Fletcher's Wheel - Ingenuity verses Entropy

[triplock]

Fletcher
If you're happy for me to do so, I can post further on your topic; but as it's not specifically related to your design I can open up a new thread.

Please advise

Chris

PS just to avoid confusion or doubt, I have filed two patent applications that pretty much ring fence my 10 year search conclusions. These have been peer reviewed by two theoretical physisists and deemed possible ( although on one of the patents, friction is a slight concern ).

[Stewart]

MT143 (last picture in the book) - Roberval Balance variation

Just a reminder that the Roberval Balance demonstration apparatus is an unnumbered hand-drawn sketch on the back of 136, and although MT was never a book, the order of the pages collated in the document collection has the toy page as the last in the sequence. We can't be sure of any numbering/ordering after 104, which is where the printed numbers end. After that there are only hand-drawn numbers and we can't be sure they were put there by Bessler. The hand-drawn numbers have even been erased and redrawn in recent times as I've shown from two scans of the document taken at different times.

Wolff examined the Merseburg wheel and seen through a slit a weight contacting a warped / curved / short board, but the drum is covered in canvas.

You can cross of warped and curved as Wolff only mentioned small beams:

"... In fact in the periphery [of the wheel] here and there small normal* beams were attached, which on rotation of the wheel ~it was evident~ were quite clearly perceived to be hit by weights. I have noticed those small beams [while] looking through a crack, although from a distance. ..."

* Wolff refers to the boards as "trabeculae normales" (Latin). 'Trabeculae' is diminutive plural of 'trabs' which means a beam or plank etc., so we get small beams/planks. 'normales' is an adjective (normalis/normale) which means "right angled, made according to a carpenter's square". Wolff is describing small boards at the periphery of the wheel jutting into the wheel at right-angles to the tangent of the wheel. See MT18 for an example of how what he is describing might look.

NB: Wolff had crossed out the words between the ~ symbols

Here's a more detailed previous explanation:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 3533#63533

The Draschwitz wheel sides were covered with light boards, but the Merseburg and Kassel wheels were described as being covered with waxed linen/canvas. It's the Draschwitz wheel that Wolff is describing.

PS... Hmmm...Besslers inventory ….18) Spirit level of special invention.

I wonder whether this item could refer to the invention in a document I found that has Bessler's name on it:

"Description, a newly-invented machine, by means of which all liquids, such as wines, water, oils, alcohol can be most accurately tested and examined on."

Besser's name is on the document as someone to visit to see the invention, although the inventor is named as someone else.

Stewart

[daxwc]

Thanks Stewart, I stand corrected I should have researched more into which wheel Wolff looked at instead of repeating what I read off another thread.

[Fletcher]

Fletcher:

On that note, I will be back to dax soon with where I think the thread to pull is i.e. the mechanical contrivance that breaks a symmetry, I hope.

Yes, I think I know what you are going but am very interested in what you have to say. Obviously I am trying to head your thinking in a different direction.

I will be honest; I don’t wish to kick your baby, but a few things worry me about your present design. Mostly that you will develop force without movement, which will become just stress, not unlike the hydrostatic designs. I think this will be due by not sending the counter torque directly into the axle or RBGS. I do agree with Tarsier79 that the mechanical arrangement needs to be different after the rack and pinion. I think the RBGS might have great potential and the prime mover we are looking for but needs free movement and a feedback system, which would put it back into the area of a motion wheel that needs gravity.

Extreme example, if you wish to spin a carnival wheel with your hand it is easier if you get off it.

On the other hand I am no expert and just getting my head around the RBGS.

Hi dax .. you can kick it as much as you want - it is good to have some response from you guys because I am having to recall things & retrace my steps, & then write them down - some of this stuff is good background but I haven't thought about some of these things in a while - I'm nearly at the end of my presentation so I hope you'll hold off putting the boot in till then ;7)

Lemme say, that I have already given the complete design but I haven't explained in full where I think the 'advantage' is, though it is in plain sight IMO, but a little hard to understand perhaps - perhaps I'll get to that tomorrow.

i.e. a RBGS, a rack & pinion, a flail, & an external wheel rim to gain momentum.

On that note Bessler talks about momentum (linear inertia), force, excess impetus, excess weight, & preponderance - I don't think for a moment that he considered his task in terms of KE or anything we would automatically factor like that.

The one thing that he would have known about & doesn't mention which is therefore conspicuous by its absence IMO is Rotational Inertia (MOI - mr^2) - though he must have known about it because he says flywheels should not be sniffed at, & he draws a spinning top on the toys page.

Back to your point above where you know where I'm going - instinctively most of us arrive at the conclusion that if we could change the MOI of a wheel favourably then a mechanical PMM might be possible - it seems logical to move masses closer to the axle to achieve this but there seems to be always reset problems - you may be surprised at the turn I'm about to take.

N.B. the Centripetal force of the rack/driver is transferred to the rim stop - this force magnitude is dependent on the gearing ratio - usually this is easy to calculate - just gear radius calculations - in the case of the rack & pinion it is really no different - so a large force at the rack over a short distance will equal a smaller force at the rim over a longer distance (Work Energy Equivalence Theorem) - there will be some friction energy losses etc - it doesn't matter whether I use a primary pinion belt connected to a gear closer to the end of the horizontal beam or not - ultimately it is the distance of the arc ratio's - there will be no extra force in terms of work - but then that's not the secret, just a necessary mechanical arrangement, & you guys may be able to design that better.

N.B. it's kinda opposite of my previous center Stator pull mechs in other designs.

[Fletcher]

Fletcher
If you're happy for me to do so, I can post further on your topic; but as it's not specifically related to your design I can open up a new thread.

Please advise

Chris

PS just to avoid confusion or doubt, I have filed two patent applications that pretty much ring fence my 10 year search conclusions. These have been peer reviewed by two theoretical physisists and deemed possible ( although on one of the patents, friction is a slight concern ).

Thanks Chris - I think your own thread would be best - I look forward to reading it.

[triplock]

Fletcher,

In regards to your concept, in simple terms, is it intended that the rotating flail laterally slides back and for the on the RB. In doing so, it engages and disengages with the rim at the rim stops. At the point of engagement, the rotational inertia is transferred to the outer rim.

That transferred momentum then rotates the RB via gearage, thus repeating the cycle ?

If that is the case, then the 'wheel' cannot work.

Or does the heavy sliding mass play a part due to CF ?

Chris

[Fletcher]

MT143 (last picture in the book) - Roberval Balance variation

Just a reminder that the Roberval Balance demonstration apparatus is an unnumbered hand-drawn sketch on the back of 136, and although MT was never a book, the order of the pages collated in the document collection has the toy page as the last in the sequence. We can't be sure of any numbering/ordering after 104, which is where the printed numbers end. After that there are only hand-drawn numbers and we can't be sure they were put there by Bessler. The hand-drawn numbers have even been erased and redrawn in recent times as I've shown from two scans of the document taken at different times.

Stewart

Thanks Stewart - & for providing the background to the Wolff comments - I hadn't forgotten them.

Yes, I also remember your comments about the the drawings in question - I was not to concerned about where they appeared in JC's MT book - that was just coincidental - as long as the provenance for the drawings looks to be Bessler then that will do - although he said he either burned or buried the wood cuts that showed the movement etc I personally think if you added a hand drawn top to the toy's page you might just throw in a couple of loose leafs also, possibly - but not the actual design - JMO's.

[Fletcher]

Fletcher,

In regards to your concept, in simple terms, is it intended that the rotating flail laterally slides back and for the [forth] on the RB. In doing so, it engages and disengages with the rim at the rim stops. At the point of engagement, the rotational inertia is transferred to the outer rim.

That transferred momentum then rotates the RB via gearage, thus repeating the cycle ?

If that is the case, then the 'wheel' cannot work.

Or does the heavy sliding mass play a part due to CF ?

Chris

Chris .. the flail does not transfer rotational inertia - it transfers force - that force is a redirection of Centripetal force at the rack.

There is no gear to rotate the RB.

[triplock]

hmm. Now its getting interesting Fletcher..

back in a bit

[triplock]

Fletcher,

Right, as a standard alone mech, the way you are transferring centripetal force of the out slung large mass , by way of the flail is quite ingenious, and I recognise it as such now.

My concern is that it is a one-shot system, meaning that the very force you are transferring may also act against you. saying that, because the large mass is on a RB, , it makes that countenance very difficult for me to visualise.

just thinking out loud, what I would look at now, is;

try adding a spring to one side of the sliding mass. This would release the weight when centripetal force > spring pressure.

Change the flail for a gear that is engaged with internal teeth on the outer rim at all times.

Add a slip area to the rack to allow the transfer gear to free wheel upon disengagement.

The key is to have smooth engagement and transference of the driver force.

The RB should be translated in to an elliptical planetary gear arrangement.

It is possible to turn off or reduce the centripetal force to the inner mech sliding weight upon transfer.

Fletcher, your proposal does have foundation in my view. I would just start attacking it from different angles now.

Think centripetal gearbox

Chris

[daxwc]

Fletcher:

i.e. a RBGS, a rack & pinion, a flail, & an external wheel rim to gain momentum.

I did not see no external rim with stops in your diagram which is why I suggested it would only create stress. But external rim means you would need a feed back system to turn the RBGS or it would quickly slow down.

The one thing that he would have known about & doesn't mention which is therefore conspicuous by its absence IMO is Rotational Inertia (MOI - mr^2) - though he must have known about it because he says flywheels should not be sniffed at, & he draws a spinning top on the toys page.

I think MOI is shown in MT’s but just has to be recognised as such.

Back to your point above where you know where I'm going

I really should have shut up, where I thought you were going is trying to turn excess force into weight instead of turning excess force to move weight as your other designs have done. I don’t care if you change designs / ideas midstream at least lets pursue avenues.

instinctively most of us arrive at the conclusion that if we could change the MOI of a wheel favourably then a mechanical PMM might be possible - it seems logical to move masses closer to the axle to achieve this but there seems to be always reset problems - you may be surprised at the turn I'm about to take.

No, sorry my question to you on MOI was just me trying feel you out and quite a ways from any concept I am sleeping on.

Hi dax .. you can kick it as much as you want - it is good to have some response from you guys because I am having to recall things & retrace my steps, & then write them down - some of this stuff is good background but I haven't thought about some of these things in a while - I'm nearly at the end of my presentation so I hope you'll hold off putting the boot in till then

No problem, but at the end of the day just ask as I may have a fix (probably just forgot to take something into account), but would change it from being a motion wheel to a CF and gravity wheel .

[triplock]

Fletcher
What you need to device is a planetary gear system with a low speed RB centre , an eliptical path transfer clutch mech and a high speed outer rim.

What I mean by this is that the mid clutched gear needs to have transient speed so that after centripetal force is dumped , it needs to slow down, disengage so that counter forces are reduced.

What you want to achieve is a pumping of the outer drum. A bit like a hand stroking a high speed fly wheel.

It's probably a lot clearer in my strange mind !

[daxwc]

Fletcher:

N.B. the Centripetal force of the rack/driver is transferred to the rim stop - this force magnitude is dependent on the gearing ratio - usually this is easy to calculate - just gear radius calculations - in the case of the rack & pinion it is really no different - so a large force at the rack over a short distance will equal a smaller force at the rim over a longer distance (Work Energy Equivalence Theorem) - there will be some friction energy losses etc - it doesn't matter whether I use a primary pinion belt connected to a gear closer to the end of the horizontal beam or not - ultimately it is the distance of the arc ratio's - there will be no extra force in terms of work

Am I wrong?

[daxwc]

Just had a thought it doesn’t matter which way the RBGS turns… wonder if the counter torque could be used to rotate the RBGS counter clockwise and the rim clockwise the other direction. In theory then counter torque is your feedback system?

[triplock]

If you have a counter clockwise RB and a clockwise outer rim, this will negate the translated centripetal force at the point of contact, meaning it will zero .

The RB and Rim have to turn in the same direction to stand any chance

Chris