Zeroing in on Bessler's wheel

[JUBAT]

Replying to Waltcee's question to Fletcher..looks to me like the dotted line incline from MT1 would fit in there rather nicely.

[WaltzCee]

no comment

?

[JUBAT]

Let's see here...8 cylinders accessed via a small opening...8 impacts about 4 o clock...now to figure out the twanging spring and slapping noise while trying to fit a weight....unless that was a booby trap or a diversion.

Nice runes btw. i like the circles and triangles.

[WaltzCee]

yeah, a lot could be made of it but it's not my idea. I snagged it off the web.

I want to start discussing my idea yet I need to duct tape a PoP together first. It's often suggested some picture be paired with an idea and I can close my eyes and see it. At times eyes wide open.

[Sam Peppiatt]

To friend or foe,
The Ring and Rollers didn't work, as every one suspected. Another dead duck; one of many, I might add. However, I realized that the rollers could be used to shift other weights in and out. Out on the down side and back in on the up side. The great thing about the rollers is; they always remain balance as they shift / roll around inside of the drums. Never causing bottom heaviness or keeling, or back torque.

I think the rollers should be like a yo-yo; two discs side by side with a pin joining them in the center. A bell crank with a long slot would engage the pin. The bell crank would extend through a opening in the drum and; the pivot point would be just out side of the drum. The other leg of the bell crank is at 90 degrees. It would resemble a swastika, with the outer leg pointing in the direction of rotation, with a weight on the end of it. Anyway, that's the plan.

The Ring and Rollers could still be the key to Bessler's wheel----------------Sam

[johannesbender]

This demonstrates something interesting about physics which not everyone gets to grasp when they begin their journey , the amount and direction of torque depends on the magnitude of the force and the distance to where the force apply , regardless of the location of the center of mass.

It is a misconception that the torque is a result of where the COM is located , the COM indirectly affects the torque but does not determine the torque.
Keeping the COM located to one side , does not mean it produces continues torque as a result , neither does it mean it would produce over unity.

The Roberval also serves as a good example that demonstrates this effect too ,when the torque from the distances and weight of the masses on each side is canceled it becomes apparent that the COM has no effect on the production of torque at all.

[Tarsier79]

The Ring and Rollers..... they always remain balance as they shift / roll around inside of the drums. Never causing bottom heaviness or keeling, or back torque.

Does your wheel roll for longer with or without the rollers? If it runs for a shorter period with the rollers, they create back torque.

[Sam Peppiatt]

It will spin longer without the rollers. Which I believe to be do to friction. I don't see how friction could be considered torque. You are right, It's not a particularly good flywheel, if that's what you want. Perhaps I should re-phase my statement. The rollers never cause any torque in any either direction from being OOB, as they shift around inside of the drum---------------Sam

JB, You lost me. All I know is an OOB will cause a wheel to turn. That's all you need isn't it?

[WaltzCee]

Good to see you're still at it, Mr Sam.

For what it's worth, in the design phase, my mind started putting a pencil to it. Boy did that save me a bundle of duct tape!

The process brought other ideas worth another look.

Best of luck, Sam.

There's honey in that rock.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi Waltcy!!
Can't seam to let go of it. Sure; I draw it out first, you know, the best I can. Maybe the roller(s) could be thought of as the 'prime mover', because they cost nothing to lift. They are a good candidate to do the work of shifting weights in and out.

Thanks Waltcy; I shall try it and see-----------------------Sam

[Sam Peppiatt]

An update,
so as not to get lost in the dust. Bought new rollers / parts; the work begins. Ugh! Anyway, the Idea is to use the rollers to shift the weights in on the up side and back out on the down side with a bell crank. A good thing about the bell crank / lever is; it will also ack as a guide for the rollers. Which mechanically, was a big problem. I'll use "O" rings around the rollers for a rubber tire.

What could go wrong? Every thing I guess------------------------------Sam

[WaltzCee]

Hello Mr Sam,

Where does the force driving the bell crank come from?

The design I'm working on is powered by a gravity powered out of balance. As I was translating matrices in my mind a week or so ago it became obvious where the expense of the translation was.

No free lunch there, yet I'm not done with this idea.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi Waltcy,

The rollers are 8 inches in diameter and weight abut 16 lbs. each. Two side by side will equal 32 lbs. As they roll around inside of the rings, there weight will drive the bell crank. To answer your question, gravity provides the force to activate them. It should be very smooth. I'm not sure what the problems will be but, seems like there always is some thing.

Keep working on your ideas; maybe you can resolve it--------------------Sam

[Tarsier79]

It will spin longer without the rollers. Which I believe to be do to friction. I don't see how friction could be considered torque.

Hey Sam

Not sure how you are getting torque from "balanced" rollers?

Anyway, just expanding on my prev. comments about back torque:

Your wheel is pushed CW. The rollers also now roll CW. The reason they do is because the friction between the roller and its track.... No revelations here.
The roller sits at the bottom of a perfectly round track (lets ignore any flats or deviations for the moment). As the wheel accelerates the roller, the roller is accelerated around and lags the wheel slightly. This means the roller will spend slightly more time uphill to the left of the exact bottom while the wheel drives the roller. Not only is the roller now OB in the wrong direction, but it is taking energy from the wheel.

Once the wheel is coasting, what slows faster, the roller or the wheel? If the roller slows faster, the above will continue to occur. The wheel gives its energy to the roller, which is badly OB and it rotational energy is converted to PE as the roller climbs.... All losses. If the wheel slows faster than the roller, the roller now tries to climb the ramp it sees to the right. It gains PE and energy is lost, energy is now transferred to the wheel as the system tries to equalise.

Anyway, friction is not a bad word for it, perhaps negative torque isn't completely accurate, but the roller actively brakes the wheel and vice versa if they try to move at different speeds.

Anyway, good luck with your build.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi Tarsier,
First off friction is a good word for friction. That can't be helped,(maybe minimized). The ring and rollers, by them selves, are continuously balanced, never OB as the wheel rotates as far as I know. They track the wheel faithfully. I do anticipate problems at 6:00 and at 12:00. The lever / bell crank will try to roll the roller backwards and cause back torque.

At 3:00 and 9:00 the opposite occurs, the full weight of the roller is on the lever and will swing the weight, (at the other end of the bell crank), out at 3:00 and back in at 9:00. That will make the wheel turn. IOW, the lever can't lift the roller up, so it should be OK at these two positions.

I should point out there are duel rollers and the lever is between them with a long slot. A pin connects the two rollers together through the slot. As the roller shifts around inside the drum it works the lever back and forth up and down.
I think a toggle spring will help at 6:00 and 12:00. Thanks Tarsier; will see what happens------------------Sam