Re: gravity Wheel


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Bessler Discussion Board ] [ FAQ ] [ Back to BesslerWheel.com ]

Posted by Christopher (24.95.234.104) on May 01, 2002 at 22:02:42:

In Reply to: gravity Wheel posted by Jan Rutkowski on May 01, 2002 at 08:31:49:

Jan,

First let me assure you that I'm not a skeptic. I follow many of these lists, most under lokka, dhoule, or dhoule11, and many know that I am currently working on a design of my own, which also utilizes both stationary and rotational components. I don't have any trouble changing my mind from the "impossible" to the "possible."

I'm not trying to attack your work, I'm simply trying to point out the things that look like problems in an attempt to help. I also see that you've added quite a bit since the last time I viewed your page, so it's not really fair to say I made judgements incorrectly, all those other images weren't published at the time I originally viewed your site.

With that being said, I must admit that I find it a little hard to believe that you have a working model and the device will run indefinitely on its own, especially since you say it stops under any load. I would guess that you have a fairly well balanced device but if left alone will eventually stop.

I have taken another rather long look at your drawings and descriptions and would like to offer a more detailed explanation as to why I think I see problems. Hopefully it will help you with your future designs. It is truly my goal to help.

There are quite a few things that appear to be wrong with the first few images on the page such as...

- You've drawn some things incorrectly, for instance, gw1.gif "power of one orffyreus paradox, drawing nr 2" has too many balls and therefore an incorrectly drawn "nest" path.

- You've Forgotten to include some basic physics, for instance vertical acceleration of the ball stack when the "one" ball raises it, and true torque measurements (the "one" ball does not push down with 100% of it's potential torque until it's at the same horizontal level as the fulcrum, when the force of the mass pushes perpedicular to the moment arm. Before that it only presses down with small fractions of torque.)

- You've used incorrect measurements in your formulas - for instance saying that the balls are one unit from the center, when the center of gravity of the ball stack is actually .5 units from the center. In some places you used the right numbers but in other places you didn't.

I am assuming that you have revised the design since these first drawings so I will only fully address your later designs and basic theory...

Problem: "Balance and Moment Arms"
You talk about the lighter "one" ball lifting the heavier ball stack because it's much farther away from the center and so a smaller weight can lift a larger weight. That's true, but only when the "one" ball is at a horizontal position and the weight's force is applied perpendicular to the moment arm. When the top ball first enters the nest it is up high in the air but it has no X offset. It's directly above or only slightly to one side of center so it produces little or no torque at all. A single ball in that position can't lift the heavier ball stack which pushes down with equal torque at all times (the ball stack does not move closer or farther from the center like the "one" ball does so it provides a constant counter torque.) All your drawings show the "one" ball balancing the ball stack in a horizontal position, you never show or calculate the "one" ball trying to balance the ball stack when the "one" ball has only just entered the nest.

Problem: "Centrifugal Force"
As the wheel spins the 1 ball will experience centrifugal force which will push it outwards once you develop any kind of productive RPMs. This means that the 1 ball will pause when it leaves the nest and ultimately take longer to roll down the incline back towards the ball stack. This leads to the next problem...

Problem: "Acceleration and Angular Velocity"
Friction removed... A 1 kg ball will accelerate down a 2-4% incline at 34-68 cm/s/s. If the ball needs to travel 40 centimeters to get to the bottom of the ball stack it will take it between 1.5 and 1.1 seconds at that acceleration rate. The ball needs to be under the ball stack before the stack starts to rise again. Assuming design you have added a second ball stack so that the rocker raises one ball stack or the other every 180 degrees but that's still 2 balls too few each revolution.

Problem: "Inclines"
A less obvious error is that when the wheel moves the crank pin, which tips the rocking counterweight, the counterweight will be rocking uphill, up an incline. Basically the bottom of the rocker is like the bottom of a ball rolling up a tilted seesaw and the way you've designed it the ball must roll uphill to it's maximum point of travel where it gets far enough away and therefore heavy enough to drop that side of the seesaw. After that, when that side of the seesaw is at the bottom on that side the rocker must again roll uphill to get back to the starting position. You have not included the energy needed to roll your rocker up the incline in any of your calculations.

Problem: "Stack Height"
The last error I found actually confused me because it's so obvious that I thought I must have misunderstood or misread something. You have, in your final 2 drawings, four or five balls in each ball stack and have carefully calculated how everything overbalances just enough to get the job done... but for the wheel to work you must get the balls to the TOP of the wheel which means you need to have TEN balls in each ball stack to reach the proper height of the top of the wheel, not five. If you added that many balls to the stacks you would double the weight of the stacks and therefore you would need to double the weight of the rocker and since you are rocking more weight uphill... And if you are counting on the weight of the left ball stack to help lift the right ball stack then the left stack would need to be in contact with the left side of the seesaw, but your blocking pins get in the way and won't allow that so all work must be done by the rocker.

Jan, I'm sorry if this sounds very critical, like I'm tearing your ideas apart, I really don't mean to do that. It's just that there are a great many errors in your designs and calculations and based on what you've published this doesn't look like it will work. Maybe you've done more designs than you've published on the web site, maybe you've fixed some of the things I've listed here but haven't made them public yet, I don't know, but based on what you've described you unfortunately don't appear to have a working design. I think you have an ingenious idea and it is certainly a PM design that should go into the PM Hall Of Fame, however, I do not think this was Bessler's real "secret."

Christopher

: Dear Mr. Christopher !
: In Reply to Gravity Wheel on March 12 2002.

: There is no problem with Rutkowski design .
: Wheels are turning 10-15 times per minute , only problem is that they stop under any load .
: I would like to explain a bit of theory and practical behavior in my gravity wheel .
: I think you did not go to extend of reading that theory to the end . Seeing just one drawing you form your opinion.
: Is very difficult to change the way people thinking from impossible to possible .
: Please understand I do not tray to balance any ball with one ball.
: That one ball is always of balance to the rest of them and that rest of them can be any number that is from division of the radius . Please do an experiment, take a seesaw , ruler and balance in the centre , one arm divaded in to equal parts by placing coins on it , now one coin left on the far end is havier to the coins stack just after center , and when seesaw arm is free to move you achieve motion, one down and the rest up.
: Your statement that it would not rise as high, is misleading because it will gain more height when we use scissors like liver.
: Everythink you can tray by your self and you will find out that physics is telling only 1/2 through and is very silence to the 1/2 in motion.
: Next comment about balls or wheels you stated that wheels or balls could not roll uphill.
: YES ! they do ! Under heavy load ,thay travel uphill with the load on the top of it and that is achiev


Follow Ups:



Post a Followup

Name:
E-Mail:
Subject:
Comments:
(Archived Message)


[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Bessler Discussion Board ] [ FAQ ] [ Back to BesslerWheel.com ]