Wheel acceleration...

[Fletcher]

Hi Greg .. I can't add anything technical to what JC & other experts can reveal about the wheels acceleration in the first revolution, but I can make some observations in general that may perhaps hint at the requirements for a prime mover source.

The acceleration rate & time it takes to get up to full speed [unloaded] will be dependent on the wheels mass - a heavy two way wheel would have lots of mass & inertia to overcome by the imbalance torque generated - this wouldn't effect its final RPM but would affect how long it took to get there - lighter wheels [with less internal mass] would accelerate more quickly for the same force applied.

We have two options in terms of acceleration rate, either it was linear i.e. even increments, or it was exponential - personally I favour exponential because these heavy wheels [certainly the later bi-directional wheels anyway] got up to a fast clip [for their diameter] in such a short period that it seems unlikely to me that the acceleration was constant, especially when considering the possible mass/inertia of each wheel as I said.

Regardless of the type of acceleration, if we accept that it was caused by weight imbalance creating torque then either the weight got shifted the full travel distance each & every time it moved inside the wheel [which would suggest a constant acceleration & constant torque] or the travel/displacement distance of the weights successively increased as the wheel gathered more speed - this would suggest a dynamically generated force that was exponential [perhaps squared] leading to a gaining of RPM in a very short time.

[bluesgtr44]

I found this one in AAMS...pg. 64...J. Collins

"....The machine was started by a very light push with just two fingers and accelerated as soon as just one of the weights, hidden inside, began to fall. Within about one revolution, the machine had acquired a strong and even rotation, even when a box was lifted, which had been filled with six whole bricks weighing together about seventy pounds....."

This was for the Merseburg wheel that was also witnessed by many to revolve at about 40 rpm's....now that's a pretty quick acceleration rate IMO. And it did this even when it was loaded!


Steve

[bluesgtr44]

I'm just going to drop this one in here....I find it interesting so, maybe you will....maybe you won't...from DT...pg. 208...J. Collins pub.

Let me set this up a bit. This where JB is discussing the merits of his invention so as to justify his asking price. He is describing the many uses and also discusses the potential of his devices..

(5) But over all such inconveniences inherent in the running of all mills of prior design, there triumphs, now present for all to see, the principle of Perpetual Motion. For no burden or resistance is so great that, other things being equal, the P.M. principle cannot over come it, since it is capabel of having its effect multiplied indefinitely, and of being used in combination with other devices.

Indefinitely? C'mon now.....


Steve

[Gregory]

For no burden or resistance is so great that, other things being equal, the P.M. principle cannot over come it, since it is capabel of having its effect multiplied indefinitely, and of being used in combination with other devices.

Maybe he is just saying, that you can connect the shafts of six thousand gasoline engine to operate together, push down some on the gas, and when the big lever hits you, it theoretically has the power to shoot you from the US to Australia without airline tickets to pay for, or just chop off your head in a single moment... ;)

[Gregory]

Thank you JC, Fletcher, and Steve!


Now let's see what we have...

"gains its full speed of 26 rpm within 2 to 3 turns."

"Within about one revolution, the machine had acquired a strong and even rotation"


So this is the problem... It's not too much.
gains 26 rpm in 2 or 3 turns, good... but it does not tell us how much it gains in the first turn.
Strong and even rotation, sounds really great, but these are closer to poetic words or impressions rather than dry facts.

So what we have are only thoughts and impressions based on these few words and notes.


Now, the reason I asked this acceleration thing is because I think that the very first turn of the wheel could tell more than normally meets the eye. Let me explain it a little more...

If the wheel turned only slowly in the first revolution and accelerated up after, then this is clearly different from the opposite situation, namely if the wheel gradually accelerated and reached 2/3or 3/4 of its terminal velocity in one or one & half of a revolution. The two situation may suggest different inner construction, different mechanism or principle...

But based on the information we have, there is no firm fact to decide. Well, I know it would not help as much if we had even a videotape of the Merseberg wheel in action for example... but still there would be a few little pieces of information we could analyze.

We don't have it.

[Gregory]

The acceleration rate & time it takes to get up to full speed [unloaded] will be dependent on the wheels mass - a heavy two way wheel would have lots of mass & inertia to overcome by the imbalance torque generated - this wouldn't effect its final RPM but would affect how long it took to get there - lighter wheels [with less internal mass] would accelerate more quickly for the same force applied.

And this is the point Fletcher, thanks.
The acceleration really depends on more things, mass, inertia, and even simply on the diameter, etc. And if anyone try to use CF to design a „prime mover�, like Jim_Mich or me, there are many factors to consider. One is CoAM which you can make it a friend in situations, but for me there is an all-time problem about acceleration & speed right at the startup.

We would like something to swing / oscillate / speed up, and whatever movement you like to to use to achieve a good rate of operation; but this process takes time, takes power to put in... And if we just mess around with some untested, early stage mechanism then the outcome will be insufficient speed / force achieved for the desired effect to kick in. You know that the falling weight or weight pair seeks its PQ, and with every degree of rotation and every second, it gets closer to it.

Will the designed prime mover have enough power to accomplish „the impossible� after the start, and before it is too late?

So, Bessler may used some kind of component for a quick startup for the prime mover?
I may or may not conclude this, but its a possible explanation for your „pre-stored� force concept Steve. Otherwise, the wheels maybe just started because they were OOB at all times. It also can be just that simple, I don’t know for sure.

But if I rely on that possible conclusion, then two things instantly come in mind:

„Springs were employed, but not as detractors suggested�
And the other is the riddle: „While one pound falls a quarter, it shoots four pounds four quarters high�

Notice, the latter in itself would defeat any problem coming from CoAM, in case the skater would stretch out his arms... ;)
So, packing these two things together in the correct form may breaths life into a workable „prime mover� one day...

Pure speculation... thought you like it.

[Fletcher]

For no burden or resistance is so great that, other things being equal, the P.M. principle cannot over come it, since it is capable of having its effect multiplied indefinitely, and of being used in combination with other devices.

Indefinitely? C'mon now.....Steve

I hear you Greg but perhaps without dry facts we have to infer some information from statements made by Bessler & the witnesses where we can - we may be wrong but perhaps it is possible to narrow down the parameters to give some focus on where we should be looking for the Prime Mover force.

Thanks Steve, I had forgotten about that statement - I think we can take something from it though - firstly, it comes about after Bessler has being talking about the prior inadequacies of water & wind mills [in particular] & animal or human driven mills - he says, his PM principle delivers a constant power, without fluctuations due to limitations in resources & mechanical complexity, used to harvest & drive the other systems.

He chooses a curious choice of words [as qualifiers] to describe his wheels attributes IMO - paraphrased & broken down ; 'no load is too large, other things being equal, [that] the P.M. principle cannot over come it' - here he uses the qualifier 'all things being equal' so he could be saying that providing there are no structural breakages & if he can build a big enough wheel [diameter] then he can lift almost any load, within reason - his contemporary examples of the time would have been the massive water & wind mills & the 'hamster' lifting cranes used in cathedral construction for lifting masonry, which all would have been pretty large & powerful by his standards - I doubt for example he would have foresaw a PM wheel the size of the 'London Eye' purely due to available technology & structural strength of building materials at the time, though in the second half of the comment he seems to suggest that given the right materials he could deliver limitless size & power.

'since it is capable of having its effect multiplied indefinitely [infinitely], and of being used in combination with other devices.' - I think in this context indefinitely [N.B. the qualifier to the statement - Bessler was a mathematician so would have well understood the connotations of choosing that descriptive] can be taken for infinitely which is a very bold & confident statement to make & not a boast you'd make lightly IMO - here it suggests to me two aspects of the problem he solved - first off - he could put multiple wheels on the same axle to deliver more power & as mentioned elsewhere he could add more mechs to get more power [& speed ?] - that's a straight linear response i.e. add more mechs & wheels & the power scales up equivalently.

This is where things get counterintuitive IMO - often we assume more wheel velocity equates to more available power but something else Bessler said [paraphrased] might seem to contradict that view IMO - elsewhere he says that with one cross-bar it could barely turn itself, yet with more cross-bars, ropes & pulleys, he could deliver more useable power - then he says a more curious thing - that, given enough time he could construct a wheel the turned as quickly or as slowly as he desired to deliver any amount of power desired [great or small], calculated to a fine degree.

If you look at both ends of the spectrum of this last part statement then he could produce a wheel that turned very fast with low power output or he could produce a wheel that turned very slowly but had high power output - so this throws into severe doubt IMO the thought that power was correlated to wheel velocity & in fact it suggests to me that thru a combination of linear measures [i.e. more mechs, more cross-bars, more wheels on axles] & exponential scaleability [infinity/indefintely] he could increase or decrease useable power to any degree.

Simply the fact that he said 'since it is capable of having its effect multiplied indefinitely' [all else being equal] would suggest to me that power was correlated to wheel diameter first & foremost, before the additions of more mechs, coupled wheels on same axles etc. - this is a hard concept to visualize, where a wheel diameter makes the difference to the available power but its speed does not affect it appreciably - since we know in his replies to Wagner [about linear power generation of his wheels, written in AP & with this comment about 'indefinitely' in DT written even later & after a 'cool down' period] then it is reasonable IMO to suspect that there was indeed a squaring force to his Prime Mover & to his wheels performance capabilities [that might scale up exponentially to infinity, within reason], if he could construct one large enough - IMO, that squaring relationship might well manifest in squared acceleration, as I said previously.

Where it gets interesting IMO for the CF advocates is the very slow wheel velocity, high power output scenario & how that might be reconciled technically with CF's, which I'm sure they have credible answers for but which escape me.

Sorry to be so long winded !

[bluesgtr44]

Pure speculation... thought you like it.

Greg...I have complained many times that there are mentions of how many revolutions it took to reach maximum speed....but, no mention of the time. Especially in an era when time peices were so revered for their workmanship. I have seen no mention of the time in accordance with the acceleration rate in any of his wheels yet.

Sorry to be so long winded !

LMAO...then I need a BIG muzzle! Sometimes we need to be a little more explicit in our explanations. I know my circumstances sometimes dictate that I cannot be as concise as I would like to be. But, sometimes I just have to get it in at that time or it just moves to fast....I think most of you know what I mean.

You know, a weight sitting in a position waiting to drop once released is "stored potential energy"...it's not about just getting that weight into the starting position....it's about a weight constantly being in that position after it's started.

Think about it...when it is static, it has a constant applied force to one side (direction). Now, when it starts to accelerate, this force becomes dynamic along with the rest of the system and has to be able to...well, breathe....so to speak. As the force of the outer rim is going down, it has to be pushing back on something within....atleast at some point if it is to reset itself.

Now, if these wheels of his were not only able to reset themselves....but lift weights and turn Archimedes' screws?! We're not just looking for a "movement"....


Steve

[bluesgtr44]

So, Bessler may used some kind of component for a quick startup for the prime mover?
I may or may not conclude this, but its a possible explanation for your „pre-stored� force concept Steve. Otherwise, the wheels maybe just started because they were OOB at all times. It also can be just that simple, I don’t know for sure.

Hey Greg...this just caught my eye. Not so much just a quick start up...it could provide a constant force or maybe even act as a governor depending on a number of mechanical ratio applications. Something got them going and I still think the one way wheels were about as easy and basic as they came.


Steve

[John Collins]

EDITED

[Jon J Hutton]

Any one know how to read these numbers. It looks interesting.

[Gregory]

You added a torque motor to an object. Kinetic energy & Rpm of the rotating pieces are increased, because 0.5 lb-in torque is constantly applied to the machine. With other words you drive the wheels by a motor, as I see it.

What more to read ?

P.S.:
Or maybe you have a runner & a constant torque is applied to it. ;)
Change the torque to -0.5 and if it does the same in the opposite direction, then you have nothing new.

[Jon J Hutton]

Thanks greg,

After it runs for 10 seconds I shut one of the motors off and it still accelerates...so I tried shutting them both off and it still accelerates, but, I think I ran into the famous wm2d glitch again.

Thanks

JJH

P.S. Hiding a message on this board or any other is easy... to see what I mean just hit ctrl a on this post.

I hope someone comes up with a working wheel soon.

[DrWhat]

Very clever Jon! Here is the solution to Bessler's wheel... Now where did I put that piece of paper with the plans!!

Hidden message...

[AB Hammer]

Did you check your sock drawer? No wait it is under my mattress OHHH!