Zeroing in on Bessler's wheel

[JUBAT]

I see what you're saying Sam. When you get tired of your current design, have a think about off center rotation and how you can use that to embellish you design. I can't prove my design yet, but I think it has merit. I think yours does too. We would all do well to look deeper into off center rotation. I think there is stuff buried in there that hasn't been studied properly and could very well lead to an answer.

[Sam Peppiatt]

OK---Sam

[WaltzCee]

.
.
Hey Sam

Have you ever considered having the weights/wheels roll around on their axle instead of the circumference?

If the axle were 1/2 the diameter of circumference, it should make 2 revolutions for the wheels one & accumulate momentum quicker. That night help with latency & back torques.

[WaltzCee]

.
.

. .. .. .
Good foreword torque but, back torque as well. Also, mechanical problems; (a lot of friction).

. .. .. .

[Sam Peppiatt]

Waltcy,
No, I never thought of that. The problem would be to get it to roll over the top of the axle. It inherently wants to follow the circumference. It probably could be done. It's a good idea, not sure what it would do.

Right, mechanical problems with the old lever I was using. The new and improved lever should be a lot better----Sam

ETA, Usually, I slap some thing together first, to see if It's worth taking the time to make it better.

[WaltzCee]

. .. .. . It probably could be done. It's a good idea, not sure what it would do.

. .. .. .

• A small modification that illustrates the principle.
  Reducing the diameter < of the force > of the central disk brings the weights closer to the center, which suits us, but it's not the engine.

[WaltzCee]

.
.
Interesting use of a bell crank

[Sam Peppiatt]

A mini update,
I've finalized the dimensions for the new lever. They will be about a foot long. Should complete both of them today then, a couple of more days to try it out.
Waltcy,
I thought about having the rollers rolling around an axle, or center ring. Couldn't come up with any way to help turn the wheel. Or, at least I don't know how-----------------Sam

[Sam Peppiatt]

Tried out the new lever(s),
Every thing working great mechanically. However the wheel isn't turning. Another dead duck, unless I can find a way to revive it-----------Sam

[Sam Peppiatt]

Springs & Rings & Rollers!!
Mechanically it's the best thing I have ever come up with. The operation is very smooth and continuous. When all of the weight of a roller is on a lever, it stretches out the spring. When all, or most of the weight of the roller, is on the drum, the spring, with the help of the lever, rolls the roller forward.

Comparing it to a gasoline engine, it's like a compression stroke, then a power stroke for every 90 degrees of rotation. To me it makes use of the "force" of gravity, rather then on falling weights. The goal now, is to try to improve on it-------------Sam

[WaltzCee]

.
.

To me it makes use of the "force" of gravity, rather then on falling weights.

It sounds like you're exploiting the gradient between RKE & translational kenetic energies, Sam.

When all of the weight of a roller is on a lever, it stretches out the spring. When all, or most of the weight of the roller, is on the drum, the spring, with the help of the lever, rolls the roller forward.

sounds like a transmission, if you ask me.
Keep truckin'! You have to take a pic of this one!

ETA

reminds me of Archimedes' idea. He used levers a lot.

[spinner361]

@Sam Peppiatt: It reminds me of George Kunstler's ideas, because he used drums quite a bit. He thought of some pretty cool stuff.

[spinner361]

Sam,
It's been decided that it isn't possible, to do that.
There are even arguments that are considered to explain why it isn't possible.
Once it was considered that we were intelligent enough to know if PM was, or was not, possible, we were forced to "pick a side". The other option was that we are still "too stupid" to know one way or the other. The idea that we were still lacking the knowledge to make that decision, was a preposterous idea, because we knew so much and knew that what we knew was correct.
So we needed to either acknowledge that PM is possible, which means we are too stupid to work our how to do it.
Or, we needed to acknowledge that it was impossible, which means we are intelligent enough to work it out. it's the impossibility, that is the reason we can't do it, not our insufficient knowledge.
The arguments that we use, that are considered to prove that PM is impossible, do not prove that PM is impossible. They simply convince us that they are proof it is impossible. Convincing ourselves that PM is impossible, isn't the same as proving that PM is impossible. It is because of cognitive bias, that we confuse the two.
Gravity can (it is allowed to) cause a wheel to turn. There is nothing that stops it from doing so, other than the limitations in our understanding, which makes it impossible for us to make it happen.

Very well said.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Waltcy,
I was just trying to give the basic idea of it. Still a long ways off from working, if ever. Not sure about the springs; they giveth then taketh away----------------Sam

Spinner361,
Right, every one thinks it's the same thing that Georg was working on. Yes, Robinhood writes good stuff, I agree.

[WaltzCee]

.
.

Not sure about the springs; they giveth then taketh away----------------Sam

Do they take the same amount of time going as they do coming? It sounded like you said they will roll one way yet when they don't roll they go the other way.

• If that's the case, you've figured out how to teach your wheel up from down.

Before you know it your baby is going to roll out the front door on its way to college!

ETA
corrected spellin' arrows.