path_finder wrote:Dear ovvyus,
Thanks for your comment.
You forget an important point: the ratio between the global (M + m) mass of the wheel and the mass m of the moving weights, say m divided by (m+M).
If today this ratio is 1/2 per example (if the mass of the weights is equal to the mass of the wood frame of the wheel), the fact to replace these weights by some new in uranium will give you a ratio much more close to ONE. Remember that Bessler said he had to reduce the mass of the frame as low as possible.
For a fixed size the maximum of torque is obtained for a negligible frame. This is still valuable for any size of the wheel.
Hey P.F., I went back and read the part you refered to as saying that he had to reduce the mass of the frame. I didn't interpret that at all! I do know when he is responding to Wagner about the weights being removed from the Merseburg wheel, he says that that wheel would have been too heavy for his assistant(s) to do the relocation to the other stand without removing these weights. So, that kind of implies that the frame itself had a bit of weight to it.....
Steve
Finding the right solution...is usually a function of asking the right questions. -A. Einstein
Dear broli,
You are exactly right. Some witnesses heard some 'flshhhhh' wich can be overcome by the other noises of the wheel (cracks and weight shocks against the rim).
Make the test yourself: take a old tyre vertical, fill up the bottom part with some water (ten centimeters), let's roll the tyre : you don't hear any water noise!...
And now go further more: IMAGINE THAT BESSLER USED SOME MERCURY AT THE BOTTOM OF HIS WHEEL.The witnesses will hear ANYTHING.
When Bessler opened the oilskined cloth for Karl, it can be impossible for Karl to see anything particular at the deepest part of the wheel (at that time the candle light was very poor and the rooms a little bit sombre). Karl was focusing on the rods and had no reason to rummage through.
Should the inner rim of the wheel be a perfect flat cylinder, Bessler could use a SKATEBOARD instead. But it's certainly not the way chosen by him for the good reason that at that time the skateboard was not yet invented...
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...
Dear bluesgtr44,
I did never say that the frame of the wheel was light. It was certainly heavy due to the used wooden material.
I said that for a fixed value of the weights, the best torque will be reached if the frame is the lightest as possible.
(The energy acquired by the falling weights must be shared with the frame)
This assumption is not in contradiction with your comments, wich still remain true.
As Tesla said more later when trying to build his flying motor 'there is a compromise between the rigidity of the frame, the value of the weights and the speed of rotation'.
And now an important question in relation with your comment: Why Bessler did not used the wheel itself for the relocation?
It seems to me that this wheel can move itself, by rolling on the floor?
So the simplest way was to suspend the axis, dispose the wheel on the floor and put a wedge at the destination place.
Any comment?
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...
And now an important question in relation with your comment:
Why Bessler did not used the wheel itself for the relocation?
It seems to me that this wheel can move itself, by rolling on the floor?
So the simplest way was to suspend the axis, dispose the wheel on the floor and put a wedge at the destination place.
Any comment?
Just because you still have to lift it up to free the wheel from the open bearings.
Dear genmurphy,
Your comment is pertinent, but if each pillar on the both side includes a jack (giving a variable lenght), you have just to turn an handle and the wheel will touch the ground. At the relocation place, you have just to turn the handle counterback and the wheel will be suspended again on it's axis (like the firedepartment big-ladder trucks). All of this without to dismount anything and keeping working the bearings.
In addition it will be a good evidence that the wheel was not a fraud (remember the drawing showing a cable passing through the pillar and driving a crank inside), the suggested process certifying the no connection at all with the ground neither the roof.
If this way of relocation cannot be used by Bessler (the wheel rolling itself on the floor), what could be the reason?
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...
Although the frame would have been heavy due to the sheer size of the later wheels, I do recall Bessler mentioning a "light frame" being used.
Even if there was a strong and sturdy structure/mechanism inside his wheel, the external concealing frame may have been light and any rolling along the floor could have caused substantial damage.
Also rolling a huge wheel there is a huge risk of it toppling over. Just try rolling a truck wheel and see what happens. Carrying it via the the axles is much safer.
Using a jack type device within or against the pillars may have increased doubt re the axle being rotated from another room as it would have added complexity to the pillars, with possibly more points of concealment.
I think it was just easier to remove the weights and carry it across.
path_finder wrote:Dear bluesgtr44,
I did never say that the frame of the wheel was light. It was certainly heavy due to the used wooden material.
I said that for a fixed value of the weights, the best torque will be reached if the frame is the lightest as possible.
(The energy acquired by the falling weights must be shared with the frame)
This assumption is not in contradiction with your comments, wich still remain true.
As Tesla said more later when trying to build his flying motor 'there is a compromise between the rigidity of the frame, the value of the weights and the speed of rotation'.
And now an important question in relation with your comment: Why Bessler did not used the wheel itself for the relocation?
It seems to me that this wheel can move itself, by rolling on the floor?
So the simplest way was to suspend the axis, dispose the wheel on the floor and put a wedge at the destination place.
Any comment?
It may have been the simplest way, but he was not going to take any chances. This man was so invested in this idea, that to take any chance of something going awry was not acceptable. Whether or not he was covering any sounds that may have been different, or he was afraid that the assistants would lose control and it fell.....whatever, he wasn't going to chance it!
edit: I understand your meaning on the light frame now....my misinterpretation....;-)
Finding the right solution...is usually a function of asking the right questions. -A. Einstein
Although this has been discussed before on the board it raises yet again some interesting observations - it would be a reasonable assumption [as path_finder says] that if the wheel could self sustain its own motion on an axle on journals on supports, once given an initial impetus, then by all rights it should be able to roll across a flat floor [if it were strong enough] & even run up a slight slope, given that it could do external work which could go into lifting itself & raising its own Pe.
Yet this is not a test that Bessler did that was recorded to my knowledge & you have to wonder why as it would be very impressive & a point of difference, if not a marketing curiosity.
The key imo is that his later bi-directional wheels started from stationary position & then self accelerated up to optimal rpm ... but they needed the dynamics of movement & impetus/momentum to startup IINM.
It would also be reasonable [through lack of evidence to the contrary] to perhaps also conclude that Bessler never had his wheels roll along the floor after a push start because there was some dynamic factor to their operation that didn't work to well, or not at all, if the wheel were allowed to translocate itself in that manner & where the Center of Rotation was not stationary but moving sideways.
When all said & done, intuitively you would expect it to be able to do both modes, but then why was only one recorded ?
Hey Fletch, good to see you back a bit active again! All the best, I hope.
I remember you had mentioned this before about it being able to roll itself. I would think that trying to get it to roll on it's rim would require more work than actually lifting a specific weight at the axle. If it was on the rim, it would have to move the whole of the wheel instead of pulling from closer to the center. So, I would think if we mounted it on a raised rail and let it walk from the axle upwards, this would be more in line with the amount of work Bessler was able to achieve.
Basically, trying to get it to roll would be like trying to get it to lift something by attaching the rope to the perimeter.
Steve
Finding the right solution...is usually a function of asking the right questions. -A. Einstein
Dear Fletcher,
There could be only one good reason why the Bessler wheel can rotate only across it's own axis (and not around it's rim): if the internal structure of the moving weights of the wheel have been based on an hypocycloid.
In that case, rolling the wheel on the floor will transform the hypocycloid into common cycloid like this:
The internal torque could be compensated (and suppressed) by an exact opposite move of the mechanism and the COG will return to the main axis.
It's exactly what Mr WT Wallington is using at http://www.theforgottentechnology.com/newpage4 (see the video on the middle of the page).
Even if this should be verified, the wheel would be motionless and it's would be easy to translate it just with some gentle pushes.
Therefore in any case I can't see any reason why Bessler didn't used this way for relocating the wheel.
Attachments
attached by scott
Last edited by path_finder on Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:29 am, edited 3 times in total.
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...
Bessler's design may have required that most of the internal weight be supported from the axle. If true then the lightweight wheel framework, as was reported, might not support the heavy total wheel weight resting on it's rim.
Steve, if the majority of the total weight of Bessler's wheel was in fact hanging from the axle then your concerns about such a heavy structure accelerating up to speed so quickly might be somewhat lessened. Perhaps all that was seen accelerating was the lightweight wood framework and canvas?
Also, I've often wondered why Wagner decided to concentrate on an axle-hanging mechanism as his response to Bessler's secret. Could it be that Wagner's investigations somehow led him to believe that this was the general form of Bessler's mechanism even though he was not exactly sure of the specific design? If he gained this information by underhanded means (since when has that ever been out of fashion) then he could never admit it as more than an 'educated' guess ;)
The question about the ability for the Bessler wheel for rolling itself on the floor, is important:
If the answer is NO, a lot of applications are out of use, like this one (irrigation) per example (see the image below)
(the inverted waterwheel). Very bad for the emergent countries...
Attachments
attached by scott
Last edited by path_finder on Sun Dec 21, 2008 11:27 am, edited 11 times in total.
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...
Hey P.F., I had to refresh myself on that hypocycloidal. Did a little hunting and came across this demonstration of a hypocycloidal engine. I found it pretty interesting!
Steve, if the majority of the total weight of Bessler's wheel was in fact hanging from the axle then your concerns about such a heavy structure accelerating up to speed so quickly might be somewhat lessened. Perhaps all that was seen accelerating was the lightweight wood framework and canvas?
This is another part of my confusion. Where does the inner force apply itself? It seems that if one wanted it to be fast....it would be driven from closer to the axle. If one wanted it to be powerful, then the place to apply the force would be at the perimeter. And it does make some sense when we see the reductions in speed of the wheels demonstrated and how the power, as demonstrated, increased as a result of these changes.
As far as the wheel going uphill on it's own.....here's a crappy illustration of what could be a "ski lift" riding a rail up to the mountain top.
Steve
Attachments
Finding the right solution...is usually a function of asking the right questions. -A. Einstein
Steve wrote:This is another part of my confusion. Where does the inner force apply itself? It seems that if one wanted it to be fast....it would be driven from closer to the axle. If one wanted it to be powerful, then the place to apply the force would be at the perimeter...
If the mechanism hangs from the axle, as Wagner suggested, then the diameter of the wheel would determine the maximum leverage applied to the axle by a given weight. I guess speed and power would be given by these variables.
Steve wrote:...And it does make some sense when we see the reductions in speed of the wheels demonstrated and how the power, as demonstrated, increased as a result of these changes.
Where do we see the demonstration of power increase with reduction in speed?
