How much bigger is better?

[JuddBrooks]

To All,

Jim has presented a good case for bigger is better and we know what Bessler had.

I have recently put together an Excel file (10pages and growing) that is giving interesting results. All theory of course.

I used at least 6 formulas found in physics books and internet regarding KE, HP and Watts at the axle and the front page display shows them all.

With just a few user variables like height, weights, rpms, etc you see what kind of output at the axle can be predicted.

I am looking for just a couple people to pier-review, code walk-thru, constructive criticism, before placing it out as 'share-ware' 'open-architecture'.

If it is recieved well, then ongoing updates could be of help to all.

So if you know alittle on any of these subjects (excel, macros, water wheels, algebra, gravity wheel principles, besslerwheel details) and have the time to walk-thru it with me, please email or pm me.

Scott as offered to setup another room that would specifically deal with this code to get it presentable to all.

The room will be open to all to read, but I need a couple people who can review it before it goes on to open room. I don't need the harsh critics or flame wars right from the get-go. LOL..:)

My goal is to take this public in just a few days to a week from now. People would be free to 'alter it completely' to their specific needs and have their own version.

I would like people to give feedback on flaws and functional upgrades so anyone could use it and not have to be a programmer.

Of Course you can build any size in wm2d. This allows you to predict outputs at axle even with know Wm2d or Excel. Those of you that actually build in a shop need to see these results.. They will influence your decisions (in a good way) and tell you what measurement get you most bang for the buck.

I have aol, msn, yahoo, skype, ircq, and besslerwheel chat. If I am missing one you use alot, just let me know.

Did everone know that thru yahoo and skype you can call PC to PC for free worldwide? Just invest in a $10 microphone.

Thanks for reading.
Judd

[JuddBrooks]

This allows you to predict outputs at axle even with know Wm2d or Excel.

I mean without having to know wm2d or Excel or even have your design finished. :)

[KAS]

Sounds great and very useful.

Any chance of posting it?


Kas

[bluesgtr44]

This does seem interesting, Judd....I am at work right now, so....if you are interested, pop me a quick e-mail with just a little bit of some of the info. Thanks


Steve

[JuddBrooks]

To All,

FYI, - if your interested in a copy, I am unable to use the besslerwheel PM or Email since it does not allow attachments. I would need a real email address. Be assured it will not be released to anyone.

Kas - sure I will try. I don't post much so it will be a learning experience. :(

Against my better judgement I will attempt to post page 1 here now. Keep in mind it was developed for one person. I have permission to remove all references to that person and their design and make a public version.

I was looking for a couple people to walk thru it privately before I release so as to avoid the harsh critics and dumb mistakes.
I don't care if you pick on the author..but I think the excel file has real merit to BW builders!

Hoping for a solution soon!
Judd

[JuddBrooks]

page 2 is about physical characteristic of a wheel and costs. Crude but handy when changing sizes of wheel to give you a basic swipe at costs.
Did you know that using 'water' as 'weight' could save 80% plus of construction costs.

[JuddBrooks]

page 3 is the heart/soul/guts of this excel. all the formulas and computations to get gross hp/watts at axle and net hp/watts at axle.

I am having quite a fit with when to use English lbs and feet or meters and kilograms.

I am sure this page needs work. :( But it is already yielding very interesting results. Even though the formulas do not balance to the penny. They show trends, ball-parks, and definate patterns that everyone should find interesting.

Did you know that doubling the diameter has absolutely 0 effect if you change nothing else. Turns out you only make it bigger to 'fit' in the other parts, be it more spokes, bigger weights, more complicated movements. But to think you double the diameter will get more power is not reflected by the math here.

[JuddBrooks]

page for is by far the CRITICAL and Most revealing (to me at least :)

Torque-by-spoke. Currently you can have up to 360 spokes with complete detail (number can increase easily).

The whole page sets about to get to one final answer. THE NET TORQUE that is on the right side of OOB wheel. This means if you somehow got a perfect besslerwheel that shifted weigths at 12:01 and 6:30 you would see a net torque on the right of X. Imagine this were a 'extra spoke' 'power spoke' or perhaps an invisiable bucket of water when using waterwheel formulas. This is what you have to 'play with' 'use' 'consume' 'expend' in doing the 'work' of 'shifting' the weights.

My surprise was how little you have to work with. In this example a 12foot wheel with 24 spokes with 20lbs weights, and 2" inward movemet on left side, only nets out about 4lbs extra on right side. If you split that between moving weight at both 12 and 6:30 you see my point how little 'power' your getting.

Whats more important you can see by starting with 2-6fts wheel and just clicking thru the values you see patterns and growth of output based on any one or more things you vary.

Did you know that if you JUST DOUBLE diameter and do nothing else, you get around 1/2 the net torque. Not what I wanted to see. Seems if you only make it bigger and don't add weight on spokes, you lose that most 'needed' net torque to work with in your 'manipulation' of the weights inside. !!

This clearly goes along with what Jim posted about bigger is better. T

Now you can see how much bigger your machine needs to be to get the results your looking for. You do not have to disclose how you machine works to use this EITHER!

Now I am waiting for you to destroy the results by finding I misplaced a decimal point. :( :(

[JuddBrooks]

this picture is more for us beginners. Many may remember that we missed Mars with one of our launches because in Denver they used meters and California they used feet in some calculations. :(

Well. When laying out a wheel many of us would count left to right, think clockwise, etc. But in x,y co-ordinates (algebra), engineering, etc, they count Counter Clockwise (CCW) starting at 3pm for 0.

So if someone says 2nd quadrant, spoke 4, or 110 degees, that would be around 11 oclock because they are thinking CCW.

This excel must think CCW with most references except the 12hr clock. So I thought a picture would be helpful.

[JuddBrooks]

I found a materials density and weight table on internet. I sorted it by density/weight.

Did you know that lead is quite a bit heavy than steel. And I believe much cheaper. But water still seems to be the 'cheapest' weight possible so far. Anyone know of about the top 5 items listed. Toxic, radioactive, expense, etc??

[jim_mich]

Pi value is wrong in line 7, the third digit should be "1".
Pi = 3.1415926535897932...

I see a number of other things that I think aren't right but before I stick my foot in my mouth I'd like time to double check them. For instance they might be due only from display rounding and the underlying number might be correct. If I had a copy of the excel sheet I could sort that type of thing out.

Water make a good cheap weight material. Also concrete is good. It weighs about 3 time water. All metals are expensive.

Much of this data is in Machinery's Handbook which I stongly recommend to anyone working with wheels. It has many tables and formulas. It's written in very plain language that anyone can understand.

[JuddBrooks]

I ran some sample answers..Not sure if they will that interesting to most.

Assuming I remember correctly that Bessler wheel was 6ft'ish..7lbs(ish) weights and maybe 8spokes. I started with that and trying a few combo's.

Notice final results suggest.
Double the diameter only = 1/2 the power output.
double the weight on spoke end = double the power output
double the movement inward = double the power.

But another thing one should notice.
Bigger is Better.
BUT...
6-12 ft devices with 7-14lbs weights is dealing with 1-25 watts. NOT very much for the size. Certainly says a 12ft device is not going to power a home! At least these "1st Generation" wheels.

IMHO, If your building at 3-4ft or less your chances of success are extremely low.

Until I can get this uploaded and useable, I would be happy to put in any numbers you like. private or public.

Judd


IMHO
Judd

[JuddBrooks]

Thanks Jim, You da man...You have an eagle eye.

Well there you go folks. the 1st error in the 3rd place to right of decimal.

I told you a decimal point would be the end of it.

Shall we throw it all away now and move on.

Yes, books have all the answers except those books don't have the secret to bessler in them.

This excel is customized for BW builders and can continue to be modified by and for BW group. Wm2d and other books cannot.

I love those books with their 'proven' math, formulas, etc. I don't have any of them.

By adding some of that 'knowledge' from around the world and in any book to this excel, hopefully it would be easier for BW group to solve the secret.

MY BOTTOM LINE reason for releasing this now is to support the theory from Jim that bigger is better. To provide a 'prediction' tool as to how much bigger. And to show some SERIOUS relationships for doubling power and others that don't!

Thanks again Jim

Judd

[jim_mich]

6-12 ft devices with 7-14lbs weights is dealing with 1-25 watts. NOT very much for the size. Certainly says a 12ft device is not going to power a home! At least these "1st Generation" wheels.

I have a 'Eureka III - Pair of Pairs' wheel design, 12 foot diameter, about 3 foot thick, weighing about 3 ton, rotating at about 45 RPM. I estimate it will produce about 10.5 HP. Of course that's if it works like I expect. Usually 10 HP is considered enough energy to run a typical American home. The 40 weights would be made of cast concrete and weigh about 5000 lbs. total. The average continious Center of Gravity offset as it runs would be almost 3 inches. The weights would each move about 14 inches.

I'm currently trying to prove if my design will really work as I expect.

IMHO, If your building at 3-4ft or less your chances of success are extremely low.

If I were to scale down the 12 foot wheel to a 3 foot wheel it would weigh about 100 pounds and put out about 0.082 HP which is about 60 watts.

[Fletcher]

Hi Judd.. I commend your efforts to de-mystify some of the details & relationships.

I use excel spreadsheets all the time. If I am reading your intentions correctly you are putting together a plug-in inputs (variables), combination alternative materials, ready-reckoner, that can then predict likely output scenarios for those variables.

As you point out it is useful in the hunt to understand your quarry.

One thing is for sure, Bessler did not invent any new physics or math & he would have understood the relationships you are eluding to very well, given his level of practical build experience. He had one major advantage over the rest of us. He knew a principle that worked. Given that, he also knew what dimensions & materials gave the best results depending on whether he wanted a 'power' test or a 'longevity' test. He also said that the machine could almost be scaled limitlessly (within reason) which suggests that bigger was indeed better but also critical to demonstrable output.