Power to the people.

[nebollinger]

I tried other variations with 6 weights and more weight and more diameter
but nothing clicks. I'll let this go for awhile and come back If I get fresh ideas.

I love the stored power in the spring. That may lead to something else.

Norman

[Fletcher]

Good for you for having a go Norman.

Every build is an opportunity to learn something.

[nebollinger]

Thanks Fletcher - Addict. Its is amazing what I learn along the way.
Half of what I did came from boxes of previous attempt.

It doesn't see that balance is the principle that makes it work.
Its more the "yank" on the string. So I worked at increasing that
yank but had no success.

The amazing part of the design is the simplicity of the set (spring cock ) and "reset back to full radius" being all done automatically on one side.

What usually nixes gravity wheels is the rotation after the set then
requires extra work to reset and then they become bottom heavy.

Norman

[Fletcher]

My experience Norman, FWIW, is that it does not matter whether the system CoM is below the axle (Centre of Rotation). In fact it must be because at some point some mass must drop and lose GPE, hopefully to be recovered in full later etc.

I think the important factor is that the machine must generate an asymmetric torque (i.e. more positive torque than negative torque, or excess momentum in one direction). And the problem with closed path machines is that GPE is restored but only with help after system friction losses, and forward torque always seems to be negated by back torque. So no turny, no spinny.

And Kerry's designs seem to suffer the same problems as all others in this regard, IMO.

[nebollinger]

Thanks Fletcher but I don't get these terms.

CoM (Center of Mass I think) is below the axle (Centre of Rotation).


and GPE, ????

could you elaborate so I understand.

Your comments are always professional and worth reading.
Thanks again.

Norman

[Fletcher]

Yes, sure .. CoM is Center of Mass. All mass within a system (like a wheel with levers and weights, and springs etc) can be reduced to one common point of mass distribution (CoM), about the Center of Rotation (axle in most cases).

In a gravity field there are two 'types' of energy or equivalent.

When an object moves (usually by application of a force to it) relative to the background it gains Kinetic Energy (KE).

If any object with mass is placed at an elevation within a gravity field then Work ( force x displacement/distance ) is done on it. This work is measured in Joules of energy.

Once placed on high it then has Gravitational Potential Energy (GPE), as opposed to other types of Potential, like Spring PE. That object can then morph that GPE into KE if it is free to move along some downward path (slope or gradient). So it loses GPE (also Joules) and gains equivalent KE (Joules). Think here like a pendulum swings back and forth.

The problem with current math explanations for how an object loses its GPE and gains equivalent KE is that the slope or path does not factor in the equations at all. Neither does time. This means that we can arrange to have weights further to one side and we get torque from that horizontal shift. That causes the wheel to turn. But then we get a negative torque effect once the CoM is past the vertical line below the axle and this slows the wheel down. It's called negative or back torque. We could avoid back torque if we had a device that was moved sideways and created positive torque. It would now be at a greater radius than it started at. We would have to do Work on it before or at the vertical line below the axle to restore it to its original radius. But so far this is a Zero Sum Game, and even less so when frictional losses are factored in.

[Georg Künstler]

Fletcher wrote:

We could avoid back torque if we had a device that was moved sideways and created positive torque. It would now be at a greater radius than it started at. We would have to do Work on it before or at the vertical line below the axle to restore it to its original radius. But so far this is a Zero Sum Game, and even less so when frictional losses are factored in.

That will take place with the carrier Wheel and the Swinging cylinders.
The rolling cylinders will swing to the rim and create positive torque.
The cylinders are lifted with a Flash speed.

[nebollinger]

Yes, sure .. CoM is Center of Mass. All mass within a system (like a wheel with levers and weights, and springs etc) can be reduced to one common point of mass distribution (CoM), about the Center of Rotation (axle in most cases).

In a gravity field there are two 'types' of energy or equivalent.

When an object moves (usually by application of a force to it) relative to the background it gains Kinetic Energy (KE).

If any object with mass is placed at an elevation within a gravity field then Work ( force x displacement/distance ) is done on it. This work is measured in Joules of energy.

Once placed on high it then has Gravitational Potential Energy (GPE),

That is what I missed..Thanks

as opposed to other types of Potential, like Spring PE. That object can then morph that GPE into KE if it is free to move along some downward path (slope or gradient). So it loses GPE (also Joules) and gains equivalent KE (Joules). Think here like a pendulum swings back and forth.

The problem with current math explanations for how an object loses its GPE and gains equivalent KE is that the slope or path does not factor in the equations at all. Neither does time. This means that we can arrange to have weights further to one side and we get torque from that horizontal shift. That causes the wheel to turn. But then we get a negative torque effect once the CoM is past the vertical line below the axle and this slows the wheel down. It's called negative or back torque. We could avoid back torque if we had a device that was moved sideways and created positive torque. It would now be at a greater radius than it started at. We would have to do Work on it before or at the vertical line below the axle to restore it to its original radius. But so far this is a Zero Sum Game, and even less so when frictional losses are factored in.

And thanks for making this part clear too.
Norman

[nebollinger]

Made some more progress. I focused on why the wheel was bottom heavy and concluded that the ratio of the weight arm to the ration of the wheel could be a problem. Looking at the drawing it would be near 1:1 so I shortened by arm
so it is 2+ : 1. The weight arm is now shorter than the distance between its
pivot and the axle so the weight distance to the axle is reduced but the weight stays the same and VIOLA - it makes a big difference. The wheel does not keel
and get bottom heavy and can be stopped at any place.
But it does not continue rotation....

more tweaking.
Norman

[nebollinger]

More progress. I realized that when the bottom weight is dropped it will make the wheel top heavy so I made a video of a fixed setup to show how it rotates.
And the yank and pull should be enough to continue rotation.
But the file type is not allowed. It rotates from around 5 ccw up to 2 o'clock.
So that is pretty close. Next I will make a larger wheel with more weight
because mass movement is what really counts.


Norman

[nebollinger]

I'm stuck on the Kerry spring method and went back to some former work
combining Kerry and my work.

see drawing attached for the detail.
Conceptual explaination

The CG is changed by lifting the large
weight upward at to bottom and decreasing the radius distance of so it will make the wheel top heavy and rotate

This accomplished by a small weight dropping (upper arm controls bottom weight) down 30 degrees using
gravity and leverage.

The smaller weight has minimal radius change thus keeping
the wheel balance from its set movement to very little.
The wheel becomes top heavy so it will rotate ccw.
looking at the long arm/small weight pivot and movement you can
see there is very little radius change so the large weight
radius is increased by the small weight making the wheel top heavy.
The small weight drops about 30 degrees to accomplish the mass shift.
The set and reset is done by gravity/rotation without a spring or other mechanisms

But when using 2 mechanisms it is bottom heavy but I present this
for 2 reasons. 1. it may trigger something to improve upon. 2 the crude
rapid prototype for testing.
I combined 2 ideas and had them tested in about 2 days along with
other activities around the house and church.



Norman

[WaltzCee]

.

Last edited by silent on Mon Oct 04, 2021 5:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Historical revisionist?????

[WaltzCee]

The diagram to a running Bessler Wheel has been released as a gift to the people.

If you're on facebook you may find it here: https://www.facebook.com/Spinning-Wheel ... tn-str=k*F

The diagram from the page is also here.

Power to the People

[John Collins]

This man conned a lot of money from a good friend of this forum who has, sadly, left us. Dave Brown RIP.

JC

[Tarsier79]

It initially looks like it might work, but from experience it will not.

As the weight is pulled across at 12, the resulting force will be the opposite on the wheel. The impact at the end will mostly balance that out.
The weights as they drop on the rising side will spend just as much time on the wrong side of the wheel.
The spring will hold the weights out longer at 7:00 in the wrong position.
Pulling the weight horizontally does nothing for rotation. It needs to be lifted. Gravity pushes weights down.