Weights

[wheelrite]

I think we are missing something of importance with the weights. Bessler goes on about form (balls) a lot, hid his weights in a handkerchief, yet they seem to be cylindrical, his wheels are quite 'thick' I notice, if one were using sphere weights this would not be necessary? yet if using cylindrical weights in one plane the width would be needed? Is there any difference in impact between two spheres (small point contact) and two cylinders in the same plane (long thin strip contact)?, allthough you could rotate one cylinder 90 degrees and be back to a small point of contact.
What advantages are there in the cylinder form? it can act as a lever, topple, contain a spring internally or externally, be gripped or affected at either end, etc. something must 'require' the cylinder form maybe?
Any thoughts welcome.
regards
Jon

[LustInBlack]

Just a theory but ..

A big iron ball of x mass ..
Make it melt, it will now become a grossly expanded flat sheet of iron.

Bessler talked a lot about form as you say .. He also talked about liquid, mercury liquid..

He talked about rain flowing and snow falling .

Looks like a transition between 2 states .


Liquid/Solid . .

Could it mean that your ball is concentrating the weight at one spot and expanding the weight when flat!?

Unrolling a cylinder?!

Just thoughts to add to what you already said.

* Unrolling and expanding.... Scissor jacks ?!*

[rounder]

Here is a interesting site http://www.universalleonardo.org/playAc ... php?id=529

[Knight]

I have also pondered why Bessler did not allow the ends of the cylinderical weight to be touch whilst being held in a hankerchief. What could possibly be identified by the person holding the weight? It would have to be something easily recognised by touch, even through the folds of a cotton hankerchief.
I would have to rule out any complicated mechanism used in a "catch & release". The only thing I can think of would be if the ends of the cylinder were threaded!
I am guessing that the cylinder was actually just a connector between two much heavier weights (balls) which screwed on to either end, much like a dumbell. The 2 weights acted in pairs. This idea would explain the width of the wheel.
I am dubious about the weight of one cylinder (reported to be only a few pounds), or even several cylinders grouped together on one side of the wheel providing the kind of torque the wheel had demonstrated.
As for the hole in the middle of the cylinder, I believe it could have been used as part a "catch & release" mechnism.
Knight

[jim_mich]

I think the ends of the weights had bearing holes and would be greasy. The weights must be free to spin else they consume inertial energy when they swing. When a wheel has weights fixed to the ends of levers then the simple act of swinging the weights back and forth, (start and stop) consumes energy as the weights must spin one direction then spin the other. If allowed to spin freely then only the weight of the levers consumes energy, so the levers need be as light as possible.

Eye witnesses said the lead weights were about 4 pounds (about the size of the small V-8 juice cans) and with 4 mechanisms (8 thumps per rev., two thumps per mech. per rev.) there would be a total of 16 weights based on one pair of pairs per mech. This would make 64 pounds of total lead weight. If the eye witnesses mis-judged the weight by 25 percent then the total weight could range between 50 and 80 pounds.

My calculations show this would produce about 40 Watts of power on a 12 foot wheel running with load at 20 RPM. This would be about 12 Watts more than what Jonathan and I calculated to be the minimum 28 Watt power output of Bessler's wheel. This extra would be used in overcoming friction.

[wikiwheel]

My 0ponion on this wheghts is that these wts. showed off by Bess. were a tease. Anything covered drawers attention to it, like a womans upper fronte! two fronts..pair of pairs!
Also the spring sounds also.

Everythings with the hammers in 138. They cause others things to movement.

Mik

[wheelrite]

If the cylindrical weight ends had a connection for a strap or cord, then when connected it would appear like a bridle/bit arrangement used to 'harness a horse'.........
Regards
Jon

[racer270]

hi jim,
jonathan ,....had told me that the wheel (by math) , had 4lbs of over balance at a right angle.......ie: at the 3 o clock position on the big wheel...

if my memory serves me correctly..

quote:

Eye witnesses said the lead weights were about 4 pounds (about the size of the small V-8 juice cans)

}

i don't think v8 came," in a can", tell the 1900's ............:)?

.............................................................................................
quote:

and with 4 mechanisms (8 thumps per rev., two thumps per mech. per rev.) there would be a total of 16 weights based on one pair of pairs per mech. This would make 64 pounds of total lead weight. If the eye witnesses mis-judged the weight by 25 percent then the total weight could range between 50 and 80 pounds.
}
.....i was think the big wheel could range from 100 to 150 pounds.....

in total weight;...about what two guys could move around...?
.......................................................................................................

all kidding aside,..

did bessler have any "MT" drawings with a ODD# of weights....?
from the picture, i have of the originals,....

so far all i can see/find is they all have a even# of weights,
do they not...?

and it seems to me bessler is trying to work weights in pairs, that are 180 degrees apart.....?

just my 2 cents adjusted downward for inflation..............:) gordy

[Knight]

Jim, you wrote

there would be a total of 16 weights based on one pair of pairs per mech. This would make 64 pounds of total lead weight. If the eye witnesses mis-judged the weight by 25 percent then the total weight could range between 50 and 80 pounds.

I don't agree. Bessler’s wheel turned with constant rotation and torque. The weights would not all be acting on one side of the wheel at the same time. If there were indeed 16 weights, some of them would have to be on the rising side of the wheel to lift them back up to the top of the motion. This would cancel part of the torque created by the weights on the falling side of the wheel. There would definitely not be 64 pounds acting on a 6 foot lever arm all the time.

Wikiwheel, I agree with your theory that Bessler teased his peers with the handkerchief-covered cylinder. He was hiding the true shape of the weights.

IMO the weights resembled dumbbells. Round weight plates were screwed onto the ends of the cylinder. If you look at the “and do you still not understand?� sketch the centre of the wheel looks exactly like looking at a dumbbell from side on.

Bessler may have wanted to give his wheel much more power by increasing the diameter of the cylinder and get rid of the weight plates screwed onto either end but this would not have worked for the following reason.

Having a solid cylinder, the same diameter as my theorised weight plates (say 12� diameter), would mean each weight would have weighed more than I can bench press at the gym. They would have been near impossible for him to move by himself and their weight applied on the end of a 6’ lever arm would destroy any wooden component they were connected to.

Knight

[Fletcher]

Knight .. the torque calculations for Besslers generic wheels [done previously somewhere on the board] showed an OOB displacement creating the theorized torque of probably no more than 6 - 12 inches.

It could be as low as a shift of only a couple of inches in total [using even heavier weights]. That's a tiny amount on a 6' wheel diameter, so what ever gain he got to create the side shifted CoG was an effect almost buried in the fine detail of the physics involved.

[jim_mich]

A wheel with 16 weights weighing 4 pounds each would have 64 pounds of total weight, as I said above. If the center of gravity off-set of the weights were to be about 2.677 inches and the wheel turned at 20 RPM loaded as per the eye witness accounts then it would be producing about 40.5 Watts of power. Jonathan and I and others have calculated that the wheel most likely put out about 28 Watts minimum of power to lift the four hammer mill weights. This estimate was based on measuring the woodcut pictures to determine the size and lift of the hammer mill weights then assuming they were made from solid heavy hardwood. My 40.5 Watts of power was determined by my custom computer simulation program that simulates my Eureka wheel pair of pairs concept. I set it to four drive units using 4 pound weights, 12 foot wheel, and 20 RPM and it returned 40.5 Watts of power, 2.677 CoG offset and 171 Inch/Pounds of torque.

When we compare Bessler’s large heavy wheels that had such a small output to the early steam engines that were just starting to be built, it is apparent that the steam engines looked more promising. Only now in hindsight do we see the advantages that a "fuel free" power source would have even if it has only a small output.

I usually figure that a constant 20 HP would supply all the energy needs of a typical family to power a home and an electric commuter automobile. When I plug in a wheel size of about 20 feet diameter (half below ground) with 4000 pounds of weight at 36 RPM I get about 10 HP with a stall/start speed at about 8 to 10 RPM. Now if I remove half the weights so it weighs only 2000 pounds the power goes up to about 20 HP but it stalls/starts at around 23 RPM. This is what Bessler meant when he talked about varying his wheel's power. There are primary weights that power the wheel and there are secondary weights that help the wheel to operate at slower speeds so that it "almost" self starts but hurt the overall performance. I say "almost" because it needs a little bit of residual OOB from its last run in order to begin running again. With a small amount of residual OOB then a wheel can start by itself. (according to the simulations)


Now back to the dungeon basement workshop!

[Knight]

Jim,

Any chance of posting your custom computer simulation program? I want to have a play.

Knight

[jim_mich]

Knight,
I would be glad to post the program but that would cause problems. I wrote the program specially to simulate my latest wheel concepts and for patenting purposes I must keep it confidential. The program has over 34 variations that I went through in order to arrive at my preferred best design. Also the forum doesn't allow exe files or Visual Basic code files to be posted. Sorry!

[scott]

Also the forum doesn't allow exe files or Visual Basic code files to be posted.

This is true, but ZIP files are allowed so this is not a forum issue.

[jim_mich]

Sorry, I forgot about ZIP files. Anything can be posted within a ZIP file.

But I still must keep my most promising intelectual property ideas confidential until a proper time to disclose all. See 'My Plan' that I posted a while back. I'm hoping 2007 to be a lucky year.