Peter Lindemann, The Mechanical Engine: A Re-Evolution of Bessler's Wheel

[rlortie]

mondrasek,

I am sorry but Hans is correct.

I just received the following as an example from Ron P.  and a very fine example it is. Being experienced in the field of cranes I can only slap myself in the face for not thinking of it myself.

The following is from a crane operators hand book, author unknown.

A skilled operator, through proper techniques, can minimize the amount a load will swing. For example, as the trolley starts forward, the load because of its inertia, will tend to remain stationary as shown moving the trolley with a suspended load. If the crane operator momentarily stops the trolley and waits for the load to swing forward, he can again start the trolley moving at the same speed as the load at the moment that the load is directly under the trolley. The trolley and the load will then continue to move along at the same constant velocity until another acceleration or
deceleration is applied to the trolley.

This same technique can be used to minimize swaying when the trolley is stopped. In this case the load will continue to travel forward after the trolley is stopped. At the precise moment that the velocity of the load becomes zero before it reverses direction the operator must step the trolley forward so that it is positioned directly over the load. These maneuvers depend on both the skill of the operator and on the speed and acceleration of the crane.

This is referred to as 'hook swing' and is a prime example of what will happen with the pendulums in Peters design. The traveling pivot point not unlike a crane trolley nullifies the bob swing.

In a follow up I received this:

funny thing is I am well aware that as you lower the pendulum
pivot point it kills the swing... but I missed it, but Hans got it right away.

Ralph

[hansvonlieven]

No Mondrasek,

if the wheel moves very slowly it makes it worse. The pendulum has its own natural frequency. The natural frequency of a pendulum is determined by the distance between the fulcrum and its centre of gravity and nothing else. By necessity the pendulum length is very short, therefore the thing in very fast, relatively speaking. As soon as the mechanism releases the pendulum it starts to swing. It reaches the opposite side very quickly and swings back before it gets even to the position indicated in the drawing. Because the arc at the point of release is small there will be very little power in it.

A design like this is not feasible, anyone who has studied pendulum physics can tell at a glance, without the need for calculation.

@ Ralph,

Correct, that is the other major snag and this one gets worse the higher the speed of the wheel.

Hans von Lieven

[mondrasek]

Ralph,

I appreciate the reply.  But I still have trouble with that explanation.  I can visualize several effects that work against the design if the wheel were to spin quickly, but these effects minimized towards zero as the speed of the wheel is minimized I think.  For example, if you look only at the diagram on page 5 you must admit that releasing the weight from the ratchet and (allowing the ratchet to reset after the weight has fallen past) would result in the weight swinging to the spring and then bouncing back, ultimately coming to rest somewhere on the ratchet again.  So while I agree at some rotational speed of the wheel this will no longer happen, I have to believe a slow speed range exists where it will.

Also, the design as presented appears to show all the elements (weighted pendulum, pivot point, release, etc.) in locations optimized for no additional forces due to the rotation of the wheel.  I wonder if the optimum design and locations of these elements would not change if the rotational conditions were also considered.  And I think this is what a 2D simulation could show.  Or, if not, it would be easier for me to visualize how the rotational forces at any speed prevent the expect motion of the static device shown on page 5.

Thanks again,

M.

[rlortie]

mondrasek ,

As per my agreement with Peter I am not here to tell you it will not work. All I am giving is examples of why I think it will not work.

Rather than debate the issue I recommend that you utilize your enthusiastic pursuit.

It has always been my opinion that if you are in doubt then build it. If you don't it will cloud your mind of other innovative ideas. You are exactly what Peter is looking for, someone with the belief they can turn it into a runner.

Ralph

[mondrasek]

Ralph,

Your examples of why it will not work are exactly the feedback that I appreciate.  Same for Hans'.  Learning the reason why something will not work is as informative as learning why it will.

I believe this idea is simple enough to be modeled in 2D simulation software to my satisfaction, if I cannot otherwise grasp or visualize reasons that are given for it not to work.  I hope that someone with those capabilities and resources is willing to do so. I have no desire to build at this time. 

One interesting point that followed from one of Hans' comments:  One of Bessler's wheels was claimed to be 12 ft in diameter and ran without load at 26 RPM.  A (simple) pendulum of the same natural frequency would be of a length of 5.2 inches.  The size of such a wheel and pendulum appear to be in line.

M.