Weight question
Moderator: scott
re: Weight question
Maybe weights drop cause little kinetics energy (cw) to the wheel. Have anyone tested this one ?
- Attachments
-
-
ken_behrendt
- Addict
- Posts: 3487
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:45 am
- Location: new jersey, usa
- Contact:
re: Weight question
Claudio...
I believe that when Bessler said his weights "acted in pairs", be meant that the internal arrangement of weights within one of his wheels could be considered to be made up of a collection of opposed pairs of weights. In other words, a wheel containing 8 individual weights would consist of 4 pairs of opposed weights.
Somehow, Bessler, figured out a mechanism that would allow the center of gravity of each opposed pair of weights to move out away from the axle of the wheel during its rotation and, momentarily, onto the descending side of the wheel to maintain its rotation. Then the center of gravity of the next opposed pair of weights in the arrangement would leave the axle, and so on. After any two consecutive c.g.'s had left the axle, the leading c.g. of the two would reverse its direction of motion and begin climbing back toward the axle again. This action would then continue indefinitely during wheel rotation and would allow a wheel to be self-starting. See my attached Paint sketch below for additional details...
This self adjusting action then resulted in the "average" position of the four centers of gravity of the four opposed pairs of weights always being located on the descending side of the wheel so as to permanently imbalance the wheel and cause it to rotate continuously.
ken
I believe that when Bessler said his weights "acted in pairs", be meant that the internal arrangement of weights within one of his wheels could be considered to be made up of a collection of opposed pairs of weights. In other words, a wheel containing 8 individual weights would consist of 4 pairs of opposed weights.
Somehow, Bessler, figured out a mechanism that would allow the center of gravity of each opposed pair of weights to move out away from the axle of the wheel during its rotation and, momentarily, onto the descending side of the wheel to maintain its rotation. Then the center of gravity of the next opposed pair of weights in the arrangement would leave the axle, and so on. After any two consecutive c.g.'s had left the axle, the leading c.g. of the two would reverse its direction of motion and begin climbing back toward the axle again. This action would then continue indefinitely during wheel rotation and would allow a wheel to be self-starting. See my attached Paint sketch below for additional details...
This self adjusting action then resulted in the "average" position of the four centers of gravity of the four opposed pairs of weights always being located on the descending side of the wheel so as to permanently imbalance the wheel and cause it to rotate continuously.
ken
- Attachments
-
- I am convinced that this was the "principle" by which Bessler's one directional wheels operated...
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
re: Weight question
Hi, look at this one ..maybe work.
Ken, interesting point of view. Its difficult to interpret correctly Bessler words.
Claudio
Ken, interesting point of view. Its difficult to interpret correctly Bessler words.
Claudio
- Attachments
-
-
ken_behrendt
- Addict
- Posts: 3487
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:45 am
- Location: new jersey, usa
- Contact:
re: Weight question
Claudio...
Nice design. There are many very similar to it in Bessler's Maschinen Tractate, but I do not think they work because the weight at the 3:00 position can not lift the weight at the 1:30 position so as to shift the center of gravity of the weights to the right side of the axle.
In your design you only allow half of the weights to be raised by weights at the 3:00 position. Why not use more ropes and pulleys so that all of the weights can be raised by a weight at the 3:00 position?
I've attached your sketch with the extra pulleys and ropes added.
ken
Nice design. There are many very similar to it in Bessler's Maschinen Tractate, but I do not think they work because the weight at the 3:00 position can not lift the weight at the 1:30 position so as to shift the center of gravity of the weights to the right side of the axle.
In your design you only allow half of the weights to be raised by weights at the 3:00 position. Why not use more ropes and pulleys so that all of the weights can be raised by a weight at the 3:00 position?
I've attached your sketch with the extra pulleys and ropes added.
ken
- Attachments
-
- Why not allow all of the weights that reach the 3:00 position to be able to raise a weight at the 1:30 position?
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
re: Weight question
I once made a WM2D sim, and the levers fell to the inside (until WM2D went out of memory :-(
It slowly went to 0 RPM after a slight push..
This is what it looked like.
It slowly went to 0 RPM after a slight push..
This is what it looked like.
- Attachments
-
Marchello E.
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
-- May the force lift you up. In case it doesn't, try something else.---
re: Weight question
Ken, I think your variation to be counterproductive I consider this too before but I have aborted this idea: in my design (like you say) weight at 3 o'clock tend to lift weight at 1:30 o'clock ..this ir right. When weight at 3 o'clock is lifting, it lost the benefit of "longer radius" (unbalance to the wheel) because its weight act by complex vector force (in part on pulley in part on weight at 1:30 o clock). This lifting can help the weight at 1:30 to anticipate its drop.
We have: little delay on 3 o'clock weight but anticipation on weight at 1:30.
If we joint all the weights by rope we have an extended delay to all the "chain weights". In my picture I want "weights acts in pair". internal fixed weight are not important they are static and balanced.
I think this can really work ! If you want try it on WM2D...this work :-)
Claudio
We have: little delay on 3 o'clock weight but anticipation on weight at 1:30.
If we joint all the weights by rope we have an extended delay to all the "chain weights". In my picture I want "weights acts in pair". internal fixed weight are not important they are static and balanced.
I think this can really work ! If you want try it on WM2D...this work :-)
Claudio
-
bluesgtr44
- Devotee
- Posts: 1970
- Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:31 pm
- Location: U.S.A.
re: Weight question
Hmmmm...none will work. This will not over come the force of the "death quadrant". The weights coming to the ascending side will not rest against the rim once a low level of velocity is reached...it will swing outward very forcefully. Sorry guys.
Steve
Steve
Finding the right solution...is usually a function of asking the right questions. -A. Einstein
re: Weight question
Hi bluesgtr44, ok its true but centrifugal force acts equally to every weights in this wheel. Weight on left side that tend to lift up from the rim is "lighter" I think. Shure this wheel must work slowly :)
re: Weight question
The weight at 11:45 is going to kill this design. All the force is on 3:00 and 4:30 and that is not enough to pick up all the ascending weights.
Ralph
Ralph
-
ken_behrendt
- Addict
- Posts: 3487
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:45 am
- Location: new jersey, usa
- Contact:
re: Weight question
Claudio...
I had some time and used it to make a quick WM2D model that would use the principle you suggested in your sketches.
My design is not exactly like the one you drew and only uses 8 single 5 lb weights attached to levers on the rim. The weights, when raised, would rest against the paddles as shown in the WM2D Workspace screen shot attached below.
I was surprised to see that the weighted lever on the right descending side of the wheel at the 3:00 position could raise the weight that followed it. However, this action was not enough to keep the center of gravity of the 8 weights on the right side of the 6 foot diameter wheel at all times.
The angular moment curve traced out during the simulation shows the "keel wave" produced as the C.G. of the weights swings back and forth below the axle. Eventually, the C.G. of the weights will come to complete rest at the "punctum quietus" mentioned by Bessler.
ken
P.S. I did try a version of this model (the one I naively suggested) which had 8 pulley ropes between the weighted levers. It was totally unworkable because the ropes would couple all the weights together so that their C.G. stayed at the wheel's axle. This approach would produce no motion whatsoever...
I had some time and used it to make a quick WM2D model that would use the principle you suggested in your sketches.
My design is not exactly like the one you drew and only uses 8 single 5 lb weights attached to levers on the rim. The weights, when raised, would rest against the paddles as shown in the WM2D Workspace screen shot attached below.
I was surprised to see that the weighted lever on the right descending side of the wheel at the 3:00 position could raise the weight that followed it. However, this action was not enough to keep the center of gravity of the 8 weights on the right side of the 6 foot diameter wheel at all times.
The angular moment curve traced out during the simulation shows the "keel wave" produced as the C.G. of the weights swings back and forth below the axle. Eventually, the C.G. of the weights will come to complete rest at the "punctum quietus" mentioned by Bessler.
ken
P.S. I did try a version of this model (the one I naively suggested) which had 8 pulley ropes between the weighted levers. It was totally unworkable because the ropes would couple all the weights together so that their C.G. stayed at the wheel's axle. This approach would produce no motion whatsoever...
- Attachments
-
- These designs always seem to have an orientation in which they are in a state of static equilibrium with the C.G. resting directly below the axle...
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
re: Weight question
Hi Ken, good simulation. hhmmm I think "but.... must be a pattern that work ! grrr" :) how many attempts we have to do ? eheh this seek make me crazy. This is not PM but PA (perpetual attempts). I look for other possible solution.
Claudio
Claudio
-
bluesgtr44
- Devotee
- Posts: 1970
- Joined: Sat Feb 26, 2005 8:31 pm
- Location: U.S.A.
re: Weight question
Claudio...it's not the "weight" in this quadrant that is the problem ...it is the force that is applied to it and the direction that the force wants to go. This is what causes it to keel.
Steve
Steve
Finding the right solution...is usually a function of asking the right questions. -A. Einstein
re: Weight question
Hi, I try one more time. In this design, if I am not wrong, the weights to the ascending side (right) of the wheel are shifted to the previous one point (1/8 phase delay) ..... Have anyone tested this situation ?
Claudio
Claudio
- Attachments
-
-
ken_behrendt
- Addict
- Posts: 3487
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:45 am
- Location: new jersey, usa
- Contact:
re: Weight question
Claudio...
Interesting design, but I think you have it turning in the wrong direction. It looks to me like the center of gravity of the weights is on the right side of the wheel, therefore it should be rotating clockwise and not counter clockwise as you indicated in your drawing.
ken
Interesting design, but I think you have it turning in the wrong direction. It looks to me like the center of gravity of the weights is on the right side of the wheel, therefore it should be rotating clockwise and not counter clockwise as you indicated in your drawing.
ken
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
-
ken_behrendt
- Addict
- Posts: 3487
- Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 7:45 am
- Location: new jersey, usa
- Contact:
re: Weight question
Claudio...
I got some more practice with WM2D by making a model of your latest design. However, instead of using the weight support levers you used, I just have the weights on the descending side supported by ropes, but the principle is the same.
As can be seen from the attachment, this design does not work...
ken
I got some more practice with WM2D by making a model of your latest design. However, instead of using the weight support levers you used, I just have the weights on the descending side supported by ropes, but the principle is the same.
As can be seen from the attachment, this design does not work...
ken
- Attachments
-
On 7/6/06, I found, in any overbalanced gravity wheel with rotation rate, ω, axle to CG distance d, and CG dip angle φ, the average vertical velocity of its drive weights is downward and given by:
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ
Vaver = -2(√2)πdωcosφ