Zeroing in on Bessler's wheel

[Fletcher]

If we take an extreme case of a wheel doing 100 rpm then not only will CF's be effecting the lag but also little time available for a gravity induced transition to occur.

Since B's. one-way wheels did have a good clip then I speculate the transition distances were relatively small, so that the drive could be engaged quicker, and act for longer, time wise.

I think someone did the calculations on this problem in the past. The weights only transitioned under gravity’s influence in the first few turns before they would be merely along for the ride, then at terminal velocity we have to assume gravity had no role. Cf’s would be a problem at terminal velocity. Weights at those speeds would want to be next to the rim, and, ..

It's quite easy to work out .. Circumference distance in meters = 2 x Pi x radius .. Fc = Cf = Cp = m x a = m x v^2 / r in m/s^2 .. set a radius (in meters) and rpm. Divide rpm by 60 and divide into circumference at a certain radius to find tangential velocity (assuming constant speed). Now you know the acceleration component of the Fc which has a vertical component (using Trig to adjust when not vertical) - offset gravity's acceleration -9,806 m/s^2 by adding the vertical component of the tangential acceleration.

Sensitivity : increase the radius and rpm until the 2 are zeroed out (using vertical components).

N.B. choose a radius that you think the weights are at. When at 12 o'cl they cancel, when at 6 o'cl they reinforce etc etc.

.. Here’s the other problem: at terminal velocity, the weights were still making impacts. IOW, they were still thought to be “ hammering “ the wheel , albeit one at at a time, then “ riding” until their turn came around again. Confusing.

The noise was heard on the down-going side at all times and was constant. W. proposed that they might be noise makers which B. strenuously denied saying they were an integral part of the motive force and motive power (paraphrased).

Applying the 'sniff the wind test' I would say that the weights alternating position and changing radius were most likely very close to the axle and therefore much less effected by Cf's, and why the sounds were regular because they were largely unaffected. Unfortunately the witnesses don't say where the noises were thought to be located. We have tended to make assumptions, like, the noises were out by the rim and that "weights" were making an impact noise.

What is known is that something was making an impact noise, but it is not a given in my books that that was transitioning weights, nor that the noise was out in the outer reaches, tho it could well be, imo.

[Tarsier79]

I would say that the weights alternating position and changing radius were most likely very close to the axle and therefore much less effected by Cf's

Using an online calculator, a 1kg mass, travelling on a wheel at 30rpm.
A single weight near the axle.
radius 0.1m, 0.987N

Or 2 opposed connected 0.5kg weights near the circumference of the same wheel. (Same total weight, COM moving same distance)
radius 1.0m, 4.935N
radius 1.2m, 5.922N
Weight 2 force - weight 1 force, 0.987N.

Using opposed weights at any radius, we can have equivalent OB mass movement and CF/CP.

[johannesbender]

Perhaps another possible point to consider , is that the wheel functioned from zero rpm up to the observed rpm , which in itself shows that cf or cp was not a problem for the function within the observed rpm ranges of the wheels.

It might be safe to say that more of the wheels connected together would also not pose a cf cp problem , wheels would have more or less the same speed but more torque output at the axle , i think had he managed a couple of wheels connected together with enough torque output he could perhaps slow them down further.

But , we just dont know how speed directly correlated with mechanical function though .

As for brakes , in the case of a super wheel or wheels connected together , im sure that would not be such a difficult problem , the wheels would still have its limitation on load , and stopping a wheel at an axle vs stopping a wheel at a rim is also different ,enough load instead of friction can also be applied..

You may not be able to turn off gravity but you surely can turn of mechanical function.

[Sam Peppiatt]

You guys have me stumped! 1. If the weights driving the wheel are next to the axel, why make it 12 feet in diameter?
2. How can a weight near the axel have the same force as the weight at the rim?
3.Brakes, no problem. A wood block rubbing on a wood axel, just pore a bucket of water on it,
or just change the mechanical function, but how did that work in1700?

I guess I must lack the superior intellect that you all have-------------------------------------------------------------Sam

[johannesbender]

Well , if he could design it to "turn on" its mechanical function after a certain amount of input force , he could design the so called hypothetical larger wheel , to "turn off" its mechanical function too.

[WaltzCee]

. .. .. ..
1) But , we just dont know how speed directly correlated with mechanical function though .

. .. .. .
2) You may not be able to turn off gravity but you surely can turn of mechanical function.

1) I've hooked motors to OB mechanisms and spun them at various rates. I found velocity and force of OB to be inversely proportional. At some velocity OB torque equals zero.

Different contraptions behave differently, have different zero points. c.f. is the brake. I had a SIM spinning at 9.2 million rpm and the mechanism was still moving. There was no motor in that SIM.

• I think c.f. is a weed in the garden of perpetual motion, but I also know some hill billys like to eat weeds.

2) I envision tons of mass cradled in a subterranean multistoried stator spinning along with a 2nd perfectly balanced mass. Pulsed and aimed accurately, this second mass can bring the wheel to a screeching halt. some rc link to the control system, maybe wifi.

[WaltzCee]

. .. .. .
I guess I must lack the superior intellect that you all have-------------------------------------------------------------Sam

Don't be so hard on yourself, Sam. At least you're smart enough to have figured out that much! Atta boy.

[WaltzCee]

. .. .. ..
2) I envision tons of mass cradled in a subterranean multistoried stator spinning along with a 2nd perfectly balanced mass. Pulsed and aimed accurately, this second mass can bring the wheel to a screeching halt. some rc link to the control system, maybe wifi.

It is possible a mega ton wheel could use a generator with a huge load as a brake.

No mass needed.

[johannesbender]

@Sam i have to say i like the idea of a "super wheel" , if anyone ever creates a working replica/variation , it wont take long before the goal becomes to try and create a large "super wheel" or a series of connected wheels , or a super small wheel.

The need to push boundaries , has always been a thing in engineering.

[Fletcher]

1. If the weights driving the wheel are next to the axel, why make it 12 feet in diameter?

2. How can a weight near the axel have the same force as the weight at the rim?

3.Brakes, no problem. A wood block rubbing on a wood axel, just pore a bucket of water on it, or just change the mechanical function, but how did that work in 1700?

3. Braking, no problem - horse drawn carts had wooden friction brakes against the rim or axle, activated by a lever, by arm or leg. At least in the Westerns I have watched. Otherwise you slowly screw in a wedge block between the floor and the down-going rim. Probably you would have a person grasp a winding wheel seen on peritrochiums (wheels) used as cranes, and for winding trebuchets in the day.

2. Force is Mass times Acceleration .. Work Done = Force x Displacement .. see my next answer.

1. Whatever the reason for the large diameter it was important for function. Otherwise he would have built small compact models with the same power output, with less materials and at less cost.

As a visual example of requiring a larger internal diameter take a look at MT40s method of operation. 'C' is a fixed pivot point (or fulcrum) and the SB expands or contracts in both directions from the fulcrum. Similarly shown in MT41, and MT54.

IOW's leverage is applied, force is redirected, and work is done at another location to the 'weight'. Requiring a large diameter for the mechanics to function as the inventor intended. If force is needed at the rim but you don't want 'weights' to be effected to much by Cf's you can split the two to different parts of the wheel - and may be a good argument for a large diameter imo.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Waltcy,

9.2 million RPM. You better build a scatter shield around your computer screen, in case it blows up!! Well, i promise, I'll never worry about brakes ever again.
johannesbender; A Super Wheel. Sure why not? It has to be at least 12 feet, maybe 16 feet, have to outdo Bessler--------------Sam

[WaltzCee]

Waltcy,

9.2 million RPM. You better build a scatter shield around your computer screen, in case it blows up!! Well, i promise, I'll never worry about brakes ever again.
. .. .. .

I'll make you a deal, shammy, in front of my client and ever body. When you get your working wheel working, I'll draw up a sam-o-graph of a mechanical yet frictionless braking system that shouldn't generate enough heat to soft boil an egg much less hard boil it. Design your 100 ton wheel without fear of how you're going to stop it.

You have my word.

I even named it after you.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Fantastic, Waltcy,
I'm going to need that, when can you start? It should have and encoding disc, with a tach, and a servo system with negative feed back, to not only stop the wheel, but to drive stepper motors that will control the speed of a generator. It has to keep the frequency of the alternating current, to 60 cycles per sec. plus or minus .000000000000000001 per cent----------------------------------------Sam

[WaltzCee]

Fantastic, Waltcy,
a) I'm going to need that, when can you start?

b) It should have and encoding disc, with a tach, and a servo system with negative feed back, to not only stop the wheel, but to drive stepper motors that will control the speed of a generator. It has to

c) keep the frequency of the alternating current, to 60 cycles per sec. plus or minus .000000000000000001 per cent----------------------------------------Sam

a)
b) mechanical, not some electrical system patterned after regenerative braking.
c) seriously?

I'll make you a deal, shammy, in front of my client and ever body. a) When you get your working wheel working, I'll draw up a sam-o-graph of b)a mechanical yet frictionless braking system that shouldn't generate enough heat to soft boil an egg much less hard boil it. Design your 100 ton wheel without fear of how you're going to stop it.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Waltcy,

Yes, yes mechanical, what was I thinking----------------------------Sam