Weights

[Thomas]

A small dog in a wheel?

I thought this only happened in cartoons.

Tom

(I wonder what was in Bessler's wheel.)

[wikiwheel]

Has anybody tried their starter mechanisms yet??

Mik

jimmich, couldn't a "turnspit" equavalent be made that would rewind slowly while going in the same direction from which it unwound??

It would not have to hang from the axle.

[wheelrite]

just a thought, if you had a wheel with a smaller wheel inside, and the outer wheel was 4 times the size of the small one, could this lead to the '4 to 1' lifting ratio Besler mentioned? ie the larger/outer wheel (with a paired 1 lb. weight)rotating causes the oob in the smaller one by lifting a 4 pound weight?
Regards
Jon

[jim_mich]

jimmich, couldn't a "turnspit" equavalent be made that would rewind slowly while going in the same direction from which it unwound??

It would not have to hang from the axle.

A lot of things might be possible. But remember that Bessler said something to the effect that everything inside the wheel must turn with the wheel. Now was Bessler a liar? I don't think so. A turnspit would need to hang from the axle in order to work. And it would require winding. And the wheel was not big enough to contain a spring strong enough to make it run for eight weeks. This is why Bessler told his accusers to go ahead and try to build a turnspit powered wheel that could match the output of his wheel. He knew that it could not be done.

Now as far as the '1 to 4' ratio goes I really think that Bessler was alluding to CF. Bessler never uses the term CF although I think he was well aware of it. When a pendulum weight is allowed to swing from 12 o'clock to 6 o'clock then the CF at the bottom is exactly four times the weight of the pendulum. Bessler states quite clearly that in his wheel the weights gained energy from their movement or swinging. This is the most informative knowledge of what made his wheels work. Even on a slow barely turning wheel a weight can make a fast swing into a new position. I don't remember Bessler's exact words but he mentions that the weights make a fast swing.

Why does he use the 1 to 4 and the 4 to 16 ratio examples? I think his weights weighed about 4 pounds. Did each really lift a 16 pound weight? I don't think Bessler ever said that they did. What I think Bessler was trying to say is that the 4 pound weights could generate enough force to lift 16 pounds. If you can know how to make 4 pounds lift 16 pounds then you have the secret of his wheel. All the weights needed to do was to lift themselves in order to make the wheel self rotate.



PS. I've been quite sick almost three weeks with a ruptured appendix and haven't been able to work on my wheel. Hopefully next week I get the drain tube removed from my side and I can get back to working on my wheel. Looking back I realize that my bad appendix has been sapping my strength for many months. I'm such a tough old guy that I survived 10 days with a ruptured appendix before finally going to the hospital. But enough about my health problems. This is not the place to discuss it. I really want to get my wheel finished to prove if my CF ideas work!

[Fletcher]

From DT "their admirably fast flight". Get well soon Jim.

[wheelrite]

hmmm, now I'm thinking of a concentric turnspit arrangement with the outer wheel causing weights on arms to rotate on the smaller inner wheel...... :) thanks for the input.
And I agree it seems more than coincidence that cf on a half turn is 4 to 1 ratio.
Regards
Jon

[Thomas]

Hi Jim,

In regards to your comments about the 1 to 4 ratio, I have a question about the weight at the bottom of the pendulum and what it means. You said:

"When a pendulum weight is allowed to swing from 12 o'clock to 6 o'clock then the CF at the bottom is exactly four times the weight of the pendulum."

Let's say that in the example you gave, the linear distance from where the pendulum starts and ends up is 10". Now we drop the same weight 10". I would assume the energy available at the end of the 10" would not be the same for both weights.

What I don't understand is how excess force is created by CF since both a falling weight and a pendulum swinging down both would have to regain their height again to continue the cycle in a wheel.

Does this mean we have to subtract the energy from the falling weight from the pendulum at the end of the 10" to be left with the excess energy created by the CF?

I don't think this is what you mean. I've read many of your posts regarding CF and I don't really understand where the extra energy comes from when you take gravity into account. Please forgive me for not being able to understand what I know has been good information on your part. I'm just not as knowledgeable on some of the physics as many of you here on this board.

Tom

[jim_mich]

Suppose you have a weight on the edge of a 10" diameter weightless wheel and have it drop from 12 o'clock to 6 o'clock and you have another weight that drops straight down. The second weights will drop very quickly and obtain a certain speed. The weight on the wheel will take longer to rotate around and down. But it will obtain the exact same speed of the first weight, only it will be moving sideways at the bottom. If it were different then we could use the difference to power a PM wheel.

Now because of the way physics works the CF on the weight at the 6 o'clock bottom will be four times its normal weight. So it will be pulling on the wheel at five times normal weight when you include gravity.

On a bigger wheel with bigger radius the weight will be traveling faster but the RPM will be slower. The net result is always a CF of four times the weight when it free fall accelerates from 12 o'clock to 6 o'clock.

I believe this 1:4 ratio of CF is what Bessler was talking about when he say you must learn to make a one pound weight lift four pounds and to make four pounds lift sixteen pounds. It is a concept. I believe Bessler was saying you must learn to use CF to lift weights. The four pounds are just the size of weights that Bessler used. If he had used three pound weights then he might have said that you must learn to use 3 pounds to lift 9 pounds.

Now none of the above has much of anything to do with how to harness energy from CF. It just shows that Bessler knew about CF and that he was saying that you must learn about it in order to make a working wheel.

So what is it about CF that makes it a candidate for an energy source? Newton physics says that the energy in a moving object is the square of the speed. When an object swings then the CF is relative to the radius of the curve and also relative to the square of the speed that it swings. It is the square of the speed that is important. This is, I believe, what Bessler was hinting at with the one to four weight comments.


Of course these are just my opinions. I could display an animated picture showing how I believe it can be done, but I'd loose all my intellectual property rights. Hopefully I can get back to building my wheel soon.

[Fletcher]

Here are 3 pics to show what happens.

The pendulum rod has virtually no mass & is offset from the vertical 1 degree so it can start unbalancing & swing.

After 0.78 secs the free to fall weight [just before impact] has Kinetic Energy of 0.919 kgf.

In the next shot the swinging pendulum weight has arrived at the same horizontal height & has KE of 0.925 [allow positioning errors for number of frames per second accuracy]. It took 2.28 secs to arrive.

P.S. loaded the pics the wrong way around. The point is the KE is the same [therefore their respective velocities] but the time was substantially different.

CF is a force while its energy [available for work] is measured as KE. The problem as I see it is that in a dynamic rotating wheel [with one pendulum each side & released to fall at the same time] the pivot it is attached to is also moving with the wheel. Relative to the pendulum this will alter the time it takes for the pendulums to complete their 180 degree swings i.e. one faster because the pivot is moving upwards & towards the falling pendulum. The other slower because the pivot is moving downwards & away from the falling pendulum. This would mean most likely they would have to be linked to synchronize their respective arrival times else one would be leveraging its side of the wheel for longer than the opposing side, & not favourably I suspect ?

[Thomas]

Jim and Fletcher,

Thanks guys for the information, especially you Jim. I know you've gone over this several times in other posts and I appreciate your patients. I understand what you're saying now regarding CF. I'm still puzzled about a few things but I think I'll give it some thought for a while before I ask more questions.

Jim, get well soon.

Tom

[Thomas]

Hi Jim,

I went back and looked up information on various web sites and I'm still puzzled by a few things. One statement that was hard for me to understand was:
"An object traveling in a circle at a constant speed is experiencing acceleration."
I find this statement contradictory. Is this acceleration where the extra energy comes from in regards to the 1 to 4 ratio we discussed earlier?

One of the reasons I'm having a problem understanding this is because I see centrifugal force as a restriction and not a real force. I'll explain it as I see it:

I'm in outer space (no gravity) and have a weight on the end of a string. The other end of the string is fixed to a stationary point. I then give the weight a push and it starts moving. It will move around in a circle at a constant speed. The weight wants to go straight, but the string restricts the movement in a circular path. It's hard for me to see this restriction as a force. The same goes for centripetal force. From what I've read, I understand that centripetal force is seen as the real force and not centrifugal force. But again in this example, I only see a restriction and no inward force. And where is the acceleration?

I can see when we swing a weight on a string over our head, the somewhat pumping motion is an inward force that keeps the weight moving in a circle. Is this considered centripetal force? If so then it doesn't always apply.

Jim, in your example about a weight traveling downward in a circle and another in a straight line, I understand the part about both obtaining the same speed but in different directions. Since I consider centrifugal force more of a restriction in the example I gave, I'm having a hard time seeing it as a real force.

Is there a web site/s where I could go to learn more about the 1 to 4 ratio we discussed.

Tom

[Fletcher]

This site might be useful to you Tom while you wait for jim_mich. Follow things around until you find what you want.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/hframe.html

[Thomas]

Great site!

Maybe I can get some of my answers here.

Thanks Fletcher!

Tom

[Clarkie]

Jim, When you say CF do you mean Centrifugal Force or Coriolis Force. Or are they the same???

I didn't get an education, that's why nobody told me this couldn't be done.

Pete.

[jim_mich]

Pete,
I use CF to mean centripetal force or centrifugal force. I got tired of people telling me I was using the wrong name. When ever you have centrifugal force you also have centripetal force. I don't know why we have two names for these forces, when you have one you always have the other and the force is always outward. So I just use CF to mean one, the other or both.

As far as the Coriolis Force goes I don't see it being of any use in a Bessler wheel.