Zeroing in on Bessler's wheel

[Sam Peppiatt]

Yes Norman, I meant page 110. I didn't realize the posts were numbered. Fletcher, thanks for renewing your drawing, it really is worth a 1,000 words, or more-------------------Sam

[preoccupied]

I also enjoyed this concept. I envision because of it two half circle pendulums that has one offset on one side and the other bottom side. Then a hammer that goes back and forth 45 degrees, real Bessler wheel style. The rollers have two in each position and they are supposed to be so that one is always overbalanced by being overbalanced for 90 degrees and resetting in a 45 degree turn. That would make sense because the hammer has to turn back and forth, it allows many preloaded overbalanced positions I name here the one: rollers being out of balanced and two the half circle being out of balanced. If it all worked in unison to produce force then the hammer would try to time its fall to lift the half circle up at a 2:1 disadvantage in its timing and the half circle would try to lift the hammer back up in its timing the last 45 degrees of its fall to the bottom. The preloaded rollers in every position would need to make up the difference in force lacking between the hammer and the rollers. a 4 set of rollers would be pushed out of place by the half circle's first 45 degree fall so there would be roller effectiveness twice the half circle first 45 degree fall. The pendulum remaining fall its last 45 degree fall and the hammer attempting to lift in its timing the half circle up with a 2:1 disadvantage seem like middle steps in order to have continuously preloaded out of balanced half circle pendulum and offset rollers. And also the rollers would have to be locked in place for 90 degrees. I might be being a little imaginary.

[nebollinger]

Thanks Sam for p. 110. What I see in that drawing is bottom heavy CG. Am I wrong? Norman

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi Norman,
No, quite the opposite, they are perfectly balanced! The first one I built, I could not believe it. Also, the center of gravity is directly below the axle, equal to the difference in diameter of the ring and roller. I don't know how it could be possible. I wish some one would explain it to me. FWEIW, It has some of the same properties as a pendulum.

I remember thinking, could this be the makings of a runner------------Sam

ETA I meant yes, you are wrong about it being bottom heavy but, I was too. I thought for sure that it would be OOB and by a lot. To my surprise it was balanced and I'm unable to explain why.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi preoccupied!! You always have fantastic ideas------------------Sam

[johannesbender]

Hi Norman,
No, quite the opposite, they are perfectly balanced! The first one I built, I could not believe it. Also, the center of gravity is directly below the axle, equal to the difference in diameter of the ring and roller. I don't know how it could be possible. I wish some one would explain it to me. FWEIW, It has some of the same properties as a pendulum.

I remember thinking, could this be the makings of a runner------------Sam

ETA I meant yes, you are wrong about it being bottom heavy but, I was too. I thought for sure that it would be OOB and by a lot. To my surprise it was balanced and I'm unable to explain why.

As for the why of how they are bottom heavy but do not hamper the rotation , the total gpe remains more or less the same during rotation because they roll and their total com cannot affect the disc in any way.

If they were glued and unable to roll then the total gpe would be affected by the rotation and they would stop the disc if rotated because the disc would have to lift the gpe and com along with .

[Sam Peppiatt]

jb,
They aren't bottom heavy but, you are right about the rolling of the weights. If bolted to the wheel it would instantly become bottom heavy. The GPE does remain constant. Maybe it's because, as one is losing height the other one is gaining height. Or, you could say it's constantly being restored.

In either case, it's highly unusual and shows how the weights can be lifted back up, free of charge----------Sam

[johannesbender]

Maybe it's because, as one is losing height the other one is gaining height.

100% true and correct.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Jb,
'slowly getting it sorted out; none of this stuff is written down any where which makes it difficult to explain. What I mean is, if you open up your 2nd year collage physics book, the chapter on gravity wheels is missing--------Sam

Looks like,(if the crank works), it can be used to stop the wheel, reverse direction, and maybe even regulate the speed like a governor by, changing the phase relation between the two cranks. With zero shift the rollers would be centered and the wheel would stop.

[Sam Peppiatt]

Update,
Crank not working. It was all right for about 90 degrees but, that was about it. Have to find another way. Maybe one cross bar could push off from the other one. One would "hold" and, the other one would turn the wheel. I'll try it------------Sam

[Sam Peppiatt]

Getting a better Idea; excess weight!
Excess weight holds the crank and, the crank shifts the cross-bar and rollers to one side,(to turn the wheel)-------------Sam

[Sam Peppiatt]

Update,
Getting close to trying the new drive to the C-B / Rollers. It is totally passive. The weight and the crank shaft remain stationary. I.E., everything rotates around the crank pin, which displaces the rollers to one side as the wheel rotates-------------Sam

[Sam Peppiatt]

Not working-----------------Sam

[Sam Peppiatt]

Getting a new "Idea".
There may be a very simple way for the rollers to drive the wheel. Like So: One set of rollers would be out on the rim of the wheel with a long cross-bar connecting them. Another set of rollers would be close together, near the center of the wheel and it's bar would be quite short. The crank pin in the center, could shift one cross bar to the right and the other to the left by an equal amount.

Normally; if the cross-bars were equal in length,(with rollers equally spaced) all forces would balance out. Back torque would equal forward torque and the wheel wouldn't budge. But, by having a set far out on the rim of the wheel; (it would have more torque then the one in close to the center), then the wheel should turn.

This might help to explain why Bessler's wheels got to be so large in diameter; to get the difference in torque needed, to turn it------------------Sam

[Sam Peppiatt]

Follow up,
The rollers do every thing. They lift them selves back up and turn the wheel. Except for the total lack of interest; things are looking up----------------Sam