POLL: Does the Weight Rest after Impact?

[Michael]

Dawxc, if you have a spring to absorb the impact the blow is no longer heavy.

[daxwc]

True, but then would impact be the driving force.

[Fletcher]

Hmm...

Interesting Fletcher, you know I have never seen real force displayed in any of my wheels except centripetally, impact was never an issue centrifugally.

Almost no clatter and rattle was to be heard with the Draschwitz wheel; the wheel was made up of 8 spokes and was completely empty near the circumference, as one could see through the various cracks in the casing made of thin splinters [[ planks ]], but there was not the slightest trace of a rising and falling weight to be heard or seen

.

MT[52] Quote,

... Here I will say only this much: no wheel is moved by heavy blows, which are more likely to dash the paddles of the wheel into a 1000 pieces, as though with bullets. No further explanation is necessary.

The above Bessler reference accompanies Mt52.

Here dax I suggest you read critically & carefully - no wheel is moved by heavy blows - 'heavy' is an adjective & a qualifier to the statement i.e. it makes the statement true, or false, if no heavy blows are involved.

This does not mean that wheels cannot be moved by blows, just not heavy ones, which would break up a paddle & wheel, & besides, make such a din as to be unbearable.

So the blows must be cushioned so that it is more of an impulse rather than an impact [elastic collision rather than inelastic].

But this does not prove it was an impact wheel [primary motivation], just that impacts were at least a likely & reasonably noisy by-product of falling or swinging levers & weights - as I said earlier I feel it likely that it was a combination shifted CoM for each falling lever [general OOB principle] & residual impact by-product so as to not waste Ke in direction of rotation, at least in some wheel designs.

EDIT: later Bessler dispensed with the felt coverings, he said, so the weights or levers were apparently potentially arriving quite slowly - the only way I know how to do that is shift a sliding weight outwards along the lever as it falls or swings which slows the velocity due to conservation of angular momentum & would also satisfy the OOB requirement - they would need to be spring loaded to return to a closer radius later.

Others may have been super accelerated arriving with greater Ke but also cushioned impact.

Of course, this immediately throws up speculative thoughts of very real Cf's & Cp forces as a prime candidate [as per perhaps Mt20 suggests ?] as the 'source of the prime mover force' that most of us have visited at one time or another - few have been able to successfully tame the beast though.

[daxwc]

The way I see it is if a spring is used it is driven by weight. If the wheel is driven by impact, you then want the maximium in energy transfer. Do you really want the impact wasted in recoil of the spring.

Herr Wagner says that my machine does not, under any
circumstances, derive its motive force from the noisy weights. In
other words, he declares that the mechanism that causes all the
clattering (which was commented on earlier and which was noted
by so many people) is not, in fact, the thing which causes the
rotation of my Wheel.
339
The clattering noise you refer to is, I assure you, a phenomenon
caused directly by the real motive power of the machine, and
nothing else. You also wish me to inform you why the Draschwitz
machine did not create a similar noise; well, I'll tell you. The two
machines can easily be contrasted, as they worked on quite
different principles. The former (Draschwitz) one turned in only
one direction, but the latter (Merseburg ) one turned, as everyone
could see, both ways. The former was provided with felt
coverings, but the latter was as bare as a bald head. I have many
other machines of various types - some, for instance, with
weights, others without. Your questions are extremely irritating.
Why don't you get your wheel moving? Till then, shut up.

pg 344 AP

Hard to get an impact driven wheel moving without weights!

http://www.free-energy.co.uk/

[Fletcher]

"No. 15: This ratchet-wheel derives from the previous model, except that the tensions are somewhat longer and have an additional special weight at the external ends. From this drawing alone, however, nothing of the prime mover's source can be seen or deduced although the figure shows the superior weight."

- Johann Bessler

Hard to get an impact driven wheel moving without weights!

All mechanisms have mass & therefore weight without having specific weights attached - you may wish to enhance the velocity something falls under gravity - you do this two ways - the first is increase its mass [perhaps by adding weights to the structure] so that the losses from air drag are proportionately less than the gravity force accelerating the mechanism - this means a faster velocity achieved - the second method is to have a additional weight located close to the pivot which leverages the falling or swinging lever making the unhinged end travel at a faster velocity e.g. the falling chimney scenario.

The upshot is that you may not need "weights" to have an operational principle - however you do need a prime mover to act as an instigator or alternatively a restorative force - that is to say, a method of lifting, shifting or accelerating mass.

[ovyyus]

Hard to get an impact driven wheel moving without weights!

Does Bessler mean that weights are not a specific general requirement, that he can apply his principle to other machines that might not use weights? If so, then gravity/inertia might have more to do with Bessler's specific application, ie; solving the classic overbalanced wheel and collecting fair financial reward, than it does with Bessler's fundamental principle.

[jim_mich]

Bessler talks about one wheel machine having felt, while the other was 'as bare as a bald head'. Bessler talks of the early wheel machines turning only one way and the later wheel machines turning either way.

Then he talks of various machine designs that are driven differently, with some being driven by weight and some not driven by weight.

It is my opinion that in this instance, when Bessler talks about 'weights' driving his wheel he is talking about out-of-balance of weights. The only way that 'weight' (the effect of gravity) can drive a wheel is through OOB. Thus he seems to be saying he has designs for machines driven both with and without the OOB effect of weights.

At least that is how I understand these words of Bessler's.

[Fletcher]

I think you BOTH are absolutely correct !

Hard to get an impact driven wheel moving without weights!

Reference :

Does Bessler mean that weights are not a specific general requirement, that he can apply his principle to other machines that might not use weights? If so, then gravity/inertia might have more to do with Bessler's specific application, ie; solving the classic overbalanced wheel and collecting fair financial reward, than it does with Bessler's fundamental principle.

Bessler talks about one wheel machine having felt, while the other was 'as bare as a bald head'. Bessler talks of the early wheel machines turning only one way and the later wheel machines turning either way.

Then he talks of various machine designs that are driven differently, with some being driven by weight and some not driven by weight.

It is my opinion that in this instance, when Bessler talks about 'weights' driving his wheel he is talking about out-of-balance of weights. The only way that 'weight' (the effect of gravity) can drive a wheel is through OOB. Thus he seems to be saying he has designs for machines driven both with and without the OOB effect of weights.

At least that is how I understand these words of Bessler's.

There appears to be a fundamental principle of creating torque in a wheel - this is not dependent on 'weights' creating OOB though many of his wheels employed this method - the OOB principle is a secondary application - the primary application is the force produced by the prime mover structure &/or components - this force is in part derived from movement [dynamics] of the internal parts of the wheel & this creates torque - the prime mover could probably operate alone & independent of any OOB secondary system though this was often the preferred combination for description & demonstration purposes [adding layers of complexity & intrigue to what otherwise would be a simple & pure, if not dull description] - if a secondary OOB system is not a requirement then the dynamic prime mover structure &/or components is itself OU, once under rotation, & is his fundamental principle in its purest, unadulterated, unembellished form - that is what we seek !

[Clarkie]

Fletch,

I completely agree with you and I think I have found it. Let you know if the prototype works in a couple of months time.

Pete.

[bluesgtr44]

I think you BOTH are absolutely correct !

Hard to get an impact driven wheel moving without weights!

Reference :

Does Bessler mean that weights are not a specific general requirement, that he can apply his principle to other machines that might not use weights? If so, then gravity/inertia might have more to do with Bessler's specific application, ie; solving the classic overbalanced wheel and collecting fair financial reward, than it does with Bessler's fundamental principle.

Bessler talks about one wheel machine having felt, while the other was 'as bare as a bald head'. Bessler talks of the early wheel machines turning only one way and the later wheel machines turning either way.

Then he talks of various machine designs that are driven differently, with some being driven by weight and some not driven by weight.

It is my opinion that in this instance, when Bessler talks about 'weights' driving his wheel he is talking about out-of-balance of weights. The only way that 'weight' (the effect of gravity) can drive a wheel is through OOB. Thus he seems to be saying he has designs for machines driven both with and without the OOB effect of weights.

At least that is how I understand these words of Bessler's.

There appears to be a fundamental principle of creating torque in a wheel - this is not dependent on 'weights' creating OOB though many of his wheels employed this method - the OOB principle is a secondary application - the primary application is the force produced by the prime mover structure &/or components - this force is in part derived from movement [dynamics] of the internal parts of the wheel & this creates torque - the prime mover could probably operate alone & independent of any OOB secondary system though this was often the preferred combination for description & demonstration purposes [adding layers of complexity & intrigue to what otherwise would be a simple & pure, if not dull description] - if a secondary OOB system is not a requirement then the dynamic prime mover structure &/or components is itself OU, once under rotation, & is his fundamental principle in its purest, unadulterated, unembellished form - that is what we seek !

Staying with the first two one directional wheels that had to be tied off when not in use. There is a couple of ways to look at this.....they were always (+1), so to speak, or....they had a "sweet spot" on which the device was rotated for this initial thrust and tied off thusly. But, a description of the Bi-directional wheel at Kassel was that when he moved the device but a little, it always stayed in place. I can't seem to separate the two decisively as to why the one directional wheels would have been any different in the aspect that they didn't need a "sweet spot....they were always OOB no matter where they stopped.

We've discussed the likely probability that there were two back to back mechanism's for the bi-directional wheels and that is why it would have a balanced position. For this to have fit into my initial scenario....I was of the thinking that, with that small nudge, it would simply rock back and forth a bit and then sit in that neutral position....the one where the two opposing (+1) forces simply balanced out! That's when you pointed out the reality of that passage to me, Fletch....it didn't say what I thought it said. So, if the initial position of the wheel doesn't seem to matter to that bi-directional wheel then why would it matter to the one directional wheel? I don't think it did! I think the one directional wheels were very possibly OOB all the time.


Steve

[Fletcher]

Good luck Clarkie - looking forward to hearing about it in a couple of months then.

Steve .. I think that's why we have all laboured over that darn one-way wheel & whether it was tied off in an OOB position to get a start i.e. introduce dynamics to the wheel until the prime mover took over the shifting, lifting, accelerating torque production ...OR... whether is was always OOB IN ANY POSITION.

A one-way wheel that always has torque IN ANY POSITION means that something else is going on inside the wheel to produce the torque, other than OOB weights & gravity.

If you have arrived at this view then ovyyus's theory of thermal disks, vapours & jacob's ladders [storkbills] looks a very likely candidate indeed [seriously] - that's because once installed the system would always be primed & there would always exist a thermal differential to contract or extend the storksbill, for instance - so there would always exist a rotational force IN ANY POSITION - a neat solution !

Whilst answering & fitting the bill, so to speak, in that regard I just wish there were better, more accurate, information about those tie off positions [perhaps I've blundered & missed something that would conclusively answer that] - and, of course, as I've said previously I don't have any great insights about how the heating & cooling cycle [carnot cycle] would work for a wheel - cooling [radiator effect seems to be the biggest headache] & Bill has put forward a closed room hypothesis i.e. people in the room supplying the radiation/ambient heat, or as Michael once suggested an open fire in the room or perhaps thermal conductivity by way of wheel piers attached to floor & roof ? - who knows, were there demonstrations at night, outdoors ? - ... aarrghh ... well, the long duration test was inside & thru the day & night ;7)

EDIT : one further observation - I have always erred towards tied-off in favourable predetermined OOB positions - that's because the pics depict tie-off rods or ropes - one assumes the ropes are anchored to the floor [for instance] & are a certain length - they would lie idle & unconnected when not in use - then when the wheel was to be secured the wheel was advanced or back-turned until the rope was attached to specific attachment points on the rim - the wheel then tensioned the 'short' rope in one direction - if it were always producing torque in any position then you don't need ropes per se - clamps would work just as effectively [think wheel clamps for cars] or simpler still just a wedge chock slipped between the wheel rim & floor [the way I stop my trailer running away down a slope when I'm not using it] - then the wheel could be secured at any rim position unlike the rope rim attachment position which appears 'fixed' [suspicious mind].

[ovyyus]

An objection directed towards Bessler's first two uni-directional wheels was that they behaved like they were wound up with an internal clock spring. Bessler apparently developed his two-direction wheel as a direct response to that criticism. IMO, a wheel that behaves like it's wound up with a spring is one that exhibits a constant torque, no position of balance, and therefore no specific tie-off point for a self-start.

[Fletcher]

It's a convincing argument Bill.

I'd like to read that descriptive again to see if any thing or other meaning could be gleaned or inferred from it ?

Do you have quick access to that ? I'm asking coz we all obviously think it is pivotal in one way or another.

[nicbordeaux]

from Fletcher If you have arrived at this view then ovyyus's theory of thermal disks, vapours & jacob's ladders [storkbills] looks a very likely candidate indeed [seriously] - that's because once installed the system would always be primed & there would always exist a thermal differential to contract or extend the storksbill, for instance - so there would always exist a rotational force IN ANY POSITION - a neat solution !

That seems to fit the bill, or at least is a good "open" option for research. Does one construe this to mean that there is a closed "hydraulic" (for want of a better generic term) pressurized system within the wheel, and that said pressurized system retains a high pressure within it at all times (eg, it doesn't leak, there is no communication with environment other than temperature acting on the "containers").

If the above is remotely correct, given the known size and weight of wheel, what sort of wattage requirements are we looking at in terms of needed output. And is that output compatible with a system incorporating 18th century technology ?

Or are we "just" looking at thermosyphon / capilarity ?

Don't see a rudimentary system being able to put out the kick to drive the wheel on it's own, so we're back at the hypothetical temp differential system being a way to shift some weights around ?

And, no offense at all meant, but this is theory. Once the spec/requirement is determined, a test build can be made on a scale model.

As in if somebody can predict what Powah is needed , a competent hydraulics guy would be able to say "possible" / "impossible" using such and such a tech .

[Dene Moodley]

Hi!

Did the wheel not strike a type of pendulum? Bessler was after all knowledgeable about these. How do you convert the energy from the striking object into rotational energy in any case?