Bessler's Wheel

[rlortie]

007,

it is confusing when you respond to one person but quote another. :) It would clear things up if you'd actually address a person.

Learn to live with it! he finds a picture of my house in the album and cites the name of rks1878 (Robert's) thread to it. No connection to me at all!

I do not wish to antagonize this guy, but someone has to teach him to look before he leaps.

Stewart and jim_mich keep a close eye on me, now its my turn! :-)

Ralph

[rlortie]

Jim in Washington,

It is quite specific.
So please, in your next response, a mechanical fixed axis system that allows for a body to conserve momentum while conserving energy.

Hummm! Let me think, A mechanical fixed axis: one that does not move as the bearing is froze. It conserves momentum and does not use any energy.

Is that specific enough for you?

Ralph

[P-Motion]

Bessler007,
Sorry about that. Could be the result of to many thoughts running through my mind.
My thought on perpetual motion is simple, only a working model will suffice.
I think this is why over the years, it was something I did on my own.
So even if someone showed on a program that potential is not lost pertaining to a specific mechanical behavior, the argument would switch to "have you built it yet ?".
And this has only been a hobby of mine when I've had nothing else to do.
I promised my mom (she's deceased) it would be nothing morre than that.
And this meant I didn't have squabbles with people like Ralph.
Do think the pendulum has a lot of potential. Everybody knows that pendulums swing. And I am fairly certin that a pendulum would swing faster than a wheel with weights on it, even with one extended.
Yep, do believe Bessler was that smart :)
And until I have the opportunity to test this idea, there isn't much to talk about. Either it will work or it won't.
Just thought I'd add this thought. I have posted a simple test to see if the idea merits further consideration.
Take care and happy hunting.

Jim

[Bessler007]

Hello Jim,

That's quite alright. That's how I know you're a crank. You can get cranky.

An imbalance on a wheel is basically a pendulum. It isn't a new idea to cause the imbalance to shift into balance at the bottom causing the pendulum to disappear. The question of how to accomplish this is still unanswered.

Do think the pendulum has a lot of potential. Everybody knows that pendulums swing.

In my opinion you've taken an idea you considered to be a good one and shared it. I really think that's commendable. There are others that have done the same. Jim Mitch comes to mind. Fletcher's aerodynamic lift concept is another. ....AB Hammer's various wheels.

My focus is to level the playing field. I think anyone insane enough to attempt this puzzle should be as equipped as they can be. Paper and pencil are as valuable a tool as a milling machine. The computerized paper of a simulator or spreadsheet can help refine a design well beyond the method of shooting from the hip.

Whenever you use a computer to do your math it is essential to check it. Even when someone solves a problem with paper and pencil they verify their results. They should. There are numerous ways to solve most problems.

At first those that have barely looked at the matter of Perpetual Motion and the physics of it, promise the motion is an easy achievement. Experiment rather than conjecture harshly teaches just how difficult the matter is.

The chance of discovery is powerful motivation but anyone that has chased it for a while has to admit its subtle ability to deceive.

No doubt.

[rlortie]

Jim from Washington,

You wrote:

And this meant I didn't have squabbles with people like Ralph.

The only squabbling is brought on by your own impetuous remarks that have no bearing on wheel discussion. Such as "If I were smart I would live in Washington etc.

I do not wish to squabble, I would only like to act as a participant and assist/ponder with you in discussing your ideas. Call it mentoring if you wish, If I say something that is in error, believe me there will be those who will correct my fault. And that is the basics of how this forum should work.

If you wish to discuss your ideas or pass them on for input of what, why and how something will work, you will find me responsive with a positive attitude. To this point, after reviewing your posts from the beginning, I have no idea of what you are proposing other than a swinging pendulum on some sort of extending rod.

Here are two links that will bring you up to speed on what has already been researched.

http://www.evert.de/eft416e.htm
http://www.evert.de/indefte.htm

These links will lead you to others dealing with pendulums and their behavior with different physical properties.

You do the math and their are many members here that will assist in the simulations and/or a physical proto-type. But first we need some sort of visual concept to go by.

Ralph

[GraViTaR]

Hey Gravitar....any idea as to how fast this can go before the reaction forces become greater than the ability to push the weights up to the latching mechanism...I mean, it seems that the faster it goes the harder the impact will be on that ramp mainly because the CF is going to want to keep the mechanism extended. So, at what point does the CF become greater than the off set weight? Unless I am looking at this wrong....that point would have to be there, right?


Steve

Speed of rotation is not the ultimate goal, here: just rotation. If CF ever was a factor, which I doubt it would be, a positive stop would be all that was necessary to keep the arm in the proper position.

This picture is just to give you an idea of what I envision. The actual distances and proportions shown here are not necessarily the way you want to build this to make it work; especially the ramp.

[P-Motion]

Ralph,
If the people in this forum are at a loss to understand it, no need for me to beat my head against a wall.
I could show you were you have posted more than once saying it won't work. But then, it could be that I have a pendulum in my home and have seen it swing. Not sure. But when you see something in one way, it makes it easier to see it in a little different light.
Myself, I think people have trouble imagining a pendulum working in a wheel. When I get the chance and if it works, most of you guys would still be saying What ? I don't get it.
I have posted the numbers for the ramp and its' location and the length of the arm.
Lay it out on cardboard. Maybe that might help you to see it.
With the dimensions I gave, the weights center would have to be 27" extending to 30".
So the question would be, how much momentum can be developed with 25ft.lbs. of force vs. 22.5ft.lbs. of resistence. Roughly a 10:1 mass to force ratio.
One day, I'll get around to it.


Jim

Jim from Washington,

You wrote:

And this meant I didn't have squabbles with people like Ralph.

The only squabbling is brought on by your own impetuous remarks that have no bearing on wheel discussion. Such as "If I were smart I would live in Washington etc.

I do not wish to squabble, I would only like to act as a participant and assist/ponder with you in discussing your ideas. Call it mentoring if you wish, If I say something that is in error, believe me there will be those who will correct my fault. And that is the basics of how this forum should work.

If you wish to discuss your ideas or pass them on for input of what, why and how something will work, you will find me responsive with a positive attitude. To this point, after reviewing your posts from the beginning, I have no idea of what you are proposing other than a swinging pendulum on some sort of extending rod.

Here are two links that will bring you up to speed on what has already been researched.

http://www.evert.de/eft416e.htm
http://www.evert.de/indefte.htm

These links will lead you to others dealing with pendulums and their behavior with different physical properties.

You do the math and their are many members here that will assist in the simulations and/or a physical proto-type. But first we need some sort of visual concept to go by.

Ralph

[rlortie]

GraVitaR,

I have built such a design! Imagine if you can that the white background in your picture is a backer board with a split or half axle holding the rotating disk in place, On the backer board mount a telescoping adjustable ring which is the ramp.

You can move the flexible ramp to any position desired as well as increase or decrease the stroke or ramp angle. Use anywhere from one to eight spokes and weights. reduce friction by adding roller blade wheels to weights to ride the ramp.

AS for speed creating CF. no problem as I never attained any sustaining rpm to create any. Try as hard as you will. The end result for me was always the same, It will not work!

Ralph

[scott]

This picture is just to give you an idea...

Hi gravitar and thanks for sharing. But please use the file attachment feature from now on instead of linking to photobucket.
Thanks,
Scott

[P-Motion]

Steve,
posting this twice as I think this is the thread I should've posted it in.
For the most part, its' about all the math. With the overhead ramp, it always starts 135 degrees from top center.

With 2 10 lb. weights 27" from center and if one extends to 30",
The drop to when the overhead ramp controls one weight would be 21.21" and 2.5 lbs. of force would cause acceleration at about 3feet/second.
The spin velocity 30" from center would be about 1.6meter/second.
The ramp dropping from a height 14.14" to the right and down would allow for the weight to move at about 8m/s. This would be becasue the height to width ratio would be about 2.5:1. This would allow for accelrating at about 1/4 of 32f/s^2.
This would allow for acceleration to occur until the weight is retracted (bottom of ramp woudl be 17" below the axis ) which then the velocity would be about 2m/s.
Not sure how long 25lbs, would spin at that velocity.
In an earlier post I said the ramp was 7.07" down to start, it would be pretty flat there. Turns out the lower the ramp is the more drop it allows for. But those would be the approximate numbers. And round weights would need to be used for the obvious reason round things like to roll, less friction in moving outward.
Simple way to view the overhead ramp is the weight is 10" beyond it.
At 45 degrees to the axis, 20" is 14.14" below the plane of the axis. Plus the 10" distance to the weight - 30".
And 17" below the axis (end of ramp) plus 10" distance to the weight equals 27", the retracted lenght. That's about everything. Weights would be round and on a 5 degree incline, if a slot, then the bottom would be a slight downward angle.
Or if the overhead ramp were 7" below the axis and went 7" to the right, the weight would extend 14" further out to the right )20"x .707).
This would mean at about 167 degrees, the weight would be under its' axis. Not sure if more force would be generated that way. It'd need to be tested. Of coursre, it would be possible to try different ramp positions, etc., but for a start.
It would probably take someone laying it out and using a rod or something to get an idea of how it might work.
Hope you don't mind but am kind of burned by doing so much thinking on this the last couple of months. Time for a break. But this would give anyone interested in how Bessler might have done it time to consider it and become familiar with it.
Hope all goes well for you Steve.
Jim

P-M...I know you think math is going to be the end-all of this problem. Look, there is going to be a point where just math is not going to be relative to the situation you are going to be presented with in a real build. I have not heard one mention of physics from you...and when this contraption of yours starts turning....the math is on the back burner and physics is going to step in...and it's going to step in pretty heavy!

Please, if it is the math....what will be the maximum speed of the device you are presenting (understanding you may be driving a flywheel)? what are the reaction forces going to be at this speed and what will you employ to deal with them? Air resistance? Friction forces? Can you factor in a good number of these factors and present an idea of what the potential output would be? Most of this is physics.....I just haven't seen you broach this aspect of your idea yet.

I really like your gumption! I mean, you seem pretty straight forward in what you are presenting....I just do not think what you have presented is any different than what has already been tried and documented in one form or another....but, I hope no matter the outcome, you learn/teach and continue on with the rest of us...wish you luck in the build and no matter what....we can all learn.


Steve

[AB Hammer]

P Motion/ Jim

I was just wondering, are you trying to do MT135 of Bessler's designs.
I am just trying to get a real picture of what your wheel looks like.

[debbie]

Not sure if this is the place to post this, but as some here are A1 with maths, and I'm not, can someone please take a look at this and tell me how on earth I should approach it mathematically?

I got to thinking triangles and squares! And, didn't Bessler say that the weights worked in pairs?

I hope the drawing explains the principle. The pink dots are weights. Three are on arms pivoted at the axle, the arms are restricted to moving within the areas between the grey boxes.

The grey boxes contain two weights each and the four sides of each box are curved inwards.

I think the starting point would be at C. There's lots of stuff happening on the left side of the wheel. At C the left hand weight in the lower left box has just fallen off the right hand weight and rolled outwards giving some momentum to the mechanism.

I've not seen this principle proposed, no doubt someone will tell me if it has.

Debbie

[P-Motion]

Alan,
here is what the basic counter-balanced arm would look like. I have looked at all of Besslers drawings and saw nothing close to it. If it is what his working design was based on, he kept it covered up.
While the ramp would support the weights fulcrum, the weight would still apply the same force to the wheel.
This is where it is different than the weight being on a ramp. If the weight were supported from beneath itself by a ramp, then it would apply less force to the wheel.
One thing to remember, showing a difference of 3" in a drawing like this does not show very well.
Hope this helps.

Jim

P Motion/ Jim

I was just wondering, are you trying to do MT135 of Bessler's designs.
I am just trying to get a real picture of what your wheel looks like.

[rlortie]

Debbie,

I most certainly am not the math person you seek.

I have never ran across or recall seeing any other design with this approach. How ever I feel that you are correct is stating that "C" is probably the starting place. But, it is my opinion that it will also be at or near the ending place.

I make this statement based on visual scrutiny of imaginary vertical lines drawn from the cumulative weight tranferance points in reference to the axle.

Believe me, I hope I am in error

Ralph

[P-Motion]

Debbie,
Since the curvature inside the boxes can affect when the balls move, I'd say until an analysis is done that its' possible.
True, someone may have done somehting similar, but details are everything.
And this would take some time to review. It is a complex design.
This would mean determining where force is generated and knowing how it is conserved.
Then by knowing the potential force to mass ratio, it'd be easier to say why or why not.
And you are right, Bessler did say when the weights come together. I told someone that as he talked about his different designs, it was important to separate what was said about what design. And his working designs he kept secret.
I took another look at your design. Please take some time to consider this.
Going by C, if the wall in the top box that the balls are against is shaped differently, then the weights both could move against the outer wall sooner.
This would be by having the upper part of the inside wall going out further and a ramp on the floor.
And in the box on the right, if the floor is a ramp, then the weights might move towards center quicker.
I think that is the way I'd look at pursuing your design. It is an interesting concept.

Jim

Not sure if this is the place to post this, but as some here are A1 with maths, and I'm not, can someone please take a look at this and tell me how on earth I should approach it mathematically?

I got to thinking triangles and squares! And, didn't Bessler say that the weights worked in pairs?

I hope the drawing explains the principle. The pink dots are weights. Three are on arms pivoted at the axle, the arms are restricted to moving within the areas between the grey boxes.

The grey boxes contain two weights each and the four sides of each box are curved inwards.

I think the starting point would be at C. There's lots of stuff happening on the left side of the wheel. At C the left hand weight in the lower left box has just fallen off the right hand weight and rolled outwards giving some momentum to the mechanism.

I've not seen this principle proposed, no doubt someone will tell me if it has.

Debbie