Zeroing in on Bessler's wheel

[Sam Peppiatt]

Tarsier,
Think of it this way; it's like a water wheel. It's not complicated. falling water will turn a wheel, right? So will falling weights.
The main difference is; the rollers lift the weights back up. There's no OU. However, the efficiency should be quite high, maybe as much as 80% but, that would be about it. The ring & rollers do the work of raising the weights back up / in----------Sam

[WaltzCee]

.
.

.
It's slowly coming together, Sam.
Not as good as professor JL's, of course.
Keep truckin'.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi Waltcy,
Slowly is the right word. Right now I'm working on my roof so nothing gets done. The concept is simple enough; it's making it out of iron that's difficult. I know Waltcy, you don't believe me either but, thanks for saying so-----------------Sam

[Sam Peppiatt]

For 300 years, gravity wheels have been impossible; because no one had the ring & rollers, (to do the recycling of the weights). However, with the advent of them, a gravity wheel is now possible. That's the difference.

Every one has to stop thinking like a scientist and, figure out the best way to do it mechanically-----------------Sam

[Sam Peppiatt]

Update,
I see a way now to greatly increase the displacement of the weights; that was sorely lacking. Essentially, there will be two levers, a large strong one to carry the bearing assy., that guides the rollers. And, a second lever for the toggle linkage, (independent of the first one).

This is a major breakthrough! I've been stuck for a long time, to find a way to make it better----------------Sam

[johannesbender]

Good to hear you have had a breakthough , to overcome something that posed a problem is always a good feeling and valuable on an intelectual basis moving forwards.

I solved my second problem too , now a third is left over which i think i could solve by making the weight become apart of the mechanical function of the concept and not just a mass.

Good luck forwards.

[agor95]

I solved my second problem too , now a third is left over which i think i could solve by making the weight become apart of the mechanical function of the concept and not just a mass.

I am glad you have found solutions to first and second problems.

Treating weight as an acceleration of a mass takes you into an alternative perception.
Starting with accelerations can be negative.

If you are going along this path? It is one lonely road.

weight is the result of a mass decelerating. So the mass of a coffee cup is decelerating as it sits on the table.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi jb!
You'll have to draw me a picture of that--- seriously; tell me more. How do you lift the weights--------------Sam

No, agor! It can't be deaccelerating, unless the table legs are getting shorter and shorter. What have you been putting in that cup! But, what do I know-------------------Sam

[UbWe]

.
.
IMG_20230812_015342.jpg
.
It's slowly coming together, Sam.
Not as good as professor JL's, of course.
Keep truckin'.

I think you're getting out of it what you put into it. I think with a show in Utrecht I might be able to do 5 or 6 different designs.
That's like when you say "failed build" I say Research and Development. I doubt that you are aware that Boeing uses a lot of
the same methodology that the Wright Bros. used. The Wright Bros. actually built a wind tunnel to test a lot of different wing
and propeller designs. That's what helped them to have better success when they tested just the basic plane at Kitty Hawk, N.C.
Then when you had Samuel Langley who was America's foremost scientist, had been a professor at the University of Pittsburgh
before becoming the director of the Smithsonian Institution. As for his airplanes, they were modeled after a toy airplane where
you wind up a rubber band so it'll fly. He used a motor instead but no flight controls and no pilot. He got out of it what he put into
it. It's like the first test I did I considered how linear momentum was conserved as angular momentum.
In an atom, an electron will have both linear and angular momentum. And when something like the 1/1H hydrogen atom changes
from n = 1 to n = 2 both the spin and the velocity of the electron increases while it moves to a higher quantum state in the shell of the
hydrogen atom. With a wheel, the weights have no angular momentum unless they roll. Still, I consider the change in the relationship
to the axle of the wheel to be a change in angular and linear momentum.
For perpetual motion machines, acceleration by gravity is linear momentum because gravity's acceleration is perpendicular to the
Earth's surface. Then when a weight is moving to the under balanced side and its counter torque becomes less than its torque, I just
say angular momentum. I read a book on theoretical physics once where that scientist discussed theories that PhD scientists
considered. And one thing he mentioned was that the laws of physics are the same for a hydrogen atom as it is for a solar system or
galaxy, It's the application that changes.
And with Sam, it might be a common issue but one of the first things I considered when I considered Bessler's Wheel was he worked
on windmills. And to consider that would need a basic outline like in the attached image to consider. It's a starting point. Both have 4 arms
and with Bessler, did he see something while working on a windmill? This is where when I consider what Bessler might have built, I started
with what I knew about him and his work. I'm the same way with science but for fun, there's Beethoven and his 5th Symphony Orchestra.
It's quite famous and when you hear the da da da duumm, it's a beheading and the head was bouncing merrily down to the ground.
If you listen at the 23 to 25 second mark and you hear the strings, that's basically the guillotine dropping and then at the 26 second mark the
head is on its own journey without the body. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jv2WJMVPQi8&t=1392s When you understand that
then you can understand the mood of the people in Beethoven's symphony. It's like at the start, people are excited and nervous at the same
time. It's in the music if you can "feel" it.
And with Bessler, when they were adding blades to the arms, did Bessler see something that inspired him? Since little is known about
Bessler before he demonstrated his wheels that is something he would've seen at work.
And with my work, it's actually going quite well. And learning math has helped me, that and my manufacturing background has helped me to
try and create a work flow and try to use production runs to make the work easier to be productive.

p.s., It is a little surprising that Beethoven goes into the beheading right away in his symphony. Then after that comes the mood swings and
reliving it. That's basically how they kept people in line back then. Of course with Bessler, how did they assemble the arms and blades on a
windmill? How did they lift the different parts and fit them to the wheel? I don't think anyone has discussed how windmills and watermills are
constructed and what they were used for.

p.s., I've done both industrial and mechanical work. I've rebuilt car engines and have helped to overhaul or repair steam turbines and generators
as well as work in an engine room on an aircraft carrier. Back then, steam was used to desalinate seawater, launch aircraft off of steam driven
catapults, etc. Needless to say a lot of equipment was involved. There was always a process for why work happened. The same thing with
building a water wheel or windmill. Bessler showed threshers in his drawings. A waterwheel powers a shaft that rolls one stone over another to
grind mill. Apparently windmills use basically a pestle to grind meal by repeatedly beating it. That's what a pestle is used for when working with
chemistry which Bessler also referenced (alchemy). It's on the left in the last image.

[Sam Peppiatt]

FWEIW,
What I'm doing is fairly simple, little or no science involved. Just a machine to do a specific task. The big improvement involves a separation of duties. Instead of trying to do every thing with one lever; one of the levers acks as guide for the rollers, which will pivot near the center. while the other one is for the toggle linkage and, will be out towards the rim.

Its a better way to do things and move the weights a lot farther----------------------Sam

[UbWe]

FWEIW,
What I'm doing is fairly simple, little or no science involved. Just a machine to do a specific task. The big improvement involves a separation of duties. Instead of trying to do every thing with one lever; one of the levers acks as guide for the rollers, which will pivot near the center. while the other one is for the toggle linkage and, will be out towards the rim.

Its a better way to do things and move the weights a lot farther----------------------Sam

If you are using a cam (lobe) to change the balance of a wheel, that is both science and engineering. Is that what you say you are discussing?
That the torque a wheel generates allows for a thresher to be raised changing the balance of a wheel? That could work. If it does it'd probably
be your own invention. Bessler's Wheel does need to agree with his clues. As for what you told me, I did a quick design of it. If that's what you're
talking about, like I said, it might work and if so it'd be your invention. I am sorry about that.
I placed the prime motive force (prime mover) at 45º ATDC for obvious reasons, where it'll generate the most torque. Actually at 90º it would but how to consider acceleration? And this goes back to windmills usually had 4 blades.
This kind of gets into ignition timing on a point gap distributor system. And could it work? I find it easier to say yes than no. And unfortunately I did say in my opinion this is your own invention. This could create a debate except for one thing Bessler said, it's his "so called running wheel". Your design omits
that clue. And if this is what you were wanting to know about, then it's your idea/invention.

[WaltzCee]

.
.

Hi Waltcy,
Slowly is the right word. Right now I'm working on my roof so nothing gets done. The concept is simple enough; it's making it out of iron that's difficult. I know Waltcy, you don't believe me either but, thanks for saying so-----------------Sam

We're all beating our heads against the same wall, Sam. So far, it's a dead heat. Everyone has built the same number of working wheels.

Best of luck, keep truckin'!

[UbWe]

.
.

Hi Waltcy,
Slowly is the right word. Right now I'm working on my roof so nothing gets done. The concept is simple enough; it's making it out of iron that's difficult. I know Waltcy, you don't believe me either but, thanks for saying so-----------------Sam

We're all beating our heads against the same wall, Sam. So far, it's a dead heat. Everyone has built the same number of working wheels.

Best of luck, keep truckin'!

One day you might ask for my help. At the moment you've been anonymous since 2007. That can change.

[UbWe]

.
.
IMG_20230812_015342.jpg
.
It's slowly coming together, Sam.
Not as good as professor JL's, of course.
Keep truckin'.

p.s., The mechanics conflict, it wouldn't rotate but you found an image somewhere. And you are? Anonymous. Your opinion
doesn't matter.

[Sam Peppiatt]

UbWe,
It's only two moving parts, the roller and it's toggle linkage. But without your ability to draw pictures it's nearly impossible to understand. If you like clues; the three main ones, are the grind stone / AP wheel for the rollers, The "hoop" toy for the rings and, the SB / toggle for shifting the weights. These clues fit after the fact, so to speak-------------Sam
Waltcy,
If I keep "trucking" with it long enough, maybe it will work----------------Sam
PS The rollers act like a gravity engine or motor. As the wheel turns they are turning and drive the SB, which moves the weights and the weights turn the wheel. Anyway, that's whats supposed to happen.