Wheel of Furtune! Well, perhaps not.

[John Collins]

Hi Mike,

I assume that you're referring to the following passage "he had no desire to prevent the townsfolk seeing his wonderful wheel, but he was not prepared to risk the secret of its construction becoming known, and so, following his brother, Gottfried's advice, he began to make a small charge for admission, all of which he gave to the poor, and this did help to reduce the crowds to more manageable numbers."

I can't recall anyone having permission to see inside his wheel, although I think he did joke about doing that 'for a few ducats.'

John Collins

[Michael]

No John it wasn't that. Your book is pretty big but when I get the chance I'll see if I can find the passage again. I remember it because I just read it in December and because I thought at the time well that must be the reason for the slit.

[ovyyus]

Ken, my understanding is that Wolff never examined Bessler's earlier one-directional wheels (which were covered with thin planking). His descriptions concerning "slits" and "warped boards" are of the Merseburg wheel which, like the Kassel wheel, was covered with oil-cloth.

[LustInBlack]

Well, it may be a trivial question, but what did he mean by warped board !?..

The picture I have in mind, is a curved board of wood that one end is fused to the outer rim of the wheel and extending near the center ..

Does that warped board was seen full!?.. Like, by the slit, he had like 30 cms to see inside, so he saw, all the board or just a part!?..

It's really vague .. A warped board doesn't mean much ..
And that board was oriented in the same direction as the wheel turned ?! ...

THose details are addressed !? . ..

[KAS]

This is only supposition as it is unclear about the canvas cover, but if slits were evident and small shafts of light penetrated them, as the wheel turned a shape would have been seen.
This is because the brain tends to fill in the unseen areas with what it perceives to be the missing sections.
This only applies to animated objects though.

[bluesgtr44]

Hey KAS....CF is going to be the demon in this design. Once you reach any appreciable speed, the weights will not follow your "designed" path. They will be stuck up against the rim at the first opportunity and when the time comes at the 9 o'clock position, it has a choice....it cannot have a choice...it will choose the rim, not the tunnel.

I have attached an old test I had done for the "Hello from Preston" thread about CF...this is how powerful that dude is and why, IMO...the weights must not be free to "choose" their path...it has to be designated because CF will make the choice for the weight.


Steve

[KAS]

Yes your right, thanks for that Steve.

I knew this design would not rotate in it's current form.

This is an old attempt which has it's flaws and it's merits.

Depending on the radius of the arc, the outer curved sections are good for rapidly moving the weights to the centre on the return.
In addition, the outer drop trap is useful for holding the weights in the offset position for max torque. The problem is the transference mechanism. The indexing work is far too slow. I am going to spend some time investigating this area before moving to another design that I have been toying with.

Kas

[KAS]

Hey KAS....CF is going to be the demon in this design. Once you reach any appreciable speed, the weights will not follow your "designed" path. They will be stuck up against the rim at the first opportunity and when the time comes at the 9 o'clock position, it has a choice....it cannot have a choice...it will choose the rim, not the tunnel.

I have attached an old test I had done for the "Hello from Preston" thread about CF...this is how powerful that dude is and why, IMO...the weights must not be free to "choose" their path...it has to be designated because CF will make the choice for the weight.


Steve

Steve,
If the wheel speed was controlled by - lets say a gear mechanism, the timing of the rotation could be set to match the weight movement.
If it were feasible, depending on the angular inertia values of the offset weights, the gears could have significant output.
Correct me if I am wrong but I don't think a fast r.p.m. is required providing that the wheel was scaled large enough so that the mass of the weights were significant enough to provide sufficient torque to the gears.

Kas

[bluesgtr44]

Hey KAS, this is what I have learned. I can design a wheel where, if I can start it from a static point of my choosing...and let the weights align themselves where they may at my starting position, I have OOB from the start. But, when I let it go and it does it's litle back and forth dance and then settles to punctum quietous....it's not gonna work!

With your design, if you were to just let it go and wait till it stops...that's the weight balance point of your designs very own PQ (punctum quietous). Now, if you attach that gear mechanism to offset the timing...what have you really offset? I think it would be the point of your very own PQ that would shift...not keep the wheel rotating.

I do agree with you on the point of RPM's...I would be ecstatic to have a wheel that would achieve 1 rpm...I just want it to have no PQ. I have already been down the thought path of...if I just slow it down, the reaction forces won't kick my a$$ and it will continue to turn. Now, if you can turn your wheel to a position where when you let go....it just sits there very well balanced...congratulations! You have just found that point of PQ, and anything that will slow it down (to contend with those pesky little reaction forces) will only speed you to the PQ point.

We know from Besslers two directional wheels that there can be a PQ point and it will still revolve once given a push start. But, I think one would have to understand the principle first, of his one directional wheels, to understand how this could be done.


Steve