The Science Behind Bessler's Wheel

[UbWe]

.


Open office CALC toggles between radians & degrees. Select math functions & you'll find it

Not in Linux. They use radians. Quit lying.

Is this why you like your Montana farmer? She lets ewe sleep with the livestock?

• Oops, he said sheep shed and föcked a sheep.

Please learn your OSs,

it's sad when you attack Linux when you apparently don't use their OS. It shows.

And I did not say you attacked Linux.

p.s., Please discuss Bessler and his work. I think we are evolving to the point of saying Bessler's work can be realized.
That is what matters. I'm not Bessler just as you aren't. I think he deserves respect for his work.

You should follow your own advice.

But you wanted to discuss OS and DOS. And now you say I should talk about Bessler? You said MicroSoft allows you into the DOS. Show
me. How do you modify your OS from your DOS? I want to know because you wanted to talk about it. You went there and I am following your lead.
You went off topic so you need to explain yourself. I can change my DOS but you can't and yet you say MS allows you to do so. You need to explain
yourself for changing the topic of this thread. You made it about you can change your Microsoft OS when you can't.
I think once Pentium moved up from the 486 chip that Microsoft quit allowing access to its DOS which became proprietary information they don't like sharing. You started this, don't tell me to follow my own advice when you took over the thread with something you can't do. And yet you attacked Linux saying that values other than radians could be calculated when they can't be calculated because Linux simply doesn't allow for it. I know my OS and
the office suite I use. That's why I get work done. I entered every sine and cosine value from 0º to 90º manually. If I wanted to use a spreadsheet for
what I want then that is what I had to do and I did it. Don't discredit me for doing the work when I knew I didn't want to work in radians.

p.s., When it comes to Bessler, if Jubat is willing to learn how algebra and calculus applies to his work, then he might be a good representative for Bessler and his work. I'm not Bessler and Bessler's interest comes first. And for what I'm doing, that is important.

[JUBAT]

>Change your picture, it's not you. As for spinning a bicycle tire, is this what you mean?
I was just using the bicycle wheel as an example of something that slows down and I wasn't really alluding to the gyroscopic precession. Still a neat experiment completely valid and worth studying.

As far as the picture goes, I'm willing to change it. I won't have time right now - but this weekend you have my word that I will change it. Just being straight up with you - if I see false accusations about me or the members, the picture goes back up.

Did you see my new post this morning about the neat stork's bill design I found on youtube? I like the 90 degree linkage aspect of it since there are 90 degrees to be found in the toys page. You can get activation of the mechanism without changing the overall length by much.

[UbWe]

>Change your picture, it's not you. As for spinning a bicycle tire, is this what you mean?
I was just using the bicycle wheel as an example of something that slows down and I wasn't really alluding to the gyroscopic precession. Still a neat experiment completely valid and worth studying.

As far as the picture goes, I'm willing to change it. I won't have time right now - but this weekend you have my word that I will change it. Just being straight up with you - if I see false accusations about me or the members, the picture goes back up.

Did you see my new post this morning about the neat stork's bill design I found on youtube? I like the 90 degree linkage aspect of it since there are 90 degrees to be found in the toys page. You can get activation of the mechanism without changing the overall length by much.

I didn't but will look for it. I'm going to slow down some. Tonight I should be able to cut all of the parts to make roller assemblies with. To make 40
of them will require 160 pieces of wood and then a pin and bushing. I'll be able to record my computer screen to show how to do some things using
a spreadsheet.
With calculating the CoG of a weight, with Bessler's Wheel, that's the weight's physical location. With my design, the axis/fulcrum the weight is hanging from is the "working" CoG of the weight. The counter-torque it creates/generates is from where it's hanging. When those weights move to their OB
position then the physical CoG of the weight or the torque it crates at it's axis of rotation. Its physical location will be easier but then 2 angles will need to
be factored.
When lifting a weight (any weight), to go with Bessler's Wheel, what f = ma = m * d/t (a = d/t) is how fast the weight is being lifted. And to estimate that
time will require figuring out the average rpm of the wheel. As I mentioned, a spreadsheet should make easy work of that. And with Bessler's Wheel, an
online trig calculator might need to be used. This is because when the weight is lifted to its highest point, the other end of the lever will be ahead of that.
Since I'm using 20 inch long levers, the other end of the lever will be 42.24º. I used the final radius of the peacock's tail as "C" and 1/2 the length of the
lever as "A". I'll need to go slow with some of this for you or anyone else who wants to learn how to do the math. Once you're used to it you'll find it's
fairly easy. It's just that it took me a lot of work to figure out what needs to be known which simplifies it for everyone else.

p.s, I just searched online trig calc and with that calculator, only 2 values are needed. And with Bessler's Wheel it will always be "C" and "A". And with the image, the white area filled in is how far ahead that hoist will be from the end of the peacock's tail. And this is more math because the work it takes to lift a weight just went from 90º of rotation to 132º. and 90/132 = 0.68 or 68%. What this means is when the weight is lifted f = m * d/t * 0.68.
I'll go over the math a few times and then it'll be easier to understand how it follows the mechanical operation of the wheel.

[UbWe]

And if anyone is curious, smartphones have 2 calculators on them. On it's side it has algebraic functions.

And I am going to focus on how to do the math for Bessler's Wheel. I am confident that when the average net torque
minus the work for lifting a weight will show a net torque. There are some basic tests I've done years ago and this link
shows how Newton's laws of motion applies to perpetual motion.
With the last image, that was before I switched to the peacock's tail. What that shows is why I changed my thinking. When
a lever is being pushed by the wheel and is lifting the weight like that image shows, it reduces the amount of torque that
the OB weights are generating. I had to accept what math told me.
https://perpetual-motion.forumotion.com ... and-torque

I might use that as a "library". It's where I'll be able to post specific information so it can be easily referenced.

[Sam Peppiatt]

UbWe,
I'm interested in knowing how fast a gravity wheel might turn. I'm not a math guy so, please put in numbers with English units,(I don't understand metrics). As you correctly pointed, out I'm a dumb sh*t.

Given a wheel about 4 feet in diameter: One weight at 9:00, say 4 lbs., radius 46 inches. A 2nd weight, 4 lbs., radius 50 inches, at 3:00, for CW rotation. At 12:00 and 6:00 there radius are both 48 inches / balanced. They constantly shift in and out automatically, with more or less uniform motion. Please neglect ordinary loses due to friction, ( no load).

Can you solve for revolutions per minute, (RPM). Thanks in advance---------------------Sam

[UbWe]

UbWe,
I'm interested in knowing how fast a gravity wheel might turn. I'm not a math guy so, please put in numbers with English units,(I don't understand metrics). As you correctly pointed, out I'm a dumb sh*t.

Given a wheel about 4 feet in diameter: One weight at 9:00, say 4 lbs., radius 46 inches. A 2nd weight, 4 lbs., radius 50 inches, at 3:00. At 12:00 and 6:00 there radius are both 48 inches / balanced. They constantly shift in and out automatically, with more or less uniform motion. Please neglect ordinary loses due to friction, ( no load).

Can you solve for revolutions per minute, (RPM). Thanks in advance---------------------Sam

When people find out how bad my medical situation has been, they will be shocked. One reason I'm pursuing this is to get my life back.
I'll use what I've design as an example, okay? The frame and any parts that are not weights will create for the wheel what's known as moment of inertia.
This makes the frame a flywheel of sorts. And with a radius of 50 inches, we can say the frame weighs 16 lbs., that's 8 lbs. on each side. Without lifting
a weight but having 4 weights on the wheel weighing 4 lbs. each, 2 will be overbalanced and 2 will be under balanced.
Pi's average distance from the axle going to the left and right is 0.64x. x is the radius on either side. If the 2 weights on the overbalanced side have a radius of 50 inches then that side is 0.68 x 50 inches = 34. That would allow for 34/12 = 2.83 ft. Then with 2 - 4lb weights then it's 2 x 4 x 2.83 = 22.64 ft.lbs. of torque.
The under balanced side we'll say is a radius of 42 inches. Then it's 0.68 x 42 = 28.56/12 = 2.38 ft. Then with those 2 weights it's 2 x 4 x 2.38 = 19.04 ft.lbs. of torque.
I usually use the frame of the wheel at about 50%. This means that 8 + 19.04 = 27.04 for the under balanced side. Total torque is 27.04 + 22.64 = 49.68.
Then divide 22.64/49.68 = .45
Since the weights drop 100 inches/12 = 8.3 ft while the acceleration of gravity is 32.185 ft/s so 8.3/32.185 = 0.26 then we multiply that by the .45 = 0.117.
Then if we multiply that by the acceleration of gravity then 0.117 x 32.185 = 3.77 ft/s. It would take about 2.2 seconds for the weight at the top to rotate to bottom center if the wheel is spinning. That's an rpm of 27.14. I hope this helps.

[Sam Peppiatt]

UbWe,
I'm not sure. I did copy it and try to understand it. I think I'm lost-------------------Sam

I screwed it up. I met diameter NOT radius.

[UbWe]

One aspect of moving a weight to its overbalanced position is this, on Bessler's Wheel, the weights at the top and bottom cancel each other out.
What that misses is what my design shows, when the axle of the weight is at top center, the weight is 5 inches to the right. If the Pythagorean theorem
is used then 18^2 + 5^2 = x^2, 324 + 25 = 349^2, sqrt of 349 is 18.68 inches from the axle of the wheel.
And with the right triangle https://www.carbidedepot.com/formulas-trigright.asp , b is 18 and a is 5 = 15.52º. Then this is where trig gets funky because the weight is moving from the y axis and it needs to be factored as 90 - 15.52 = 74.48º. Then it's 18.68 cos 74.48 = 4.9 in.lbs. of torque.
And when the weight gets rotated 180º, be cause the wheel is also rotating, it will only rotate about 150º which decreases the amount of work to move
it to its overbalanced position. It is the same thing with Bessler's Wheel. after the top weight passes top center, it will start rotating downward while it moves away from the axle of the wheel. And these things I've just mentioned will improve the efficiency of both wheels.

With this basic leverage test, the tab at top has a ratio of 3 to 2 with how far it is from the axle of the wheel. This means that when a 1 lb. weight
is 5 inches away from its axis of rotation then it requires 3/2 or 1.5 x 5 = 7.5 in.lbs. of work to rotate the weight. An interesting aspect of this is when the
weight initially accelerates the weight is barely being lifted. This is where f = ma (a = d/t) shows the weight's acceleration will consume energy. And I've checked and for it to be pointed to the right, it's requirement of 7.5 in.lbs. of torque will be close as the weight slows and is lifted more. One of the reasons
why I get into the math side of things.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/JukjoI8C8vY

p.s., When a weight is to the right of the axle, the torque it has decreases the amount of torque lost from the wheel to move it to its OB position.
Why this matters is that the weight is not lifting itself but the wheel is. That's one argument used quite often. And as I mentioned, as the path of the
weight is rotating downward then it's actual vertical lift is decreasing.

[WaltzCee]

When people find out how bad my medical situation has been, they will be shocked. One reason I'm pursuing this is to get my life back.

Heck sir, at the rate you're going, you'll be all healed up & out in the sheep shed before you know it.

.
. .. .. . Oops, he said sheep shed and föcked a sheep. . .. .. .

I might do an unauthorized autobiography on you, gonna to call it, "Pull his Finger, Grandpa Can't Fart"

[UbWe]

When people find out how bad my medical situation has been, they will be shocked. One reason I'm pursuing this is to get my life back.

Heck sir, at the rate you're going, you'll be all healed up & out in the sheep shed before you know it.

.
. .. .. . Oops, he said sheep shed and föcked a sheep. . .. .. .

I might do an unauthorized autobiography on you, gonna to call it, "Pull his Finger, Grandpa Can't Fart"

You should look on the bright side waltzcee, this will allow me to move out of English speaking countries. Then you and your friends can say you just want the"right" people living in your country. All you've done in here since 2007 is troll people. And even John Collins supports you while he hates me. Then again you're both "pure" and don't build.

[WaltzCee]

. .. .. .
You should look on the bright side waltzcee, this will allow me to move out of English speaking countries.
. .. .. .

If you despise English so much, why don't you move out of English speaking forums?

[preoccupied]

So this is the basic way to look at it, I think. You should measure from the center of your weight as the end of the lever and you need to deduct the axle distance from the main axle in orange because it is pushing that much leverage into the weights driving the wheel. You do have overbalanced weights but you need to fully deduct the distance from the axle to the main axle and the lever pushing into it. I don't know if you did this i didn't see you specifically mention it. Could you do a calculation that specifically mentions this for my sake? Because I think this is important for the calculations. Also how are you going to get all levers on the Peacocks tail to activate? It can only touch one lever and then there would have to be a new connection to touch the next lever which you have not drawn. Do you have the connection touching the lever on an oscillating pendulum? If you do this you could probably place the levers on the peacocks tail further away because a pendulum would allow you to have greater gate in the swing.

[UbWe]

ubwe analysis by preoccupied2.png

So this is the basic way to look at it, I think. You should measure from the center of your weight as the end of the lever and you need to deduct the axle distance from the main axle in orange because it is pushing that much leverage into the weights driving the wheel. You do have overbalanced weights but you need to fully deduct the distance from the axle to the main axle and the lever pushing into it. I don't know if you did this i didn't see you specifically mention it. Could you do a calculation that specifically mentions this for my sake? Because I think this is important for the calculations. Also how are you going to get all levers on the Peacocks tail to activate? It can only touch one lever and then there would have to be a new connection to touch the next lever which you have not drawn. Do you have the connection touching the lever on an oscillating pendulum? If you do this you could probably place the levers on the peacocks tail further away because a pendulum would allow you to have greater gate in the swing.

The only reason I ever considered perpetual motion is so I could tell the family I was born into to stay away from me. And now its only purpose is to get out of the U.S. to a non-English speaking country. It's either you're one of them or you're not.

[preoccupied]

I'm not persecuting you UbWe. I'm beginning to think you like the drama. If you go to a non English speaking country if you continue your mindset there you will find conflict there too. You need to find peace within. I give you A LOT of respect for this peacocks tail you've drawn but I don't think you are appreciating my suggestion to improve it using the pendulum. There should be a combination where the levers are long enough that it produces enough extra torque from overbalance to recharge the Pendulum. And because Bessler's wheel drawn from the outside has a pendulum I think this is possibly right along the science behind Bessler's wheel. A peacock's tail like you've drawn and a pendulum to help push it along. So there would be several moving stoppers that grab the peacocks tail and it would push the weight upwards by long levers. If you don't appreciate my thoughts on applications to your own ideas I feel like everybody is trolling me and ignoring my concepts.

[agor95]

... I feel like everybody is trolling me and ignoring my concepts.

That is a common feeling that people are ignoring posts. However can you troll a person by ignoring them.
Is that like shouting at a person with zero volume in a pitch dark room?

Consider if everyone who is registered posted a reply. Then your thread would be a administrative headache.

You have people who find it easy to say 'Won't' this or that.
Rare to find people posting improvements.
Some do post requests for clarifications.

It's best to imagine people are good and are in a supportive state of mind even when they do not post.