Posted by Darren (208.143.232.66) on June 06, 2003 at 13:42:27:
In Reply to: Darren... posted by ovyyus on June 04, 2003 at 17:44:50:
: Hi Darren,
Hey Ovvyus :-)
: In connection with your current wheel attempt: I thought you posted a prediction of your unloaded wheel speed somewhere on the board, but I can not seem to locate it. Do you have an estimate?
Design I will probably hover around 10 RPM unless I can find a better, more efficient way to move some of the internal components around.
: Some years ago I built a 3 foot diameter test wheel fitted with weights that could swing freely in an arc from axle to rim (pivot of weight arm positioned at the rim). Turning the wheel by hand, the weights would fall against the descending rim with a loud impact and fall back towards the axle upon ascent.
Okay...
: As the speed of this wheel was increased the effects of centrifugal force alters the timing and position of the impact region of the weights at the rim, as you would expect. At approximately 45 RPM the weights were all pinned at the rim and the wheel fell silent. At this point centrifugal force acting on the weights is equal to or greater than the force of gravity, hense they can not fall down from the rim at the 12 o'clock position.
Right... makes perfect sense...
: After performing this test I was struct by the limitations imposed by centrifugal force acting upon any weight that rotates with the wheel and is free to move radially.
Yes, CF is one of those things that many people totally fail to consider while designing their wheel... but when you include it you can easily see how the design cannot possibly work (like techstuff's springy weight design)
: When considering Bessler's demonstration of his 9 foot diameter Draschwitz wheel rotating freely at a reported 50 RPM, it becomes even more difficult to reconcile centrifugal force at the wheel rim of around three times that of Gravity.
Yes, it shows that CF was an intergral force in the wheel... and that without it the wheel would probably not work as well... and that a true rediscovery of his design would *require* that it took advantage of CF.
: My conclusion was, and still is, that Bessler could not have employed a system that only relies on radially moving weights that rotate with the wheel.
Not sure what you mean by "radially moving weights", so I don't know if I agree with you... I do know that even his wheels were self limiting and in my opinion it was because the CF increased to the point where even his internal configuration couldn't "stretch" any farther under the pull of CF... so... it couldn't turn any faster.
: If you don't mind me asking, does you present design resolve centrifugal force problems associated with radial weight movement?
I have just sent a new update to Sterling for GreaterThings where I talk about this in a little more detail but... My Design I (the first one I found that produced OU) was the one least like the Bessler clues. It would not reach Bessler's RPMs, did not employ springs, blah blah blah... my Design II fit every clue perfectly... but the sim failed. I figured out later it was because I didn't design the OverUnity Principle into Design II properly. The OUP allows Design I to work, but I used it wrong in Design II. Does that make sense? And so Design II, a perfect match for all the Bessler clues, didn't wind up working. Currently I'm working on fixing that problem in Design II so that it fits the clues AND the OUP is correct. I can always fall back on Design I if necessary, but I *really* want a simpler design and one that fits Besslers clues as closely as possible. So, in answer to your question (if I haven't answered it already), Design I does not allow for the levels of CF Bessler's wheel did, it self limits at a much lower RPM. I want to fix that, but since I'm on a timeline I may or may not get that to happen.
: Can your design be expected to replicate the reported high speed (50 RPM) of Bessler's 9.13 foot diameter Draschwitz wheel?
Nope. It is my goal to simplify and improve on Design I... but I may not have the know how to do so... that was one o