Posted by ovyyus (203.26.14.3) on June 12, 2003 at 02:37:29:
In Reply to: Re: Rotating in Reverse posted by Draschwitz! on June 12, 2003 at 01:16:14:
Hi 205.187.84.223,
You sound like you have it all worked out! Not sure I understand what you're trying to say, though.
I, and probably others on this board, would be happy to review your design attempt.
PS: One of the useful aspects of a discussion board such as this is the ability to search and reference based on topic, title, name, etc. By not using a consistant name associated with your various posts you are limiting this usefullness to some extent. May I suggest that you pick a consistant name under which to post your ideas. It doesn't have to be your own if you're too shy :)
Regards, ovyyus
: The wheel at Draschwitz ran at the speed it did solely to increase it's impressiveness (and perhaps stymie the "learned ones") You see, old Johann was merely making use of the excess energy of his wheel. Yes, rather than lift a weight by means of cord wrapped around the axle, He simply made use of a working wheel operating inside of the outer wheel, such that the outer wheel ran at 50 rpm or so as a flywheel geared to the working one inside it. Quite ingenious, really.
: : Hi grim,
: : You stated in part, "...that he felt was necessary to disguise with noisemakers..."
: : I've heard this arguement before, that Bessler employed noise making weights to disguise more subtle noises coming from within the wheel. The problem with this hypothesis is that noise making weights at the wheel rim would have been immobilised under the high centrifugal force generated by the 9 foot diameter 50RPM Draschwitz wheel.
: : Also, at maximum speed the Draschwitz wheel rim was moving faster than a weight will fall under G acceleration. IMO, any free to move weight at the rim of the Draschwitz wheel would be immobilised and silent at the reported maximim speed.
: : Good luck with your construction.
: : Regards, ovyyus
: :
: : : : Bessler stated that, during demonstrations, he would allow his wheel to be pushed or turned in any manner desired, stipulating only that the wheel must not be forced to rotate faster than the maximum speed for which it was designed.
: : : : That being so, Bessler would have had no objection to someone turning his uni-direction wheel in reverse for as long as they liked.
: : : : This raises a couple of questions: 1) Did the uni-direction wheel exhibit an overbalancing force when rotated in reverse? 2) Did the uni-direction wheel exhibit rim impact noise when rotated in reverse?
: : : : IMO, if the later bi-direction wheels were composed of two joined back-to-back uni-direction wheels then, IMO, the one-direction design must have been silent when operated in reverse, otherwise the bi-direction wheels would have exhibited rim impact noise on both sides of the wheel.
: : : : Furthermore, if the overbalancing force acting on the wheel was accompanied by unavoidable rim impact noise (Bessler said he couldn't silence the noise) then, IMO, the uni-direction wheel exhibited no torque (was balanced) when turned backwards. No noise = no torque.
: : : : Question for those presently building wheel attempts: Can your design be turned in reverse without problems?
: : : : Regards, ovyyus
: : :
: : : Hi Ovyyus
: : : Will let you know as soon as its completed. The enlarged machined version is exhibiting the same characteristics as the "slop model", so am encouraged here. Working on locating, or in worst case, fabricating the "principle piece" that JB spoke of, rest of it done.
: : : If you check Alden Park's "Little Book Interpretation" the unidirectionals displayed at Gera and Draschwitz made a "ticking" noise from their "Offyrean roller bearings" that he felt was necessary to disguise with noisemakers. You may find that a lot of the
: : : "weights fell on warped boards" may just be a lot of noise.
: : : Regards
: : :
: : : grim