Zeroing in on Bessler's wheel

[Fletcher]

start the sim with a Motor at 10 rpm

I wonder if there's any energy/motion if it's spun up to 400 rpm? 9.2 million rpm?

I used the motor set for 10 rpm because much higher than that and Cf's started to have an effect (at my scale). The COM icon was further out to the left making for more counter-torque (not helpful - we want it on the right). The top roller was lagging in movement until its weight-force overcame the Cf's and then it would roll downhill (at an ever increasing downward incline) and contact and push the ring constraint.

Not much above 10 rpm Cf's "stuck" the 3 rollers out against their ring constraints, and the sim just circulated with nothing able to lose GPE and the COM was directly below the axle and stayed there. This was of course because the motor was driving it at a predetermined rpm and was providing the energy source for the constant rpm rotation rate.

So to set the motor for 400 rpm or 9.2 million rpm would have no benefits at all, except to waste energy used in the motor, imo.

[Fletcher]

Here's the stepped rpm changes Walt. Cf's have it fully "locked out" at around 30 to 40 rpm. Take a close look at the system COM/COG icon at each step and the lag in the rollers contributing to that.


free picture upload

[WaltzCee]

steel sharpens steel.

The insanely rich parts looking a bit out of reach at this juncture. World renown? :)

[Leafy]

I think the point is not to have cf involved.

The effect we want to observe is a torque creates by the roller smashing into the casing. It has nothing to do with cf.

It needs time to roll down and smash into the casing. Spinning it up is counter objective.

[WaltzCee]

Bessler had similar ideas/IP. Wonder if he was inspired by some of the Greek mathematicians. I know I am.

Nah.

"all the inmost parts, and the perpetual-motion structures, retain the power of free movement, as I've been saying since 1712." - AP pg 295*

c.f.'s a bear once you scale up and start slinging houses around

* thank you Mr Collins. Happy New Year too!

[WaltzCee]

I don't think Bessler would endorse a prime mover that couldn't hang at the high frequencies.

The inverse whip action is still a curiosity. The tangent of the mid point of those 2 curves might be . .. .. . nah

ETA

and the perpetual-motion structures,

[Leafy]

Let me explain the slanted lever theory.

Suppose we have the binary rollers design and its position is as below.

We know it is balanced.

We can draw a lever connection, in red.

The longer lever has the same torque as the shorter lever.

However, if we add weight in the extension direction of the lever, the shorter lever has more torque.

B3BDBE02-C702-4F32-857C-BC69D85102B4.jpeg (16.94 KiB) Viewed 980 times

82DDCB5C-7DB4-47E0-A098-94185CC5BF48.jpeg (17.27 KiB) Viewed 980 times

[Leafy]

If you want to see if Sam’s machine put out more energy, there is a way to test.

1st case:
set no loses except bearing friction
Locked the rollers in place
Spin it up to 1000 rpm’s
Count how many seconds it takes to stop.

2nd case:
Set no loses except bearing friction
Unlock the rollers
Spin it up to 1000rpm
Count how many seconds it takes to stop.

Compare the time

[Leafy]

Of course the roller has to be locked so that at 1000 rpm they both have the same energy.

[Fletcher]

So how is this differ from MT1 or mt2?

Ball hit the casing

Well, that's just a picture.

Shammy has a model.

And MT's 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 are like Sam's wheel.

And MT's 6, 7, and 8 are like MT's 44 and 48.

No. 6 Some mobilists have done something special by letting the spheres run out of the wheel into a channel at the edge of the wheel. Because they did or knew nothing other than what is merely recorded here, the thing can run no differently from what this figure leaves one to believe and conclude.

No. 7 Here it first appears as though movement should inevitably result, for the curved lines which convey the spheres from the light side outward are attached very close to the axle, and at the edge of the wheel runs the same formation as in the previous illustration. However, if one counts the spheres on the light side and then those on the heavy side and calculates the force accordingly, then the situation is readily shown and proven to be completely different from one's first impression, as it is said: great people err, too: they weigh less, then nothing.

No. 8 Here the spheres fall somewhat higher and sooner onto the thing and then lie more on the heavy side than they did in the previous figure, but one must also note: when as many of the spheres lie at the light side, further out, toward the edge, an equilibrium is caused as in the two previous illustrations.

[Fletcher]

And MT's 44 and 48 say some mechanical addition is required to be runners. An additional 'application' as called in MT44, and additional 'structures' as called in MT48.

Both are names for the "perpetual motion structures" mentioned elsewhere.

With the physical addition I have little doubt MT6 could be a runner, and Sam's wheel. IMO.

Without it, all MT's fail (and conservative OOB wheels) to have the extra mobility factor of a true mechanical runner.

No. 44 The sphere-method is reintroduced here. The problem shows 2 wheels: A is the main wheel, the axle of which has a gear at B. B drives the somewhat larger wheel C at point D. At side E are spheres which fall out of side G at point H below and into wheel C at point I and then out of C again into A at point F. This problem looks good, but as sketched it does nothing special as long as no other application is present, for the wheel A must revolve several times before C revolves a single time. Thus not enough spheres move from the former into the latter.

No. 48 This is a sphere invention having a paternoster with pockets. A is a wheel. As the pocket-patemoster C raises the spheres, it passes over B, the axle of the wheel. At D the spheres are ejected into a channel. At E the spheres fall into the wheel, and at F they are ejected again into the paternoster. Here, an insufficient number of spheres is carried to the wheel A by means of the paternoster. The principle is good, but this figure will bring about no mobility by itself until completely different, additional structures have been provided.

[WaltzCee]

Wow Fletcher. When I scroll back and forth thru that class, my mind is firing on all cylinders. It's a lugger, low rpm's. 1 cylinder. Yet when it gets a bit past idle, the sparks are flying. A recursive thought is how fortunate we are to have John Collins & Bill for the work they've done and still do.

If it's acceptable to baselessly malign the ones who've laid the foundation of this understanding, it should be equally acceptable to thank them.

Thank you

Still not up to idle.

[WaltzCee]

I can think of a way to augment this inverse cracking of the whip & several methods of capturing this power stroke on both ends yet
. .. .. .

When a whip cracks, it changes directions. What I noticed in Mr Sam's design is the CoM curled back on itself, then stopped.

I think a whip stops, then curls back.

Another curiosity is after Mr Sam's model stops, the momentum of the design carrys it further away .

There are some design concerns I see.

[WaltzCee]

I think Sam's design cracks the whip at the wrong time, then looses control of the power at the instant it appears

imo, those are flaws in this design. If they can be resolved this goose might fly.

[Leafy]

Actually Fletcher is right.

mT1&2 does have a tangent component. It’s not obvious but the balls has to be stop by the casing from rolling downward.

The question remains does this creates a torque?

Or does the torque disappear the instant it appear?