Fletcher's Wheel - Ingenuity verses Entropy

[daxwc]

I still wonder if the design is actually inside out right now Fletcher. "The flail wants to be with the thresher" might mean you flail backwards.


Hmmm...Or....So if the slider weights was on the inside of the balanced RBGS instead of the outside and when contact is made the RBGS the real MOI would want to try and speed up providing a pulse of power at the same time and power through. Obvious just where you put your slider weights on each RBGS is going to matter too as well as length of slide.

[daxwc]

Fletcher:

Yeah, I agree Bill - it actually doesn't matter too much if it moves a little - at least not in a force design - the further from center it moves the larger becomes the torque until it self rights

This alone could cause the moving crack in the pillar mentioned by Wagner. And jerky movement which he put the outer pendulums on for?

Not sure how mentally you go from having a working wheel on a pedestal and having to changing that just to deceive.

[daxwc]

Of Wolff.
I was there when Orffyreus invited people to view the machine he built, in order to refute his enemies who had spread word publicly that a fraud was behind it. Gaertner of course, the artisan of Dresden, well-known for his many mechanical inventions, had issued in public a broadsheet with an engraved illustration, in which he claimed disparagingly that Orffyreus moved his machine by an external force, [and] a rope hidden inside the post and led into an adjacent room. To show he was far from any deception of that sort, in the presence of the Prince’s deputies from his court and other guests, and while the machine moved, Orffyreus laid open the adjacent rooms, and after a while he presented the machine for inspection, with the post completely separated. In order that no one should chance to view the internal structure, he took away the internal [parts]; while doing so, he did not disguise that the principal movement depended on weights [ponderibus], for he showed us, to estimate their size, some weights wrapped in a handerkerchief, which were judged to be about 3 pounds [4 libra or 3 avoirdupois pounds]. Doubtless the shape was cylindrical. Not only thence, but from other circumstances, I gather that the weights are affixed by moveable, or rather elastic, arms [brachiis mobidibus, aut potius elasticis]. For in the periphery, in various places, straight [/orthogonal?] struts [trabeculae normales] were affixed, on [/upon/against] which [ad quas], in the turning action of the wheel [circumactione rotae], it was pretty clearly perceived the weights were being knocked [allidi]. I saw those struts peering through a chink, albeit from a distance. When he put the wheel on new posts, with the axle not being particularly covered, and put back the weights that were taken away, something subsided downward [in terram], which sprang back [resiliebat] upwards like a spring [instar elateris], as was evident from the sound emitted. Thus I believe there is no doubt that the wheel is turned from an internal impetus, though it be as yet not evident, or, it might be, perpetual. That the machine will be of more than trifling benefit for human life seems in no way certain, unless it is perfected, because even a weight of 45 pounds it could raise only after this was first reduced to one-fourth with the help of pulleys, whereby the ascent is slowed to that extent. Further, to diminish friction, the iron axle was exceedingly slight, such that the diameter barely equaled 1/5 of an inch [quartam digiti … partem, 1/4 of a pes], indeed it barely equaled 1/8 of an inch [septam eius partem]; . . . the [Signeus? what’s that?] moreover was put assembled from thin beams. tomfleet translation.
http://www.gwlb.de/Leibniz/Leibnizarchi ... enIIIB.pdf

[Fletcher]

Hi Fletcher,

What I could not understand about your design is the use of the RBGs to play the Angular Momentum Game, wherein all experiments that show the advantage of gaining wheel speed by pulling weights in and out are on the horizontal plain, and the RBGs is a gravity game of balancing levers and their torque. I must there for conclude that you meant to use the RBGs on the horizontal plain wherein CF then becomes the greater force on the mechanism, if that is the case then the RBGs would not be the right mechanism and would act as a CF break.

The RBGs only works because, "as one weight raises another weight falls in the field of gravity, with use of CF it has two opposite forces working against each other that act like a CF breaking system, the CF force vectors are all wrong for the RBGs to do its job.

If it was your intention to use the RBGs to play the gravity game then there is a chance of success but not for a out of balance wheel.

In regards to the use of CF for motion wheels, all of the "so called" empirical experiments show that to play against CF to gain wheel speed, there needs to be more energy in than you will get out from a small advantage.

Trevor .. the design is in the vertical plain with a horizontal axle - it is not a gravity wheel but there is an artificial horizon - the sliding rack/driver is mounted on a horizontally aligned beam on the end of the RBGS - it is latched in position & this latch experiences Centripetal forces, else the rack would have tangential inertia - when the latch is released the rack moves outwards a marginal distance due to inertia - the racks horizontal speed is very low because it is impeded by the flail contact with the rim stop - IOW's the flail in contact with the rim stop board provides the Cpf's after latch release - the rotating portion of the design is weight balanced at all times - it is imagined that it has imbalance thru force imbalance rather than traditional & well tried weight force imbalance approaches which are often called gravity wheels.


..............

dax .. you are going to have to draw pictures for me to understand your reversal ideas etc.

[Fletcher]

Ok Trevor ...

Thought perhaps I'd better clarify the theory some more - in my previous posts to Triplock I attempted to explain the concept from two different viewpoints - I'll briefly cover them again.

1. Force imbalance turns the wheel.

As per previous post description - the latch has Cpf's - they do nothing other than hold the rack in position - the rack is released - inertia or Cf's wants to move the rack outwards - this is impeded by Cpf's supplied by the flail rack geared connection in contact with the rim stop board.

It is imagined that there is a net CW torque on the wheel while the flail is in contact with the rim board.

2. Following the energy trail for excess momentum & energy.

As per previous post description - the wheel has a starting rpm - the rack has KE dependent on its velocity - the latch releases - the racks inertia (momentum) causes it to migrate outwards - its velocity is impeded by the flail rack connection etc - the work done by the rack is the lost component of the momentum & velocity vectors - the flail does work on the rim stop in equal amounts.

It is imagined that there is a net CW torque on the wheel while the flail is in contact with the rim board.

This is because the act of the rack moving outwards on the beam does not carry an MOI penalty as per normal mechanisms.

[daxwc]

Hmmm...Or....So if the slider weights was on the inside of the balanced RBGS instead of the outside and when contact is made the RBGS the real MOI would want to try and speed up providing a pulse of power at the same time and power through. Obvious just where you put your slider weights on each RBGS is going to matter too as well as length of slide.

There was two reverse ideas there, this is the first on placing weight on other side of gear. Flail is not included but it would just reach around gear. On contact of flail MOI would try to speed wheel up. (Flail system not in picture)

[daxwc]

I should clarify in this diagram the flail has to hit and leverage early ... not long after the driver/slider starts to move. It is a wash by the time it gets to the end of its stroke at least for the MOI trying to speed and power through.

[Dunesbury]

Dunesbury .. that quote had me scratching my head for ages - I kept coming back to artificial horizons then abandoning them precisely because of that quote - eventually I decided that not all things said by Bessler should be taken as the literal truth - he did not pull up Wagner for using one when he should have been all over him & taunting him if his definitely did not, as he would have us suppose - I decided there was a good possibility his did, no matter how he worded it.

"by making the true claim - that no weights hang from the axle of my wheel." - pg 281
"In a true Perpetuum Mobile everything must, necessarily, go round together. There can be nothing involved in it which remains stationary on the axle." - pg 361

Those are two quotes that relate to artificial horizon.
I don't see way around it!

Maybe he didn't think it necessary to be all over Wagner for using one because these statements were enough to point it out for everyone.

If he used one, then he wasn't telling truth about his wheel, IMO. If we let this one pass, what other statements must we decide should not be taken as literal truth?

I don't know.

[Fletcher]

Some assume he is less than truthful about everything he says - that's because he doesn't want to give away his secret's.

Others assume he is 100% truthful at all times.

Others like me, assume he is mostly truthful but not afraid to bend the truth to suit his purposes - normal people do this every day.

It didn't seem to worry him in MT13 & others, didn't get any negative press.

I can't imagine him giving Wagner a free pass when he scorched earth everything else he said.

I can't think of another way but perhaps he could.

Any device with a Roberval Balance needs an anchor point - if there is no anchor point then a RB can't be used.

This thread is called Fletcher's Wheel, & not ideas about Bessler's Wheel ;7)

[ovyyus]

I agree, Fletcher. To assume Bessler was literally truthful in everything he said and wrote might be a mistake. Everybody lies, and especially easy with an enemy. Of course that doesn't mean everything he said was a lie but, as Dunesbury asks, where do you draw the line? I think Bessler may have told fibs and misdirected with some of the details, but I also think he honestly believed his wheel was a 'true PM' ie, he didn't cheat.

Obviously not relevant to Fletcher's Wheel :D

[FunWithGravity2]

Its good sport to find possible correlations with a project that we feel might be what was intended to be shown by Bessler, and i find most here as Fletcher has done usually preface any asssumption brought forward as "This might be what Besler meant........". Members with any lenght of time here have realized that arguing over 300 year old hypotheticals reinforced with questionable translation is just a way to gut punch a fellow researcher when not happy with progress. I fall into the camp of believing that Bessler was mostly truthful but had no problem using vague analogy that may only be seen his way with knowledge on the conclusion. He was definately being deceptive IMHO.

I think we are all working on our OWN wheel designs and that we are always inspired and intigued by the Bessler story but to "hunt" specifically for the "Bessler" wheel without going on the mechanical discovery adventure that he wanted would not result in success. To hold our design up and scream sucess or to BooHoo anothers based on relevance to our interpretation of clues is ludacris.

BTW, im sure ive done it also at some point. :(


Crazy Dave

[triplock]

@all

Two comments struck me immediately whilst just returning to this topic today;

Fletcher Wrote:

'it just doesn't seem possible to achieve imbalance while EVERYTHING moves around. '

It is possible. You'll have to accept that at face value (or not as the case maybe).

Trevor, who was once subject to a lot of ridicule, wrote:

What I could not understand about your design is the use of the RBGs to play the Angular Momentum Game, wherein all experiments that show the advantage of gaining wheel speed by pulling weights in and out are on the horizontal plain, and the RBGs is a gravity game of balancing levers and their torque. I must there for conclude that you meant to use the RBGs on the horizontal plain wherein CF then becomes the greater force on the mechanism, if that is the case then the RBGs would not be the right mechanism and would act as a CF break.

The RBGs only works because, "as one weight raises another weight falls in the field of gravity, with use of CF it has two opposite forces working against each other that act like a CF breaking system, the CF force vectors are all wrong for the RBGs to do its job.

If it was your intention to use the RBGs to play the gravity game then there is a chance of success but not for a out of balance wheel.

In regards to the use of CF for motion wheels, all of the "so called" empirical experiments show that to play against CF to gain wheel speed, there needs to be more energy in than you will get out from a small advantage.

Trevor is correct.

Chris

[Dunesbury]

This thread is called Fletcher's Wheel, & not ideas about Bessler's Wheel ;7)

Absolutely.


If RB needs ground to push against, does it have to hang down from axle? Couldn't you make it so it turned with axle, and still provide ground for RB to push against?

Also, could you explain why it is RB doesn't carry "moment of inertia penalty" other mechanisms do. I am having trouble seeing how flail weight, RB/ rack/ pinion mechanism has same MOI from wheel's frame of reference.

[daxwc]

Fletcher this sim had me bamboozled for a while till I realized the rim is not free of the wheel and that is why the RBGS has rotated downward. If the rim and stop was independent of the wheel like your wheel proposal then the RBGS would have back torqued due to the counterweight. The RBGS will back torque till the string is tight again. The back torque after the load is dropped is why your wheel needs a feedback system to turn the RBGS. Enough CF might provide enough power to do both.

[daxwc]

Fletcher:
Quote:
Dax .. I've struggled to come up with another way where the axle turns with the wheel - it's so much easier to just have the stator pinned (grounded) to the upstand support, but then if you did that it would quickly give away a valuable lead - if the axle turns then nothing concrete is known as he wanted - he was a clock maker after all & even Wagner's wheel had a hanging gear mechanism - AFAIK all designs need an anchor point of some sort i.e. something to push against.

Fletcher can we pin to the wheel .... if we pin (ground) 4 separate RBGS to the wheel then the wheel is turned by the RBGS that is finding its real MOI.

I think this will get rid of the need of the artificial horizon.

Now what will happen when one RBGS becomes unbalanced and the other looks for its horizon?