Fletcher's Wheel - Ingenuity verses Entropy

[ruggerodk]

I think he is essentially saying that form & essence are the same thing.

But the physical characteristics (the arrangement) of the mechanics employed in a true PM wheel is the 'material accident' (the principle) which is the formal cause (the reason) that the true PM wheel works, & others do not.

In the same way that a sphere is the form & the essence.

But the physical characteristics of each spheres material makeup is inherent or innate to that material & is the cause of why they behave differently.

Perhaps we could say, that CF (Centrifugal Force) exist through one form only: The circle ...?
It's not the form of the object that matters (a triangle can be put in orbit too), it's the form of a movement ....changing from maybe linear to circular, or the object falling straight down that changes to a circular or pendular form of movement.
Anyway, it's not the physical characteristics of the sphere but of the result by the circular movement of that sphere.

Just a thought
regards
Ruggero ;-)

[rlortie]

Fletcher,

I do not believe that the discerning minds were interested in spending more time with your thread started November 16 2012.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... highlight=

Although obviously not Bessler's, as cracks exposing warped or elongated boards would never hold Newtonian fluid.

Moving, displacing, mass on a molecular level does have some advantages over solid cylindrical weights. Fluids do not loose Pe by finding their keel point, they seek their own level be it above or below the center of axis or horizon.

IMO the answer is not in buoyancy but rather displacement which you very well covered in your topic. IMO you did not spend enough time on the works of two famous mathematicians and phylosophers.

The pascal (symbol: Pa) the SI derived unit of pressure, internal pressure, stress, Young's modulus and tensile strength, defined as one newton per square metre.[1] Pressure is a measure of force per unit area. It is named after the French mathematician, physicist, inventor, writer, and philosopher Blaise Pascal.

Daniel Bernoulli.

His earliest mathematical work was the Exercitationes (Mathematical Exercises), published in 1724 with the help of Goldbach. Two years later he pointed out for the first time the frequent desirability of resolving a compound motion into motions of translation and motion of rotation. His chief work is Hydrodynamica, published in 1738; it resembles Joseph Louis Lagrange's Mécanique Analytique in being arranged so that all the results are consequences of a single principle, namely, conservation of energy. This was followed by a memoir on the theory of the tides, to which, conjointly with the memoirs by Euler and Colin Maclaurin, a prize was awarded by the French Academy: these three memoirs contain all that was done on this subject between the publication of Isaac Newton's Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica and the investigations of Pierre-Simon Laplace. Bernoulli also wrote a large number of papers on various mechanical questions, especially on problems connected with vibrating strings, and the solutions given by Brook Taylor and by Jean le Rond d'Alembert.[3]

Together Bernoulli and Euler tried to discover more about the flow of fluids. In particular, they wanted to know about the relationship between the speed at which blood flows and its pressure. To investigate this, Daniel experimented by puncturing the wall of a pipe with a small open ended straw and noted that the height to which the fluid rose up the straw was related to fluid's pressure in the pipe.[8]

Soon physicians all over Europe were measuring patients' blood pressure by sticking point-ended glass tubes directly into their arteries. It was not until about 170 years later, in 1896 that an Italian doctor discovered a less painful method which is still in use today. However, Bernoulli's method of measuring pressure is still used today in modern aircraft to measure the speed of the air passing the plane; that is its air speed.

Taking his discoveries further, Daniel Bernoulli now returned to his earlier work on Conservation of Energy. It was known that a moving body exchanges its kinetic energy for potential energy when it gains height. Daniel realised that in a similar way, a moving fluid exchanges its kinetic energy for pressure. Mathematically this law is now written:

\tfrac12 \rho u^2 + P = \text{constant}

where P is pressure, ρ is the density of the fluid and u is its velocity. A consequence of this law is that if the velocity increases then the pressure falls. This is exploited by the wing of an aeroplane which is designed to create an area above its surface where the air velocity increases. The pressure in this area is lower than that under the wing, so the wing is pushed upwards by the relatively higher pressure under the wing.

My point being: If the outer half (radius)of a 3.6576m drum is filled with water and a substantial amount of impellers are installed keeping the fluid turning with the drum, how will this effect the head pressure which when static would be 5.2 lb,**2 at the bottom or keel point?

Ralph

[Fletcher]

Fletcher,

I do not believe that the discerning minds were interested in spending more time with your thread started November 16 2012.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... highlight=

I do not know Ralph - I think pointing them there without any meat on the bones from you will not get a response, if you were looking for one.

Although obviously not Bessler's, as cracks exposing warped or elongated boards would never hold Newtonian fluid.

FYI Ralph .. I'm sure this has been covered many times but here goes - the correct translation by Stewart IIRC was short boards at right angles to the circumference seen thru butt joins in the covering planks.

As you point out rim boards were for a purpose & not likely to contain fluids.

Moving, displacing, mass on a molecular level does have some advantages over solid cylindrical weights. Yes, though a mass is a mass because you could have cylinders filled with a high density fluid such as mercury etc. Fluids do not loose Pe by finding their keel point, they seek their own level be it above or below the center of axis or horizon. Without you divulging your principle it is hard to comment constructively - fluids have no shearing moment which allows them to settle or find their own level - IMO this means its position of least PE but obviously you have a different context in mind.

IMO the answer is not in buoyancy but rather displacement which you very well covered in your topic. IMO you did not spend enough time on the works of two famous mathematicians and phylosophers. Perhaps not, other than to note Bernoulli's concern's about CoE predicating his investigations.

Taking his discoveries further, Daniel Bernoulli now returned to his earlier work on Conservation of Energy. It was known that a moving body exchanges its kinetic energy for potential energy when it gains height. Daniel realised that in a similar way, a moving fluid exchanges its kinetic energy for pressure.

My point being: If the outer half (radius)of a 3.6576m drum is filled with water and a substantial amount of impellers are installed keeping the fluid turning with the drum, how will this effect the head pressure which when static would be 5.2 lb,**2 at the bottom or keel point?

That would take some thinking about & working thru carefully Ralph - since fluids are virtually incompressible then I imagine that Cf's (inertial forces) don't have a big part to play - IINM the diameter is set therefore the height of fluid (& pressure at bdc i.e. force) is determined by vertical height - however if you start with a half filled chamber to axle height & spin it up so that Cf's cause the fluid to rise up & flatten in thickness so all points of the circumference are covered then that would double the height of fluid & double the pressure - obviously that's not all you have in mind.

Ralph

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Fletcher,

Of course, I can not factor the 'finger in ears reaction' which is also a human condition, especially for those heavily invested in TWFH ideology.

I would not call it Ideology, more a mistake that people keep running into, and end up with a fatal lift against gravity. Not unlike trying to use CF wherein you end up with a fatal pull inward against CF. Like I asked you before, what RPM do you expect to rotate your system? The reason for this question was to try and understand what forces your RBGs would encounter at the speed in which the device would spin before you could use CF to move your weights outward.

My main concern was the increase in friction on the gearing when the weights were being pulled back inwards and outwards as the CF outward pull would be pulling the levers apart, and not in the same direction as with Gravity. This is Just a thought, when I run a sim in my mind.

[Fletcher]

I would not call it Ideology, more a mistake that people keep running into, and end up with a fatal lift against gravity. Not unlike trying to use CF wherein you end up with a fatal pull inward against CF.

Hi Trevor .. yes, it is a mistake IMO also, but when you are bereft of alternatives it's the 'go to' - Cf's are problematic IF there is no reset method, like the hangar & batteries experiment, IMO.

Like I asked you before, what RPM do you expect to rotate your system?

The reason for this question was to try and understand what forces your RBGs would encounter at the speed in which the device would spin before you could use CF to move your weights outward.

Like I said before Trevor that's difficult to answer or predict without experimentation - that's because a single mechanism like I showed would turn very slowly because it drives thru approximately a 1/4 arc only on the down-going side - after that it is in coast mode - so frictions would deplete the momentum slowly - IF however there is additional momentum & RKE given to the wheel system than the energy cost of producing that force then this is not a great problem.

The more mechanisms it has the faster it turns - if there are overlapping or butting mechanisms so that at least one mech is always driving at right angles to the axle then it will accelerate until it reaches a resonance speed - that speed will likely be dictated by lag of the rack in particular - because each cycle it must move a short distance to the right after 12 o'cl, then return to the left after 6 o'cl - it has to overcome the inertia of the low mass flail & of course the speed the flail can accelerate the wheel proper by applying force to the rim stop also dictates that transition speed of the rack in that phase.

Lastly, while Cp's = mv^2/r (force in Newtons) we are really using the inertial forces of the rack moving outwards - traditionally this is viewed as the reduction in Energy from moving to a greater radius, albeit a small radius change indeed (as per the hangar & batteries experiments).

This means you have to give the wheel system activation energy to start it rotating, then the rack energy will be determined by its speed, whatever that is - if the push is too small little force is transmitted by the flail, & if you have only one mech then frictional losses will stop it before it completes a cycle.

My main concern was the increase in friction on the gearing when the weights were being pulled back inwards and outwards as the CF outward pull would be pulling the levers apart, and not in the same direction as with Gravity. This is Just a thought, when I run a sim in my mind.

I think this is the disconnect Trevor - the rack always moves outwards to a greater radius (never inwards to a closer radius), specifically because of the RBGS influence & the offset to axle track (eccentric circle oo) the beam takes - this means there is a reset each cycle where the rack moves to a greater radius, albeit a very small change indeed - so we don't ever have to supply energy to push the rack inwards to a closer radius against Cf's.

The frictional forces will be what they will be, & can be minimised by good engineering - they are not significant if multiple mechs are used as I explained before.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Fletcher,

I do not see how the contact with the outside of the rim can apply much force because of the anti jam movement needed will not allow it, the geared lever arm, rack and the rim stop will have a timing issue, it maybe better to have a spring loaded stop as the counter jam so the force can be transmitted through the spring onto the rim. I also do not see that there could be enough CF force without being problematic else where.

If you use a pair to make the RBGs and have 2 counter weights then you just end up with the same problem you have with the RBGs that we all know, only with 2 flywheel weights.

So that only leave half a RBG which will act to lever the wheel around to the lowest point and it is hoped that the counter weight will become the drive weight at the correct time, it would be difficult to get the counter weight just right to allow this, and is also subject to how much weight of the lever arm is grounded on the center static gear, and will the leverage force on the lever gear feel any different on its pivot regardless of it distance in relation to the wheel center.

Like I said earlier I will be building all the parts needed to build your design but without the rack for a Geo Genny experiment, and I will try it out before adding my generators. (Edit, I could link the lever arm to the rim via a spring in the optimum position to see if it would have the desired affect of the rack. I will contact you by skype when I have it built, so you can see it, so you will have a chance to put forward any changes that may be needed, it may take a while before I get the time though.)

Forgive my negative input it is just how I see it, I have been seduced many time before and can only put forward my opinion of how I think it will act.

When you trace out the counter weight movement and compare it the the lever weight movement it does look good, but then again so does the known RBGs.

[Fletcher]

Sincerely Trevor .. I haven't a clue what you are talking about - it must be some engineering terms.

I could dissect your post & answer parts of it but we appear on completely different wavelengths, to me at least.

By way of a shortish answer in response there is only one RBGS & one Counter Weight of equal mass on the opposite side of the spar - this is the simplest representation, of a single mech - you could have two RBGS's on each each end of the spar, providing the opposing mechs were of equal mass etc - then you could have multiple mechs of single RBGS with CWt or dual RBGS's etc.

In each & every case there is a center stator gear - to this is connected ONE artificial horizon that keeps its vertical orientation because it is massive & hanging down - this serves the same purpose as the upstand in a regular RB.

Geared to the stator along the spar is a pivoted mid gear & then at the spar end a third outer gear - these are linked by chain or belt - the gear ratios are 1:1 so that as the mid gear rotates so many degrees the outer rotates the same degrees the other direction - this arrangement keeps the horizontally aligned beam or platform horizontal at all times.

To the beam is attached a sliding rack, which can be massive - it moves a very short distance due to inertia when the angle between the beam & the spar is greater than 90 degrees, effectively allowing it to move to a slightly greater radius or orbit distance from the axle, on the down-going side - on the up-going side it will be closer to the axle than otherwise & once again inertia allows it to move to a greater orbit from the axle than its previous position, & this is the reset.

This inertial force from the rack run thru the pinion gear connected to a balanced flail causes a force to be applied to the rim stop while they are in contact - there needs to be some catch & release mechanism to allow the rack to move outwards at the appropriate time else it could move to soon & the flail will miss the rim stop.

The whole thing does not change PE at any time - it simply uses inertial forces to cause a rim down-going force on the rim stop - and due to the specifics of a RBGS we get an effective CG shift which causes rotation because forces are not in equilibrium, so torque is present.

I'll think about making some more pics but honestly I think I've done that pretty well already - if you want me to understand what you are saying please put up some labelled pics so I can follow your arguments clearly - maybe you can alter my pics that I represent again.

Cheers.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Fletcher,

My mistake "sorry" I was seeing the flail assembly acting as the weighted lever on the Known RBGs, ignore my last posts

Once again I apologize.

Edit, + Acting.
Edit, you may want to figure of 8 your chain or belt linkage.

[Fletcher]

Yes, I thought about the figure of eight Trevor but in sim world you need the intermediary gear.

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

When I said previously Fletcher's RBGS was close but still far away, I meant it in the regard that the use of the Roberval Balance was significant but the sliding mass and flail add on was too linear an action as it just took you down the energy usage slope to zero.

Yeah, that's a potential problem that I haven't got my head completely around - there are so many variables to consider, which in one way is also good as it leaves some room for doubt that I can't analyse it correctly or even accurately - so far I've found it quite difficult to quantify all that's going on & I continue to look for ways to simplify even further.

For example in this completely hypothetical example a rack of 2kg traveling at 10m/s is released on the beam at 12 o'cl - it travels 5cm horizontally over a quarter turn - usually defaulting to CoE you'd just calculate the KE loss of stopping at a greater orbit - i.e. 1 meter to 1.05 meters means 100J / 1.05 = 95J or forward component remaining after shift, so 5J available to use elsewhere - then we know from the Work Energy Theorem that J = F x D so 5J converts in Force as 5J / 0.05m = 100N's - let's say the flail travels a distance of 1 meter therefore 5J / 1m = 5N's at the rim - check: 100 x 0.05 = 5 x 1.

We know there will be an equal & opposite reaction to the applied rim force at the RBGS outer gear position, also of 5N - since this reaction force is in the opposite direction at half the radial distance from the axle then it is equivalent to applying 2.5N at the rim position - so 5N down is opposed by 2.5N up, giving at NET down force of 2.5N for 1 meter approximately.

This doesn't appear to stack because we lost 5J from the rack shift & apparently gain back 2.5J which is not enough in CoE terms. N.B. these are all very quick & dirty figures.

Yet, I don't feel at all confident that I've captured what's going on accurately or even closely - hence why this is an idea based on a hunch.

N.B. All I did here was use circular logic of applying CoE Law to find I come up short as per all other mechanical devices that use leverage - but is that really the case & the right way to analyse it ?

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Fletcher,

I much preferred your weight on a string hanging off a lever or arm and a shallow elongated bucket to catch the weight on the rim angled sloping outward for the weight to slide down it outward, if I have it right the weight should enter the bucket as the arm moves outward and then it should start to lift out of the bucket when the arm starts to move inward, there would still be no overall drop in height compered to the course it would have traveled, if anything it would be gaining height when the weight is in the bucket compered to its travel without its bucket. I do not like the balanced flail, because I cannot see its weight coming off its pivot, and there is too much different in movement between the rim stop and the flail for a catch and the catch timing as will.

I think you had it right earlier in this thread with the weight on a variable length (string or pivoting arms and a weighted wheel).

It may be better to just make the gears bigger and forget the chain because you have a counter weight anyway. just some thoughts I had on your design.

[Fletcher]

Trevor .. meshed gears are always an option coz they do the same job as gears connected by chain etc.

While the hanging weight option looks good & is very familiar I always ran into problems with it, else I would have stuck with that simple approach.

That doesn't mean you or someone else couldn't get it to work !

The problem I faced was in order for the weight to sit in the cup it had to be lifted i.e. given PE, then it caused weight imbalance & rotation, but in sim world the RKE of the wheel gained was never greater than the PE given externally to lift the weight into position for the cup or rim board to receive.

I tried many different ways including swinging & scissor extensions etc - in each case the weight had to run up the ramp which was the cup or rim board - my experience doesn't mean you can't figure out a method though.

[daxwc]

Just an observation Fletcher, but the ratio of gears in Bessler’s header could be set up for a RBGS, although it looks like they would have to engage the annular gear (outside ring) and all meshed together. Not sure of course, whether the person who made the header had any idea vaguely what Bessler was working with?

PS, Opp's sorry I lied I see they will not keep face because the ratio is 2 to 1, still it is interesting.

[Fletcher]

Yeah, it is interesting dax - all these things I have floating around in back of mind which is probably why I like the RBGS so much.

Also, whatever Bessler's solution was, it was simple - he knew about force & momentum - not energy & CoE Law, so wasn't mentally constrained by it - he wouldn't dream of analysing a machine by circular logic because very obviously in the example I gave earlier 100J start - 95J remaining = 5J to use ; the answer is always going to be less than the original 100J - stop right there & don't go on !

Then there is the MOI contribution we talked about not factored.

Also, Bessler says very clearly ... that parts come together, one against another, never to find equilibrium or PQ, & there are multiple parts acting in succession to keep it out of CG.

" ... these weights ... are the essential parts, and constitute the perpetual motion itself; since from them is received the universal movement which they must exercise so long as they remain out of the centre of gravity; and when they come to be placed together, and so arranged one against another that they can never obtain equilibrium, or the punctum quietus which they unceasingly seek .., one or other of them must apply its weight at right angles to the axis, which in its turn must also move."

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Fletcher,

I think it is time to model it by manually putting the weight in the cup or board to see what energy you have to play with, then design what you need to cup the weight, because if it does not work due to other problems there is no point spending time and effort racking your brains on the weight and cup assembly that may not be the main problem.

[Fletcher]

ohh .. it works alright Trevor - it shifts the CG because there is a weight imbalance wrt to law of levers & this causes torque & rotation.