyone?

[james kelly]

YOU ARE DOING QUITE WELL!

[Fletcher]

Hi Judd.. when I build a spreadsheet I also build an input or variables table that then filters down thru the spreadsheet. Most will understand this. It simply keeps all variables in one place.

I also write an assumptions table. While these do not 'calculate thru' the spreadsheet they set the framework for the analysis. I try to keep the assumptions to a minimum to save on complexity if it is not that relevant or is only fine tuning by another decimal place etc.

I suggest you send your spreadsheet to jim_mich as he requested so he can 'troubleshoot' your formula's, variables & assumptions. There may be something he considers important (such as time taken for weights to move) that you haven't included that could be the difference in projected output.

Together, I'm sure you will end up with something very useful & practical for builders. This is like a Besslerwiki exercise :)

[jim_mich]

Judd sent me a copy of the spread sheet late last night.

When I open Judd's spreadsheet it tells me that macros are disabled because I have my security level set to 'high'.
Judd has a note on page 6 saying, "I don't know where the macro is that says 'thankyou for opening software". I want to remove it- anyone??"
So I assume this is the macro that my computer's security prevents from running. I've never before used macros in excel. I can't seem to find any macros in the spreadsheet, but then I'm not real sure where or what I'm looking for.

It seems that Judd has pulled nine formulas from a number of sources then tried to merge them all together. I've been slowly working my way through it all but it will take some sleuthing on my part before I can figure out what all is happening. Initially I note that for a same set of input data the sheet outputs a range of differing values. For instance with the input still set as I recieved it the outputs range from about 4 watts at the axle to 4561 watts at the axle. So I'll need to look at each of the nine formulas and try to figure out and understand what and how each is being calculated. It seems most of the formulas are for hydro-power.

One thing I noted is the weights for wood seem to be on the light side. They are listed as 'dry' and seem to be wood with no moisture content rather than standard normal wood that you would buy and use which always contains some moisture.

Also on line 141 of the Spoke-end-materials sheet Portland cement is listed as specific gracity = 3.15 and Lb/cu.ft = 94. This should be about 194 Lbs/cu.ft.

[JuddBrooks]

Here is my first try to upload an excel file (zip).

I have included Jim-Mich formula from above so excel now has 'the good stuff' :)

I have Execl 97 (10yrs old) so I don't think many people would have to buy a new version.

There are no 'macros' in it at this time, so you don't have to worry about virus,etc. :)

For those interested in the excel formulas for any/all cells see the 'Tips' section on rules page for instructions. You can also print it!

When I started this I did not have the vision of publishing so there is little to no editing and user friendly stuff. It is still easy to use. Only a few items entered by the user at the top of the first page(Userdata). All the rest is done by the excel and the answers are all on the first page also. I had to learn excel from scratch this last month. :( There are no tutorials yet either. I am waiting for some 'feedback' before investing alot more time in it.

The materials page at the back was informational and was not used by excel formulas. Probably should have been published separately. :( sorry for the confusion. I have removed it. I will upload it separately later.

Reminder - aol puts download in temp file so be sure to "save' your download in a more permanent place once you have opened the excel file or you will be here again. :)

Please try and download it and use. I would like to know if this procedure even worked. :)

Thanks for reading.
Judd

[JuddBrooks]

If you downloaded prior to date and time of this post, please re-download.

If you have a copy without "jimmich#1 formula" then please re-download.

My mistake. Sorry Guys. I have corrected download file. My Bad. :(

[JuddBrooks]

A new version bwcalc1d is now available for download.
I removed the materials page, etc to make it smaller.
I have been advised it takes less than 2 minutes to download at 56k.
There are no virus. You can enable macros.

There is a Expense selection section added so you can pick your poison. :)

I would appreciate any feedback.

[JuddBrooks]

FYI, If you don't have Excel at this time, Microsoft offers a free 'Viewer' that allows you to look at excel files in a 'read-only' fashion.
This should be 'safe' for anyone worried about virus and fit anyone's budget. :)

This would allow you to review all the excel pages of bwcalc1 and make suggestions.

The viewer (about 9meg) downloads in just 15 seconds on dsl, so should not be bad on 56k.

Link
http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/deta ... laylang=EN