Remove bearing, still do work?

[Senax]

May I ask Georg where is that quote from ? I don't believe I've heard that the wheel would roll up hill !

If it can roll along the ground then it must be able to roll uphill to some
extent, albeit more slowly. Georg understands this.

[Fletcher]

Wouldn't it have been impressive to see the wheel roll along the ground ?

Even if men were running each side guiding the axle to make sure it kept upright for however many meters.

12 foot diameter = 3.65 meters = 1.82 m radius => distance covered at rim ( 2 Pi r ) => 2 x 3.142 x 1.82 = 11.5 meters ground roll @ 26 rpm => 1 revolution each 2.3 secs => velocity 5 m/s = 18 km/hr.

Doable, for a couple of fit fellas. But that demonstration didn't happen ! B. never mentions the possibility for such an impressive demonstration. Altho he wanted to show case his wheels capabilities and make a sale, so this is curious.

If it didn't happen then we must assume there was a very good reason it didn't happen, other than thinking no one thought of it, or that the wheel was too flimsy. JMO's.

[Senax]

Wouldn't it have been impressive to see the wheel roll along the ground ?

Even if men were running each side guiding the axle to make sure it kept upright for however many meters.

12 foot diameter = 3.65 meters = 1.82 m radius => distance covered at rim ( 2 Pi r ) => 2 x 3.142 x 1.82 = 11.5 meters ground roll @ 26 rpm => 1 revolution each 2.3 secs => velocity 5 m/s = 18 km/hr.

Doable, for a couple of fit fellas. But that demonstration didn't happen ! B. never mentions the possibility for such an impressive demonstration. Altho he wanted to show case his wheels capabilities and make a sale, so this is curious.

If it didn't happen then we must assume there was a very good reason it didn't happen, other than thinking no one thought of it, or that the wheel was too flimsy. JMO's.

I would guess that no one thought of it. Don't forget, even technicians like
the majority of this forum understand a lot more about mechanics than
people three centuries ago. I'm confident that when the answer is found
many members will realise they were within a hair's breath of finding it
themselves.

This is why I am confining updates on my research to the Community Buzz
forum. I'm quite happy to be scooped by members of the forum with superior
build kills but I don't see why lurkers who can't be bothered to join should
benefit.

I've always thought the the person most likely to succeed in this forum
(and in the Steorn Forum for that matter) was a polymath like cloud camper
who combines a deep knowledge of physics with obvious practical skills.

Mathematicians like Marcello may be able to understand me when I talk
about derivatives but he shows no inclination to build anything and is
therefor not going to get any feedback from his mistakes.

As for the statistic Users who created the most topics
where does ME appear on that list? He doesn't.

That is not to say that his analysis is not extremely valuable. I have certainly
found it so in spite of his conservative attitude to terminology.

Like heaven the Bessler forum has many mansions and all the members have
their own unique contribution to make. It would be poorer without the likes of
Trevor, iacob alex and Gill Simo. I've always thought it was a tragedy that
ken behrendt didn't put up more of a fight over his banning.

Still, I suppose our loss is John Collins' forum's gain.

[ME]

Mathematicians like Marcello may be able to understand me when I talk
about derivatives but he shows no inclination to build anything and is therefor not going to get any feedback from his mistakes.

As for the statistic Users who created the most topics where does ME appear on that list? He doesn't.

That is not to say that his analysis is not extremely valuable. I have certainly found it so in spite of his conservative attitude to terminology.

Sorry to all, for not overflowing you with topics.

And here a royal sorry to Senax:
We see him try building an empire of terminology.
We all know those bestest hits like, "third derivative energy", and "Ersatz".
We learned that these could save the World... individually.
We just don't know why and how (and neither does Senax).
We know they should somehow be derived from known principles in Physics.
We could try ourselves but where to start?
We have the name (which might hint to some jerk), but not the exact principle...
We rather have the principle, and be oblivious of its name.
We never received their official meaning, nor how and where it may apply,
We don't even know the units (Well, I have an idea. But that would break the "we"-part) .
Because Senax does not show any inclination to provide that information and create understanding then he's simply unable to figure out where he makes his own mistakes.
:-p

[John Collins]

I don’t know if Bessler considered a test running the wheel along the ground, but if he did I think he would have dismissed the idea.

The wheel was in an upstairs room in the castle. It measured just short of Twelve feet in diameter. The ceiling was twelve feet in height because we have a report from William Kendrick who visited the wheel room in 1745 and saw the remains of the bolts which fixed the four pillars to the ceiling.

I think Bessler made the wheel as large as possible within the confines of the room. He could not remove it to run it along the ground as he could not get it through the door or down the steps, let alone take it back up again afterwards.

Also it was too heavy even without the weights to move it more th an a few feet. Plus of course he needed the security of a lockable room to keep it in.

I know I’ve said this before, but I really wish Senax would stop using his own terms, they mean nothing to me so I don’t bother to read if if I see them.

JC

[Senax]

Mathematicians like Marchello may be able to understand me when I talk
about derivatives but he shows no inclination to build anything and is therefor not going to get any feedback from his mistakes.

As for the statistic Users who created the most topics where does ME appear on that list? He doesn't.

That is not to say that his analysis is not extremely valuable. I have certainly found it so in spite of his conservative attitude to terminology.

Sorry to all, for not overflowing you with topics.

And here a royal sorry to Senax:
We see him try building an empire of terminology.
We all know those bestest hits like, "third derivative energy", and "Ersatz".
We learned that these could save the World... individually.
We just don't know why and how (and neither does Senax).
We know they should somehow be derived from known principles in Physics.
We could try ourselves but where to start?
We have the name (which might hint to some jerk), but not the exact principle...
We rather have the principle, and be oblivious of its name.
We never received their official meaning, nor how and where it may apply,
We don't even know the units (Well, I have an idea. But that would break the "we"-part) .
Because Senax does not show any inclination to provide that information and create understanding then he's simply unable to figure out where he makes his own mistakes.
:-p

😄😄😄

I've always been intrigued with the spelling of your forename ME and I've
actually managed to find someone with the same spelling.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2grQDDqZaoQ

As you can see, he's a very lovable creature. 😘😘😘

[ME]

What can I say...?
But what do others say:

https://www.names.org/n/marchello/about
M is for mystery, the part of you that cannot be explained.
A is for altruism, the unselfish you.
R is for radiant, it's your personality!
C is for caress, a loving touch for your loved ones.
H is for hardy, can't keep you down!
E is for enchant, for enchant you will.
L is for listen, one of your best traits.
L is for luxury, the luxury of your smile.
O is for original, one of a kind!

https://www.kabalarians.com/m/marchello.htm
http://www.sevenreflections.com/name/marchello/
The last one warns: "You have psychic power."

As you can see, he's a very lovable creature. 😘😘😘

[Senax]

S ........ is for serene, your calm time.

E ........ is for enchant, for enchant you will.

N ........ is for natural, the genuine side of you.

A ........ is for aptitudes, your special capabilities shine

X ........ is for x, the mysterious side of you!

... and that describes me perfectly. 😄

[ME]

For those who suspect this to be off-topic:
Note the 'Heading' of this topic: "Remove bearing, still do work?"

[ME]

Wouldn't it have been impressive to see the wheel roll along the ground ?

Even if men were running each side guiding the axle to make sure it kept upright for however many meters.

12 foot diameter = 3.65 meters = 1.82 m radius => distance covered at rim ( 2 Pi r ) => 2 x 3.142 x 1.82 = 11.5 meters ground roll @ 26 rpm => 1 revolution each 2.3 secs => velocity 5 m/s = 18 km/hr.

It's always possible it doesn't work because the wheel requires a hanging stator (like MT013); lagging behind because of inertia. Then things may go less smooth when this starts to rotate along.
You could still put it on a cart, and use it as an engine. Unless such stator also lags behind on that cart.

[Georg Künstler]

ME Wrote

It's always possible it doesn't work because the wheel requires a hanging stator (like MT013); lagging behind because of inertia. Then things may go less smooth when this starts to rotate along.
You could still put it on a cart, and use it as an engine. Unless such stator also lags behind on that cart.

Who will say that the wheel has a hanging stator ?
All is going around, a stator does not exist.

I had people here they told me,
an oscillation will damage the axle of the wheel,
but as they had a look to it they can see that an axle can not be damaged, because it is not existing.

[Senax]

...
I know I’ve said this before, but I really wish Senax would stop using his own terms, they mean nothing to me so I don’t bother to read if if I see them.
😉
JC

A very sensible decision.

If you're not familiar with the calculus it's a bit late to start learning now,
especially as I now realise the 4th derivative has to come into play.

An old dog shouldn't try to learn new tricks, eh! 😉

[Fletcher]

Wouldn't it have been impressive to see the wheel roll along the ground ?

Even if men were running each side guiding the axle to make sure it kept upright for however many meters.

12 foot diameter = 3.65 meters = 1.82 m radius => distance covered at rim ( 2 Pi r ) => 2 x 3.142 x 1.82 = 11.5 meters ground roll @ 26 rpm => 1 revolution each 2.3 secs => velocity 5 m/s = 18 km/hr.

It's always possible it doesn't work because the wheel requires a hanging stator (like MT013); lagging behind because of inertia. Then things may go less smooth when this starts to rotate along.

You could still put it on a cart, and use it as an engine. Unless such stator also lags behind on that cart.

Yes, presumably you could put it in a cart and gear it to drive wheels on the ground. You'd need a clutch arrangement. Bessler suggests this later with his submarine design I think i.e. driving the prop.

And yes a hanging stator could be problematic, it would swing unless the acceleration was zero i.e. constant velocity.

And that sort of thinking kinda fits with what I'm pondering. That the wheels efficiency is highest when the center of rotation (axle) is stationary relative to the earth. Less efficient or even non-workable physics if the center of rotation is moving laterally above a certain speed. That would be good reason not to show a demo wheel either rolling on its rim or driving a cart IMO.

And as JC mentioned in every instance of a demonstration the supports were pinned to a ceiling. Except I guess for the earliest outside demo in a town square IIRC. There we don't know if there was a rigid box frame around it to serve the same stability purpose.

If Bessler truly wanted to excite the crowds and sell his wheel (the salesman side) he would have made a model of a self-moving cart or boat using his PM wheel as the engine. If he didn't then I strongly suspect the reason is the physics of his wheels. JMO's.

[ME]

ME Wrote

It's always possible it doesn't work because the wheel requires a hanging stator (like MT013); lagging behind because of inertia. Then things may go less smooth when this starts to rotate along.
You could still put it on a cart, and use it as an engine. Unless such stator also lags behind on that cart.

Who will say that the wheel has a hanging stator ?
All is going around, a stator does not exist.

I had people here they told me,
an oscillation will damage the axle of the wheel,
but as they had a look to it they can see that an axle can not be damaged, because it is not existing.

Assumptions!! I just name a possible thing to watch out for.

It's possible it has a stator, it is possible it hasn't.

Who says it doesn't need it...!! Perhaps it is not an axle-stator, but a local stator...per each mechanism or another way to "sense of down".
Which is one way or the other still a necessity for gravity to do its thing. (Yes, who is to say gravity is used as a source...)

All I suggest is that things might not necessarily work while rolling.
When the rim of the wheel goes 18 kph then when it free-rolls, in a non-slipping situation, the top will go 36 kph.
This 18 kph is a limit for a reason, this 36 could be problematic... or not.

These are the interesting experiments to conduct on a working wheel.
Also, destructive oscillations are totally a thing.

And as JC mentioned in every instance of a demonstration the supports were pinned to a ceiling.

More things to 'worry' about:
It's possible that the whole system keels without this support. It could be that the wheel needs to go slower than the mechanism in order for the mechanism to have an impact on the wheel.

(Psst Senax, you never showed any calculus)

[Fletcher]

More things to 'worry' about:

1. It's possible that the whole system keels without this support.

2. It could be that the wheel needs to go slower than the mechanism in order for the mechanism to have an impact on the wheel.

I favour number 1. as the real reason for them being rigidly supported.

The one-way wheels started from any position after-all. In some later demo the supports were seen to pull apart and collapse again at the joins (showing paint IIRC) each revolution, IINM.

Things to think about.