Lifting a weight?

[justsomeone]

If you were lifting a 5 lb. weight in a wheel with another weight,
how much pulling force would be needed for a quick shift?

5.5 LBS. of force would lift it but not quick enough.

10 LBS. of force would lift it quickly but may defeat the purpose ( too heavy of a prime mover ).

How does this factor in with the 4 to 1 ratio Bessler mentions?

Your thoughts please. Thanks.

[sadiq attamish]

hi justsomeone

when you raise a weight up against the force of gravity under constant velocity you only need half the energy that you gain when the weight drops under constant gravitational acceleration.

[sadiq attamish]

hi

mathematics alone make us feel the limits of our intelligence.

[sadiq attamish]

hi justsomeone


the rotating mass in the wheel &axle was provided by two -part gravitons that gave the extra rotational kinetic energy.

[sadiq attamish]

hi

in my idea the assisting force is not coming from spring,nor coming from gravity ,but from the weights themselves.

[ovyyus]

Scott, is this a patience test?

[rlortie]

Lo, Lo, Lo, Lo, Lo, Lo, Lo, Lo, Lo, Lo, Lo, Lo,

There everything is equal now!

[greendoor]

justsomeone - to understand the conventional maths for this you need to study some basic physics. However - there are some of us who think that maybe there are some flaws in the very basics of physics, but it is very difficult to discuss this subject unless you have a good grasp of physics as currently taught.

The knee-jerk reaction from most armchair experts is that it takes the same amount of Energy to raise a weight slowly as it does to lift it quickly. They say that the Energy that you input into the weight gets transformed in Potential Energy, which is basically Height relative to the ground. A weight that is X height above the ground has a fixed amount of PE, which can be redeemed for Kinetic Energy by allowing it to freefall and accelerate under the influence of gravity. For accounting purposes - the Energy that goes into raising a weight has to equal the same amount, regardless of how fast or slow you raise it.

In my opinion - Energy maths is self-referencing, and it is a very tight mathematical web that has been woven, based on some ass-umptions that should never have been made. But the hold of 'Energy' is very powerful in the minds of it's subjects - it is basically the God of science.

Look up Wikipedia for a good overview. Energy is defined as the capacity to perform Work. Work is defined as the capacity to consume Energy. Hmmm ...

What is Energy? This seems childish to ask, because we peasants have been conditioned to accept that Energy is fuel, and must be purchased. But 'Energy' is really an elaborate mathematical trick, nothing more. This trick is based on assumptions that the universe must experience entropy. The assumption that energy cannot be created. The maths support these ideas, because the maths models these ideas.

There is another point of view that is modeled on Momentum. Momentum maths relates to Force x Time (because an Impulse is Force x Time, which imparts Momentum, which is Mass x Velocity).

In my view - it takes less Momentum to return a fallen weight quickly than the Momentum that can be obtained by allowing a weight to fall slowly. If a weight falls slowly, there same Force of gravity is available for longer.

The catch: Force can Accelerate a Mass OR it can simply create Stress. A brick sitting on the ground is stressing the Earth to it's core (due to the force of gravity acting on it), creating the opposing Normal force that is balancing it out and stopping it from sinking into the ground. In my view, this is a dynamic situation, equivalent to Acceleration. But if we remove the ground from underneath it (e.g. open a trapdoor to a mine shaft) - then that brick can Accelerate violently and achieve massive Momentum.

In my view, a Bessler wheel is simply allowing weights to Accelerate rather than stress the earth. But this requires a mechanical arrangement that allows them to fall slowly, and yet still be accelerating - which is where most arrangements fail.

If we consider that it takes Momentum (Force x Time) to accelerate a mass upwards, because we are resisting gravity, then it seems to me that it should take less Momentum if we resist the Force of gravity for a shorter period of Time.

Gotta go - but I could say a lot more about this.

[rlortie]

Lo, Lo, Lo, Lo, Lo, Lo, Lo, Lo, Lo, Lo, Lo, Lo,

There, everything is equal now!

[Tarsier79]

But if we remove the ground from underneath it (e.g. open a trapdoor to a mine shaft) - then that brick can Accelerate violently and achieve massive Momentum.

Sorry Greendoor, I have never seen anything accelerate violently under gravity alone. The acceleration from the trapdoor is no different to the acceleration from letting go of the brick.

If we consider that it takes Momentum (Force x Time) to accelerate a mass upwards, because we are resisting gravity, then it seems to me that it should take less Momentum if we resist the Force of gravity for a shorter period of Time.

The problem is it takes more force to move the mass more quickly.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Justsomeone,

It depends how you lift if and where they are on the wheel at the time.

would the real S.A. please stand up thanks.

Regards Trevor thanks

[Mark]

How does this factor in with the 4 to 1 ratio Bessler mentions?

I believe that the clue "when one pound falls a quarter, it shoots four pounds four quarters high":
a) isn't specific to a wheel's main driving-force mechanism,
b) isn't to be taken literally as written, and
c) is one of those connects-the-dots clues (that it ties together other clues) to confirm that you're on the right track, deciphering-wise.

I'm curious as to the configuration of the mechanism you're referring to.
Is it where the shifter weight is at the axle, and drive weights move from near-the-axle to perimeter? If the heavier "shifter" weight is 'centered' at the axle, and (in relation to the axle) has as little vertical movement between the limits of the shift range as is practical, it will have minimal effect on the wheel's center of gravity.
Or is it a different configuration?

[Mark]

Since we're on the subject of ratios...
Can somebody help me out? I seem to recall that Bessler wrote something like this: a 3:1 ratio is good, 5:1 is better, but 9:1 would be better still.
Does this ring a bell with anyone? Can you point me the correct quote, or post it (with the surrounding text)? I've looked and looked but can't find it. I'm beginning to think that I've manufactured a clue in my feeble memory from a couple of others. :-/

[pequaide]

Greendoor quote: If we consider that it takes Momentum (Force x Time) to accelerate a mass upwards, because we are resisting gravity, then it seems to me that it should take less Momentum if we resist the Force of gravity for a shorter period of Time.

Lets take a look. If a one kilogram object is moving up at 4.429 m/sec it will rise 1 meter. This rise will take .4515 seconds and it will cost 4.429 units of momentum.

If a one kilogram object is moving up at 20 m/sec it will rise 1 meter in about .0506 seconds and it will cost you .4966 units of momentum. Looks like you are correct greendoor. And look .4966/4.429 = .0506/.4515

Tarsier 79 quote: The problem is it takes more force to move the mass more quickly.

Yes; but that is the point, the force is free. Gravity gives you all you want: free.

[justsomeone]

Thanks for the replies!

In a seesaw scenario, a 100 lb. child would lift a 50 lb. child much faster than say a 55 lb. child lifting the 50 lb. child.

In a wheel rotating 50 rpms. the lift must be quick.

To lift quickly, how much extra weight or force do you think is needed?

Sorry if the question is too vague. I know there are many variables.