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

[DrWhat]

The larger the mass of the big wheel, the slower it accelerates and no surplus energy to re-raise the attached smaller weight.

It can be stopped very easily.

[BAHammer]

Brian,

That is a lot like saying your tank scheme will not work because I said so, or CoE says so, or TK and Hans say so.  Not much useful information in those statements.  But for those who want to learn I have offered this simulation that shows how some equations predict this system will perform.  It confirms the ideas of some and refutes those of others as to how the mechanism might or might not work.  But sadly it does not prove an OU Bessler type wheel of this particular design might work.  Not that it entirely rules it out either.  It does, however, show a failure (to run) mode that was different than I was expecting.  And so I share that information with others who might also be interested in learning this.  I believe that is the spirit of these forums.

M.

  Mondrasek,
The spirit of these forums it seems to be to claim to know what you don't understand. After all, this type of engineering is not linear in concept.
Just like the swinging weight, in what direction is it pulling on the point it is rotating from ? It is the direction that would facilitate the rotation of the wheel ? For the most part, the answer would be no.
With Mt 20, having a falling weight extending another falling weight goes against accepted engineering practices. Thus, experience in traditional engineering would not support this type of reasoning.
Here is something you could try if you like.
The diagrams should help you to understand the basic idea. I do believe that with Bessler's drawing, that everyone thinks on a clockwise rotation that the weight rotates over the top ( clockwise). It does not. It rotates counter clockwise.
There is a good reason for the weight to have a stop after it has rotated as much as possible. it's another neat trick of engineering Bessler would have figured out. Then again, in his time, people explored how things worked. Today, we know how they work. This leaves us nothing left to learn 
And since Bessler is also supposed to have been a clock maker
http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/gadgets/clocks-watches/clock4.htm
This would have to do with using leverage to move an arm outward while using little motion. Another neat trick.

edited to add; Of course, we do know that Bessler really didn't build a working wheel becasue ou is impossible 

[mondrasek]

BAHammer,

It appears that you are under the mistaken impression that I believed this concept would work.  I never was.  I was intrigued with how the system would act, and yes, I debated that with some of the other forum members.  For my part that debate was centered around how a pendulum would act while oscillating in a rotating reference frame.  I was not able to visualize how such a system would act and took issue with how some others prescribed it would.  I believed that the system could be best viewed in a simple 2D simulation and asked if others were able to create one.  I also offered and received assistance in modeling and obtaining simulation capabilities through PM conversations with helpful members.  Ultimately I took it upon myself to create models and a simulation so that all could learn exactly how this type of system is predicted to perform.  This was in the spirit of helping myself and others learn something.  Not as an advocate of this design or any other.  I do this type of debunking activity as a mental challenge for myself as well as to help others to understand concepts that they cannot visualize or properly grasp.  Much like I tried to help Brian to understand the issues with his buoyancy concept.

My point to Brian is that making statements like "This is daum", or "There is no way in hell this will work", does not offer any useful information.  And further, I might add that it is not *constructive* criticism.  It has no purpose but to insult and/or antagonize others and is therefore juvenile.  Much like changing/creating a new user name to mock another user?

Thanks,

M.

[hansvonlieven]

Well said Mondrasek!

Hans von Lieven

[BAHammer]

BA Hammer,

It appears that you are under the mistaken impression that I believed this concept would work.  I never was.  I was intrigued with how the system would act, and yes, I debated that with some of the other forum members.  For my part that debate was centered around how a pendulum would act while oscillating in a rotating reference frame.  I was not able to visualize how such a system would act and took issue with how some others prescribed it would.  I believed that the system could be best viewed in a simple 2D simulation and asked if others were able to create one.  I also offered and received assistance in modeling and obtaining simulation capabilities through PM conversations with helpful members.  Ultimately I took it upon myself to create models and a simulation so that all could learn exactly how this type of system is predicted to perform.  This was in the spirit of helping myself and others learn something.  Not as an advocate of this design or any other.  I do this type of debunking activity as a mental challenge for myself as well as to help others to understand concepts that they cannot visualize or properly grasp.  Much like I tried to help Brian to understand the issues with his buoyancy concept.

My point to Brian is that making statements like "This is dam", or "There is no way in hell this will work", does not offer any useful information.  And further, I might add that it is not *constructive* criticism.  It has no purpose but to insult and/or antagonize others and is therefore juvenile.  Much like changing/creating a new user name to mock another user?

Thanks,

M.

>> For my part that debate was centered around how a pendulum would act while oscillating in a rotating reference frame.<<


You did say the fulcrum would be moving downward and the pendulum would oscilate. It's oscilation would suffer entropy in proportion to the downward movement of it's fulcrum. The same would occur with the lifting of the fulcrum.
Simply put, the rotation of the wheel would only increase the entropy suffered by the pendulum.
Hans, I do apologize for understanding basic relationships such as this.

edited to add;
Hans,
consider this, if the pendulum accelerates at 9.8m/s/s and the fulcrum is moving downward @ v, then the force acting on the weight is 9.8m/s/s-v = ?
On the upward movement, it would be 9.8m/s/s - the distance the fuclrum moves upward.
This would give gravity less time to accelerate the pendulum.
On it's downward movement, it's force would be reduced by the downward movement of the fulcrum. When the fulcrum would start moving across the bottom of the wheel, this would elongate the swing of the pendulum decreasing it's ability to act on it's fulcrum with more force. Distance times mass = work. When force is spread out over a distance, it like wise reduces the force of which the weight can act on the fulrum to help rotate the wheel.
Like I said, I do apologize for understanding this. Do you think I should look for a forum where basic behaviors like this are already understood ?

Of course, it could be that it is difficult to understand me if what I discuss is to advanced. And I think that is the problem.
I hope you enjoy your discussions. Good Bye