The missing factor

[Sam Peppiatt]

MrViberating,

No, I don't think he was preloading a spring but, rather testing the operation of a radial spring and it's latch, without the weights. To see if the latch was working properly.

Then with the weights installed they would compress the spring,( latching the weight), at the vertical, or 6 to 12, position to be discharged later, maybe at or about the horizontal position. Resetting the slider, ( if it was a slider), to the right. Thus OB the wheel; then the cycle would repeat.

Sam peppiatt

[MrVibrating]

if you can generate a little OU each cycle,

That should be the desired outcome, not the prerequisite.

Not sure that even makes sense logically

It coincides with one hypothetical solution on my desk:
Any wheel/mechanism should trade some stored PE (unbalance) for some maximum KE. But it likely loses energy due to friction.
Maybe a spring could somehow be used to counteract this loss in friction.
This construction should work in such way it loses its spring potential (by centrifugal?) and hopefully adds to KE when it rotates, and (I thinks most importantly!) restores this energy completely when the wheel rotation stops.
Initial spring potential could be used to initiate its overbalance for the first rotation as the ahead-cycle energy, but it should always be there when the wheel stops moving.

At least I agree that going up at the 6 and 12 (actually anywhere 180 degrees apart) should do the trick for creating overbalance.

There's an interesting point about Bessler's use of the word "friction" in Machinen Tractate - in a number of slides, he suggests that the concept would work, but for "friction"...

In these examples however, it is clear that there is no energy gain, regardless of friction as we understand it today.

So it seems apparent that to Bessler, "friction" didn't apply solely to dissipative loss mechanisms, but rather anything and everything that exerted braking forces, or negative torque per se.

So to him, the equality of rising GPE to falling GPE was "friction", and thus generating an energy asymmetry was a matter of eliminating that friction - ie. eliminating negative torques.

So i think the type of "friction" he eliminated in his successful concept was counter-momentum.

It's obvious that dissipative friction in his wheels remained very high, by the standards of modern engineering - they were very noisy, had journal bearings instead of rollers etc. etc.

And obviously, eliminating dissipative friction alone does not create energy and momentum.

Using sprung PE to help overcome dissipative friction merely passes the buck temporarily - we'd still need an energy disunity over and above those losses, in order to reset the spring.

I say "disunity" rather than "gain" as i think his focus was on avoiding incurring counter-momentum, so creating an energy asymmetry by eliminating non-dissipative losses, rather than by boosting the output side of the equation.

I don't think any form of GPE asymmetry is even possible mathematically or logically - rising and falling GPE are always equal. But the conversion of those energies to and from RKE, angular momentum and counter-momentum, does seem like a viable angle of attack..

[MrVibrating]

Looking at the early one-way wheels, they began in an overbalanced state - tied off stationary with a rope; when it was released they immediately began rotating, accelerating up to speed within a few cycles.

Without a stator to push or pull against, the only explanation for this initial torque is that a weight was resting against the descending side of the wheel, such that rotation of the wheel allowed the weight to get lower, converting its GPE into RKE and angular momentum.

On arrival at bottom dead-center, any attempt to rotate the weight back upwards is converting that angular momentum and RKE back into GPE, minus dissipative losses.

To Bessler's way of thinking, quite aside from the dissipative losses, that re-conversion of RKE and angular momentum back into GPE was also a form of "friction".

This is what he sought to eliminate, i believe. How to re-raise the weight, without slowing down the wheel, and undoing the work it did on the way down?

And so this is where my proposal for a spring comes into play - a rotary spring would still apply counter-torque, but a linear spring would not.

So instead of using a spring to rotate the weight back upwards, which would still cause a counter-deceleration of the wheel, we could try using a linear spring, to push or pull the weight back up without causing an angular deceleration.

Obviously, this alone doesn't break energy symmetry - the energy required by the spring is exactly equal to its GPE on the way down. Even if we could eliminate dissipative losses, such a mechanism would only coast, not accelerating or generating more energy and momentum.

But what interests me is that re-raising the weight using pre-loaded sprung PE doesn't need to decelerate the wheel, in the first instance; so we could complete an initial GPE cycle, of a falling then rising weight, without incurring any immediate counter-torques, or counter-momentum.

after that first GPE cycle, we've now used up the sprung PE, which needs replenishing, and we haven't gained any GPE advantage.

But the potential advantage we have gained is that of angular momentum - by avoiding incurring counter-momentum on that first GPE cycle.

So the idea is to try to use gravity to accelerate the wheel, and build angular momentum, without initially incurring counter-momentum.

If we can then drop the weight a second time, applying a further conversion of GPE to angular momentum on top of the previous reactionless one, then we might gain RKE in the form of reactionless angular momentum, and so have sufficient excess energy to re-load the spring on subsequent cycles.

Again, remember that a reactionless half-Joule acceleration aboard a 10 meter / sec moving reference frame can be worth 10.5 Joules in the stationary reference frame - a twenty-fold gain in energy. This is the asymmetry i'm trying to access...

[ME]

It's obvious that dissipative friction in his wheels remained very high, by the standards of modern engineering - they were very noisy, had journal bearings instead of rollers etc. etc.

And obviously, eliminating dissipative friction alone does not create energy and momentum.

With the notion of friction the drawing of MT030 always comes to mind: "handle friction".
Friction dissipation can't be eliminated even for the best constructed mechanism even for the best of circumstances.
I implied a perhaps overlooked situation: when a mechanism works by overbalance, this overbalance should be returned in full when the wheel is stopped. This should be just enough to proof the possibility of PM where the amount of produced energy is secondary.
Yeah well, this is basically as far as my idea goes. And I agree the one-way-wheel is the only wheel of interest.

But what interests me is that re-raising the weight using pre-loaded sprung PE doesn't need to decelerate the wheel, in the first instance; so we could complete an initial GPE cycle, of a falling then rising weight, without incurring any immediate counter-torques, or counter-momentum.

Raising a weight (not the method) will cause a torque and thus acceleration upon the wheel by definition: topic: importance of raising weights
:-)

[daanopperman]

Hi Mr V ,

I am reluctant to post anything , but feel it necessary to comment .

We know that a weight moving from axel to rim wil slow the wheel down , if the weight is fixed / moving with the wheel velocity , as it acts as back torque .

What if we move the weight out to the rim with a alternate velocity , slower than the wheel speed . If the weight moves out and not be fixed to the wheel velocity , but be able to be independently slow down as the radius increase , till such time when it is at the rim of the wheel , and then affix it to the wheel velocity . Will this delay and the subsequent increase in velocity (as it have to increase its own velocity to match rim velocity ) have the same effect on the wheel as moving the weight out at the same velocity as the wheel in the first place ..

[Art]

"To Bessler's way of thinking, quite aside from the dissipative losses, that re-conversion of RKE and angular momentum back into GPE was also a form of "friction". "

---------
My conclusions about friction (which have crept up on me over many years of squeaking , squealing and sometimes very smooth mechanisms ) is that the movement of mass from one position to another , whether or not that position has a higher or lower potential energy when compared to other mass , does not incur friction if there is not a release of energy in the form of heat , sound , electromagnetic radiation etc .

No release of energy , - no friction . No friction , - no release of energy .

In the case of mechanisms that say convert RKE to GPE in a rotating wheel ( in the special case where the GPE is not in turn reconverted back into RKE) , then the release of energy in the rotating wheel IMO manifests as a change of KE of the Earth ,which we don't see ,feel or hear .

The transfer of force must be being accomplished through the reaction of the respective inertial forces.

I feel though that if the re-conversation of RKE is made back into GPE (or vice versa) then there shouldn't be any extra friction other than the normal pivot point and air frictions .

The subject of friction with Besslers wheel does seem to underscore a transfer of forces between RKE GPE and Mass (Inertia ).

If we could figure out the directional components which turn the "friction" (loss of energy from the wheel to the Earth ) into "anti friction " ( gain of energy from the Earth to the wheel) then we have it made ! .

Of course thats not new - but still encouraging ! : )

[Sam Peppiatt]

To anyone,

Forget the latch. Best I can tell it was a bad idea. But, there must be a spring(s) involved------------------------------somehow; because when he pushed down on it, IT expanded upwards with a load noise. Which means the weights weren't hooked up yet.

Sam

[Fcdriver]

If the point of contact that a weight contacts the wheel, were to change do to increase in rpm, the work applied of the dropping weight, does not slow as rapidly. If bessler used weight and springs ON the wheel,not in! it was for timing, of the point of contact. This would work similar to a advance in a ignition distributor. As the speed increases it would allow for repositioning of the point of contact, to match the slow dropping weight!

[MrVibrating]

Hi Mr V ,

I am reluctant to post anything , but feel it necessary to comment .

We know that a weight moving from axel to rim wil slow the wheel down , if the weight is fixed / moving with the wheel velocity , as it acts as back torque .

What if we move the weight out to the rim with a alternate velocity , slower than the wheel speed . If the weight moves out and not be fixed to the wheel velocity , but be able to be independently slow down as the radius increase , till such time when it is at the rim of the wheel , and then affix it to the wheel velocity . Will this delay and the subsequent increase in velocity (as it have to increase its own velocity to match rim velocity ) have the same effect on the wheel as moving the weight out at the same velocity as the wheel in the first place ..

..I've previously investigated spiral trajectories in this respect, but find that an input of energy is still required to bring the extended mass up to speed with the rim..

..as such, I'm now attempting to use ratcheted armatures to this effect - extending a mass on the descending side, allowing its armature to slip its ratchet and so decelerate independently of the wheel, to then be re-accelerated by gravity.

Conversely, the retracting mass on the ascending side engages its ratchet, applying its positive torque to the wheel.

In this way we might selectively rectify the positive torques while adding GPE to the negative ones, and additionally benefitting from an OB torque.

Currently have no proper internet connection, or would've been posting anims since last weekend, will update here shortly tho..

[daanopperman]

Hi Mr V ,

I have returned to correct my mistakes .

After thinking some more on the subject , I have come to the conclusion that the mass moving closer or further away from the COR , does not change velocity at all .

If I have a 2nd weight in the wheel , close to the axel , not attached to the wheel , but rotating at axel velocity , this weight will , if independently be moved to the rim of the wheel , match the rim velocity , it will neither move faster or slower than wheel rim . No gain can be had from moving mass closer or further away from the COR .
Pythagoras's theorem's state , if A = B and B = C , then A = C . If I start off with X amount of velocity , I can not increase that velocity without adding velocity or energy .
All laws of motion must also obey the law of reversed steps to be true , less I get lost somewhere when the energy was created , if 1 + 2 = 3 , then 3 - 2 must be 1 for theorum 1 to be true . I assume the same goes for the transferring of momentum , from one mass to another , no gain when you have to try and stop the keeling .

[Fcdriver]

Hi Mr V ,

I am reluctant to post anything , but feel it necessary to comment .

We know that a weight moving from axel to rim wil slow the wheel down , if the weight is fixed / moving with the wheel velocity , as it acts as back torque .

What if we move the weight out to the rim with a alternate velocity , slower than the wheel speed . If the weight moves out and not be fixed to the wheel velocity , but be able to be independently slow down as the radius increase , till such time when it is at the rim of the wheel , and then affix it to the wheel velocity . Will this delay and the subsequent increase in velocity (as it have to increase its own velocity to match rim velocity ) have the same effect on the wheel as moving the weight out at the same velocity as the wheel in the first place ..

. Then why not move one towards center during lift? Why does it need to be moved outward?

[daanopperman]

Hi FC ,

If I move one to the center at 6 , CW wheel , I can only have it there till 9 , then I have to start moving it out again towards the rim if anything wants to be at 12 to overbalance for the next lift . Automatically moving it out from 9 gives back torque at precisely the same rate as I got creded for moving it in .

[daanopperman]

Credit

[Fcdriver]

Hi FC ,

If I move one to the center at 6 , CW wheel , I can only have it there till 9 , then I have to start moving it out again towards the rim if anything wants to be at 12 to overbalance for the next lift . Automatically moving it out from 9 gives back torque at precisely the same rate as I got creded for moving it in .

move it at 7:30, and back out at 10:30?

[Fcdriver]

If a weight is moving up and down on the right hand side of the wheel, is it not moving with rotation of the wheel, when dropping? How far until it is fully released back to the rim, if it is falling with rotation? The weight force required to pull the weight in, is delivered to the right hand side of the wheel, along with the other extended weights.