Nobody seems to talk much about that arch enemy "inertia"
That along with "reaction" have doomed all of my efforts so far
You can move weights around in the Z axis and be able to have the reaction act perpendicular to the axis. But inertia is another story.
To lift a weight out at the rim, a force must be applied to that weight to lift it . However that weight has mass and to get it moving it's inertia must be overcome and that effect works contra to to the desired motion of the wheel.
Other ideas that shift weights out to the rim from an inner position will also fail due to the inertia of the weight . It can't just suddenly speed up it's angular velocity.
So what is the answer ???
Thanks for listening
Graham
Inertia
Moderator: scott
re: Inertia
Graham,
I am willing to talk inertia with you for the benefit of all that are interested.
Before posting personal opinions I believe a description of inertia may be of interest to freshen our understanding of the word. Later I will attempt to break this topic down for farther discussion.
Inertia, the property of matter that causes it to resist any change of its motion in either direction or speed. This property is accurately described by the first law of motion of the English scientist Sir Isaac Newton: An object at rest tends to remain at rest, and an object in motion tends to continue in motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an outside force. For example, passengers in an accelerating automobile feel the force of the seat against their backs overcoming their inertia so as to increase their velocity. As the car decelerates, the passengers tend to continue in motion and lurch forward. If the car turns a corner, then a package on the car seat will slide across the seat as the inertia of the package causes it to continue moving in a straight line.
Any body spinning on its axis, such as a flywheel, exhibits rotational inertia, a resistance to change of its rotational speed. To change the rate of rotation of an object by a certain amount, a relatively large force is required for an object with a large rotational inertia, and a relatively small force is required for an object with a small rotational inertia. Flywheels, which are attached to the crankshaft in automobile engines, have a large rotational inertia. The engine delivers power in surges; the large rotational inertia of the flywheel absorbs these surges and keeps the engine delivering power smoothly.
An object's inertia is determined by its mass. Newton's second law states that a force acting on an object is equal to the mass of the object multiplied by the acceleration the object undergoes. Thus, if a force causes an object to accelerate at a certain rate, then a stronger force must be applied to make a more massive object accelerate at the same rate; the more massive object has a larger amount of inertia that must be overcome. For example, if a bowling ball and a baseball are accelerated so that they end up rolling at the same speed, then a larger force must have been applied to the bowling ball, since it has more inertia.
"Inertia," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 97 Encyclopedia. (c) 1993-1996 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
I am willing to talk inertia with you for the benefit of all that are interested.
Before posting personal opinions I believe a description of inertia may be of interest to freshen our understanding of the word. Later I will attempt to break this topic down for farther discussion.
Inertia, the property of matter that causes it to resist any change of its motion in either direction or speed. This property is accurately described by the first law of motion of the English scientist Sir Isaac Newton: An object at rest tends to remain at rest, and an object in motion tends to continue in motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an outside force. For example, passengers in an accelerating automobile feel the force of the seat against their backs overcoming their inertia so as to increase their velocity. As the car decelerates, the passengers tend to continue in motion and lurch forward. If the car turns a corner, then a package on the car seat will slide across the seat as the inertia of the package causes it to continue moving in a straight line.
Any body spinning on its axis, such as a flywheel, exhibits rotational inertia, a resistance to change of its rotational speed. To change the rate of rotation of an object by a certain amount, a relatively large force is required for an object with a large rotational inertia, and a relatively small force is required for an object with a small rotational inertia. Flywheels, which are attached to the crankshaft in automobile engines, have a large rotational inertia. The engine delivers power in surges; the large rotational inertia of the flywheel absorbs these surges and keeps the engine delivering power smoothly.
An object's inertia is determined by its mass. Newton's second law states that a force acting on an object is equal to the mass of the object multiplied by the acceleration the object undergoes. Thus, if a force causes an object to accelerate at a certain rate, then a stronger force must be applied to make a more massive object accelerate at the same rate; the more massive object has a larger amount of inertia that must be overcome. For example, if a bowling ball and a baseball are accelerated so that they end up rolling at the same speed, then a larger force must have been applied to the bowling ball, since it has more inertia.
"Inertia," Microsoft(R) Encarta(R) 97 Encyclopedia. (c) 1993-1996 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
re: Inertia
Yes, but how do we "quantify" the energy in a moving object?
Machinery's Handbook shows:
This I consider an amazing feet of magic! Why is it that everyone overlooks this simple fact? It shows up in CF. When the RPM's of a wheel go from 10 to 20 then the CF increases by a factor of 4 times. When the RPM's of a wheel go from 10 to 30 then the CF increases by a factor of 9 times. When the RPM's of a wheel go from 10 to 40 then the CF increases by a factor of 16 times. The force required to increase the wheel's RPM from 10 to 20 RPM is the same as the force required to increase the wheel's RPM from 20 to 30 RPM and from 30 to 40 RPM.
All we need to do is use some method to harness this difference in CF. This will require one weight acting against another, since a single lone weight will just be thrown to the outside by CF.
Machinery's Handbook shows:
This shows that when the velocity of a body increases then the energy concentrated in the body increases as the square of the velocity. In other word, when the velocity doubles the kinetic energy increases four time. When the velocity increases 5 times then the kinetic energy increase 25 times (5^2).K = W*V^2/(2*g)
Where:
K = work in foot-pounds (or energy) concentrated in a moving body.
W = weight of moving body in pounds.
V = uniform velocity of a moving body.
g = acceleration due to gravity = 32.16 (Jim's note: more accurately g = 32.1740485564)
This I consider an amazing feet of magic! Why is it that everyone overlooks this simple fact? It shows up in CF. When the RPM's of a wheel go from 10 to 20 then the CF increases by a factor of 4 times. When the RPM's of a wheel go from 10 to 30 then the CF increases by a factor of 9 times. When the RPM's of a wheel go from 10 to 40 then the CF increases by a factor of 16 times. The force required to increase the wheel's RPM from 10 to 20 RPM is the same as the force required to increase the wheel's RPM from 20 to 30 RPM and from 30 to 40 RPM.
All we need to do is use some method to harness this difference in CF. This will require one weight acting against another, since a single lone weight will just be thrown to the outside by CF.
re: Inertia
Limited on time at the moment, but in reply to Jim from my above Encarta quote.
Ralph
Thus we have introduced CF to the subject of inertia, now what exactly does "kinetic" play in this roll and what is the connection?If the car turns a corner, then a package on the car seat will slide across the seat as the inertia of the package causes it to continue moving in a straight line.
Then an even pulse in time with the wheel acceleration from a pendulum will keep increasing velocity providing the pendulum can keep increasing its amplitude time. Which is a pretty good explanation of what Milkovic is all about.The force required to increase the wheel's RPM from 10 to 20 RPM is the same as the force required to increase the wheel's RPM from 20 to 30 RPM and from 30 to 40 RPM.
Ralph
Re: re: Inertia
looks to me like all weights will be thrown to the out sidejim_mich wrote:
All we need to do is use some method to harness this difference in CF. This will require one weight acting against another, since a single lone weight will just be thrown to the outside by CF.
i think you are looking at CF in the wrong direction
it is clear that Bessler's wheel had a terminal velocity
CF is the factor that brought it to that terminal velocity
CF brought all mechanical action to a stop there fore terminal velocity
i don't think CF can bring the wheel to terminal velocity and at the time be the motive force
if you find out what happens with CF to cause that terminal velocity you will be able to reverse engineer the wheel
i could be wrong but probably not 8)
the uneducated
if your gona be dumb you gota be tough
Who need drugs when you can have fatigue toxins and caffeine
if your gona be dumb you gota be tough
Who need drugs when you can have fatigue toxins and caffeine
re: Inertia
Winkle,
I think you're wrong. The faster the wheel turns the more CF there is to move and lift the weights, making them move faster. The limiting factor become time. As the wheel rotates faster there is no longer enough time for the weights to complete their movement before it becomes time for them to move back again. So the wheel's speed peaks.
I think you're wrong. The faster the wheel turns the more CF there is to move and lift the weights, making them move faster. The limiting factor become time. As the wheel rotates faster there is no longer enough time for the weights to complete their movement before it becomes time for them to move back again. So the wheel's speed peaks.
re: Inertia
Further clarification. At least my understanding of things.
Here on the earths surface objects are subject to gravity which is the relative attraction between objects masses. It's an inverse square law x mass relationship & from it weight is calculated.
Objects also have inertia, the amount also depending on their relative masses & is innate to all objects, providing they have mass.
CF, or Centripetal Force if you prefer, are both derivatives of inertia & are dependent on it. Inertia & CF are not mutually exclusive.
That is why out in space a satellite can be holed by a speck of dust traveling at great velocity i.e. it has no weight [which is a function of proximity to earths mass] but it does have two basic criterium. Inertia & velocity.
The energy of an object in motion [the physical energy] is also a relative relationship & is a square law, providing an object has mass vis a vis inertia.
But as Jim said, it depends on your viewing reference frame. e.g. a car traveling around the equator in one direction & at a constant ground speed has the same energy of motion [Kinetic Energy] as an identical car traveling in the exact opposite direction. Yet, they are both on a fast moving [orbiting] & spinning planet. So at a wider viewing reference frame there appears to be a difference in speeds, which should mean different energy's, but it doesn't, unless the whole reference frame is halted [not just the 'local'] & the energy of decelerations measured for the entire system. Then you would also have to stop the galaxy as well as a next step in measuring the deceleration accurately, & so on.
So, the energy of motion is a 'local' effect & is relative. It can be measured by the deceleration force required to stop an object x time which we call momentum or it can be a measure of the amount of acceleration x time to increase an objects velocity. It takes the same energy input to either accelerate or decelerate an object by the same incremental speeds over a given time interval e.g plus & minus 10 knots in 1 minute, but the energy of motion is vastly different in both cases once a new velocity is established.
So, here at the earths surface there are just two underpinning conditions -gravity & inertia.
Both on earth & out in space, a body's energy of motion is determined by the objects 'local' velocity which is a function of its inertia.
Here on the earths surface objects are subject to gravity which is the relative attraction between objects masses. It's an inverse square law x mass relationship & from it weight is calculated.
Objects also have inertia, the amount also depending on their relative masses & is innate to all objects, providing they have mass.
CF, or Centripetal Force if you prefer, are both derivatives of inertia & are dependent on it. Inertia & CF are not mutually exclusive.
That is why out in space a satellite can be holed by a speck of dust traveling at great velocity i.e. it has no weight [which is a function of proximity to earths mass] but it does have two basic criterium. Inertia & velocity.
The energy of an object in motion [the physical energy] is also a relative relationship & is a square law, providing an object has mass vis a vis inertia.
But as Jim said, it depends on your viewing reference frame. e.g. a car traveling around the equator in one direction & at a constant ground speed has the same energy of motion [Kinetic Energy] as an identical car traveling in the exact opposite direction. Yet, they are both on a fast moving [orbiting] & spinning planet. So at a wider viewing reference frame there appears to be a difference in speeds, which should mean different energy's, but it doesn't, unless the whole reference frame is halted [not just the 'local'] & the energy of decelerations measured for the entire system. Then you would also have to stop the galaxy as well as a next step in measuring the deceleration accurately, & so on.
So, the energy of motion is a 'local' effect & is relative. It can be measured by the deceleration force required to stop an object x time which we call momentum or it can be a measure of the amount of acceleration x time to increase an objects velocity. It takes the same energy input to either accelerate or decelerate an object by the same incremental speeds over a given time interval e.g plus & minus 10 knots in 1 minute, but the energy of motion is vastly different in both cases once a new velocity is established.
So, here at the earths surface there are just two underpinning conditions -gravity & inertia.
Both on earth & out in space, a body's energy of motion is determined by the objects 'local' velocity which is a function of its inertia.
re: Inertia
if the wheel moving faster caused the weights to move faster there is no way time could become an issue
time would only become a factor if the weights were moving a greater distance
other than that the wheel would just continue to speedup till it flew apart
time would only become a factor if the weights were moving a greater distance
other than that the wheel would just continue to speedup till it flew apart
the uneducated
if your gona be dumb you gota be tough
Who need drugs when you can have fatigue toxins and caffeine
if your gona be dumb you gota be tough
Who need drugs when you can have fatigue toxins and caffeine
re: Inertia
I agree with Jim in that time is a factor, in as much as I believe the wheel would have 'pulse' started, that is augmenting itself each part rotation with a 'rushing' and 'slowing' action(with more rush than slow) until reaching full speed after a couple of full rotations, the mechs imparting these overbalancing impulses from within would have a component that would have a set or limited range of 'action' time (g?), this would act as a speed governor fairly quickly (hence reported low running speeds of 25 rpm approx and not say 50 or 75) when the wheel as a whole has velocities faster than the mech then the OB effect just goes, I even suspect unloaded the wheel speed is varying say 24 to 25 rpm but was not measurable, due to the mechs OB effect coming and going as they run up against the 'top limit' and friction drags the system back a fraction and they come into play again and so on.
so yes, time.
Regards
Jon
so yes, time.
Regards
Jon
re: Inertia
A little side note here concerning relativity...
In a linear moving frame of reference then there is no way to tell whether that meteor that just whizzed by you was moving or if your space ship is moving, unless you track the movement of one or the other to something you believe to be not moving, such as nearby stars.
But in a rotating frame of reference a spinning object causes CF and a non-spinning object has no CF. So it can always be determined which objects are rotating and which are not.
Of course with very large objects moving on very large radii the CF becomes negligible because the curved path is very close to a straight line.
With a car rounding a curve at two times the velocity of another car, the faster car takes half the time to round the curve. So energy is conserved. Say the slower car causes a force of 4 units of CF during 10 seconds while rounding the curve. The faster car at twice the speed will cause 16 units of CF during 5 seconds while rounding the curve. The slower car's total CF energy produced is 4 x 10 second = 40 units. The faster car's total CF energy produced is 16 x 5 seconds = 80 units. So the car moving twice as fast produces twice the energy from CF as it rounds the curve. So you see energy is conserved. Or so the scientists will tell you. This is the basis and reasoning behind the math involved.
You can accept this and walk away thinking conservation of energy has won. Or you can dig a little deeper and maybe see things a in a slightly different light. That square law concept seems to have a loop hole. Go back and read my train on a curve posts.
JB's last wheel at around 12 foot ran at about 26 RPM when free wheeling and at about 20 RPM when pumping water. His first small 6-1/2 foot wheel turned at over 60 RPM. As the wheel speeds up the time available to swing the weight shrinks down. The forces also have to lift the weights, which is a constant no matter the speed of the wheel, and must be accomplished in a shorter time at higher speeds. At some point all the forces converge, and the wheel's speed is determined.
In a linear moving frame of reference then there is no way to tell whether that meteor that just whizzed by you was moving or if your space ship is moving, unless you track the movement of one or the other to something you believe to be not moving, such as nearby stars.
But in a rotating frame of reference a spinning object causes CF and a non-spinning object has no CF. So it can always be determined which objects are rotating and which are not.
Of course with very large objects moving on very large radii the CF becomes negligible because the curved path is very close to a straight line.
With a car rounding a curve at two times the velocity of another car, the faster car takes half the time to round the curve. So energy is conserved. Say the slower car causes a force of 4 units of CF during 10 seconds while rounding the curve. The faster car at twice the speed will cause 16 units of CF during 5 seconds while rounding the curve. The slower car's total CF energy produced is 4 x 10 second = 40 units. The faster car's total CF energy produced is 16 x 5 seconds = 80 units. So the car moving twice as fast produces twice the energy from CF as it rounds the curve. So you see energy is conserved. Or so the scientists will tell you. This is the basis and reasoning behind the math involved.
You can accept this and walk away thinking conservation of energy has won. Or you can dig a little deeper and maybe see things a in a slightly different light. That square law concept seems to have a loop hole. Go back and read my train on a curve posts.
JB's last wheel at around 12 foot ran at about 26 RPM when free wheeling and at about 20 RPM when pumping water. His first small 6-1/2 foot wheel turned at over 60 RPM. As the wheel speeds up the time available to swing the weight shrinks down. The forces also have to lift the weights, which is a constant no matter the speed of the wheel, and must be accomplished in a shorter time at higher speeds. At some point all the forces converge, and the wheel's speed is determined.
re: Inertia
jim_mich wrote
[/quote]The faster the wheel turns the more CF there is to move and lift the weights, making them move faster.[/quote]
ok let me see if i understand this
wheel goes faster causing the weights to move faster in time
weights speed up in sync with the wheel faster in time
but somewhere we are losing some time
don''t look right to me
every thing in and on the wheel is moving faster together
just where is the less time being lost
not only that a wheel that used CF would lose power as it slowed down and the only model we have to look at says that just is not what happens with the real wheel
i don't agree with Jim
[/quote]The faster the wheel turns the more CF there is to move and lift the weights, making them move faster.[/quote]
ok let me see if i understand this
wheel goes faster causing the weights to move faster in time
weights speed up in sync with the wheel faster in time
but somewhere we are losing some time
don''t look right to me
every thing in and on the wheel is moving faster together
just where is the less time being lost
speed of the weights is dictated by speed of the wheel more CF in ever greater strength so everything would move fasterAs the wheel rotates faster there is no longer enough time for the weights to complete their movement before it becomes time for them to move back again.
not only that a wheel that used CF would lose power as it slowed down and the only model we have to look at says that just is not what happens with the real wheel
i don't agree with Jim
the uneducated
if your gona be dumb you gota be tough
Who need drugs when you can have fatigue toxins and caffeine
if your gona be dumb you gota be tough
Who need drugs when you can have fatigue toxins and caffeine
re: Inertia
If the weights on a wheel do their shifting during 30 degrees of wheel rotation while the wheel is rotating at 10 RPM then it will take 60 Seconds / 10 RPM * (30/360) = 0.5 seconds for the weights to move. Now if the wheel speed up to 20 RPM then then the weights must shift during 60 Seconds / 20 RPM * (30 / 360) = .25 seconds. We have lost half the time for the weights to shift. Now if the weights cannot shift that fast then it must take more than the alloted 30 degrees of wheel rotation to make the shift. This means that it may loose some of it's OOB torque and the wheel will reach a maximum speed.
The unlatching mechanism also needs time to unlatch. The faster the wheel turns the less time is available for it to function. This causes the weights to shift at a different angle position on the wheel. There reaches a point when the individual parts of the mechanism just cannot move fast enough for the mechanism to function like it did at a slower speed.
Or... every working wheel ever built (except Bessler's) exploded and killed the inventor, and that is why we don't have any working PM wheels to this day. :))
Edit: corrected an error... 60 seconds was 60 minutes, two places.
The unlatching mechanism also needs time to unlatch. The faster the wheel turns the less time is available for it to function. This causes the weights to shift at a different angle position on the wheel. There reaches a point when the individual parts of the mechanism just cannot move fast enough for the mechanism to function like it did at a slower speed.
Or... every working wheel ever built (except Bessler's) exploded and killed the inventor, and that is why we don't have any working PM wheels to this day. :))
Edit: corrected an error... 60 seconds was 60 minutes, two places.
Last edited by jim_mich on Mon Mar 26, 2007 6:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
re: Inertia
Jim
i am talking about one like Bessler built
what happened in your example was that the weights moved twice as fast pretty much like said they would
as far as to a latch having time to work
if i am not in error Besslers quickest wheel turned 60 RPM that allows 1/2 second for a latch to work
if it will not work with that amount of time it may not work at all and might better be called a break
beginning to wonder if we are both talking about a wheel that tops out at about 60 RPM
perhaps you are talking about a wheel that travels at a much greater RPM than what i have in mind
i have seen at least one explodeing wheel clamed here but i guess that for me seeing is beliving 8)
i only speak for myself and i am not talking about a wheel turning at light speedIf the weights on a wheel do their shifting during 30 degrees of wheel rotation while the wheel is rotating at 10 RPM then it will take 60 Minutes / 10 RPM * (30/360) = 0.5 seconds for the weights to move. Now if the wheel speed up to 20 RPM then then the weights must shift during 60 Minutes / 20 RPM * (30 / 360) = .25 seconds. We have lost half the time for the weights to shift. Now if the weights cannot shift that fast then it must take more than the alloted 30 degrees of wheel rotation to make the shift. This means that it may loose some of it's OOB torque and the wheel will reach a maximum speed.
i am talking about one like Bessler built
what happened in your example was that the weights moved twice as fast pretty much like said they would
as far as to a latch having time to work
if i am not in error Besslers quickest wheel turned 60 RPM that allows 1/2 second for a latch to work
if it will not work with that amount of time it may not work at all and might better be called a break
beginning to wonder if we are both talking about a wheel that tops out at about 60 RPM
perhaps you are talking about a wheel that travels at a much greater RPM than what i have in mind
i have seen at least one explodeing wheel clamed here but i guess that for me seeing is beliving 8)
the uneducated
if your gona be dumb you gota be tough
Who need drugs when you can have fatigue toxins and caffeine
if your gona be dumb you gota be tough
Who need drugs when you can have fatigue toxins and caffeine
re: Inertia
I like to keep my examples down to earth where the experiments with wheel designs takes place.
I know where Jim is coming from when he says he is trying to use CF to power a wheel. I know that it takes inertia and kinetic energy in the form of velocity, as CF is a fictitious force.
I also believe I know the approach Jim is working on to achieve the use of CF. Bessler said it very plainly. We all believe that CF only presents an outward pull to the limits of its centripetal retention. If I am correct then I need not say anymore in fear of entering areas that Jim would rather not go at this time. How can an outward imaginary force in line with the axis make a wheel turn. I await response!
I know where Jim is coming from when he says he is trying to use CF to power a wheel. I know that it takes inertia and kinetic energy in the form of velocity, as CF is a fictitious force.
I also believe I know the approach Jim is working on to achieve the use of CF. Bessler said it very plainly. We all believe that CF only presents an outward pull to the limits of its centripetal retention. If I am correct then I need not say anymore in fear of entering areas that Jim would rather not go at this time. How can an outward imaginary force in line with the axis make a wheel turn. I await response!
re: Inertia
Winkle,
It is obvious to me why Jim chose to base his example on 30 degrees as to gain the advantage. IMO that is about all that is available. Now with say eight weights, thats 240 degrees of input out of a 360 degree cycle. I could live with that.
Ralph
I think that you are looking at CF going in the wrong direction, as well as looking at at it from the wrong direction. And I believe Jim would agree to this statement.looks to me like all weights will be thrown to the out side.
i think you are looking at CF in the wrong direction
It is obvious to me why Jim chose to base his example on 30 degrees as to gain the advantage. IMO that is about all that is available. Now with say eight weights, thats 240 degrees of input out of a 360 degree cycle. I could live with that.
Ralph