Bessler's Wheel

[DrWhat]

I just get on with it and build! I don't make any judgement of anyone on this site. I enjoy reading the constructive comments.

Sometimes a past design just needs a small change to create a totally different outcome.

What I am working on now is unique (but may or may not work). I looked at ALL the immense number of images of wheels on this site and found a few mild approximations of what I am trying. But it is one additional element that is the key to my design having any sort of chance. And once again I am learning by my mistakes. I am even learning how to build better and more accurately from my previous efforts. I have a basic principle but I know that gravity is stubbornly fighting me all the way to re-establish the status quo.

So what I am trying to say is even previous ideas can be rebuilt providing you add a unique new element that hasn't been tried before either as a new component or the application of a previous component on a different part of the wheel.

As for personal insults (if there have been any), why bother. It is brain draining enough just working on Bessler designs with out adding more emotional drain.

[rlortie]

I do not know why I did not think of this earlier, If P-motion wishes to talk math he needs to be indoctrinated by 2,409 posts over 100 pages long by a very intelligent young man who made a lasting impression on this forum.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/profi ... rofile&u=7

His name is Jonathan and you can find all his posts via memberlist. But for starters here is a good place to begin although it is in the middle of the movie.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=475

Some where in this collection is the math where Jonathan derived a conclusive equation that pm was impossible. But that did not stop him,

P-Motion should take note of this, it would not only educate/challange him to refute but keep him out of our hair for a couple of days.

Ralph

[ovyyus]

Well Ralph, in terms of results we're all currently equal. Based on history so far your ability to create PM is equal to my own, or P-Motion, or anyone else for that matter. Who can say with certainty what approach might eventually work, which will surely fail, and how much intelligence might actually be required? Could be we need some genius to sort it out. Could be we need a complete fool on the job. Could be I'm starting to sound like winkle :D Either way, most opinions don't need salt.

[AB Hammer]

Greetings all

When tempers get hot, and communications go out the window. Things are said, that most of us tend to regret a bit later. I am so glad to see things calming down.

Now This sight has ben a great source of information that I am glad to be a part of. There is a good bit of constructive criticism, that should be taken as such. I do believe that diagrams are a bit better than just math equation. I myself as a blacksmith deal with math but not long out drawn math equation. There for I can't talk just math with out good diagrams to go with it that show the hole picture so I can see the possible negative effects. P-Motion had a catch that he showed, and I quickly understood and am now putting it to the MT135 design that I am working on. It was a simple catch, but it saved me some time on the design, I only added a weighted end to make it more effective for this wheel. I have just not been able to put his whole picture on his wheel together, which makes it hard to help with.
But I have posted on Debbie's string a drawing of what I believe makes MT18 corrected and work. So Debbie and all please check it out. I do want to see the bessler problem solved. and I have another wheel that I am testing this weekend that also show allot of promise.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 7&start=15

[bluesgtr44]

Jim......I asked once before and I'll just bring it up again. This is going to accelerate and when it does, the AM/CF forces are going to come into play. These forces will not be directly proportional to the speed as it increases....I'm sure you understand this....where is the point that this will have an adverse affect? Can you see how this will increase the force that the weight will apply to the ramp? Just asking......


Steve

[rlortie]

ovyyus,

Well Ralph, in terms of results we're all currently equal. Based on history so far your ability to create PM is equal to my own, or P-Motion, or anyone else for that matter. Who can say with certainty what approach might eventually work, which will surely fail, and how much intelligence might actually be required? Could be we need some genius to sort it out. Could be we need a complete fool on the job. Could be I'm starting to sound like winkle :D Either way, most opinions don't need salt.

Ovyyus, You paint a grim picture, but unfortunately one of fact and truth!
After 50 years of pursuing, what is gained is 50 years of elimination of what will not work. I look forward by reducing the odds or ratio between what will not work and what is left to try.

As for a contest between a genius and a fool I would probably put my money on the fool. After all he or she would probably not have the education to have embedded the teachings of what is considered impossible. Or maybe some one who fits the old quote: " He is so intelligent that he is on the verge of being a complete idiot"

When I first look at a new design, I imagine it without all the arms, levers etc. and just visualize the location of the weights. odds are that there is always more on the ascending side than falling. If I end up with anything resembling MT 1 through 14 I am likely to dismiss it without question.

To understand Bessler one must think of the in-obvious, he was a shrewed fellow that admitted his concept was simple and contained something that had been overlooked by others. So simple that he demanded payment up front, knowing once exposed it would be considered very old technology.

With this in mind I now consider such statements as "paired weights seeking but never finding" Maybe that is because A. They both cannot occupy the same space at the same time or B. They cannot find it because they already have, and it is the wheel or drum that is doing the seeking.

Maybe someday it will drive a few of us completely nuts! and I or someone will stumble over the answer. Who ever or how ever the problem is solved I believe it will be by physical hands on trial and error. IMO math has its place, but it is math that gives us the pessimistic equations that it is impossible.

By the way, thank you for giving me a coffee break with my indifferences with P-Motion! :-)

Ralph

[rlortie]

Steve,

Jim......I asked once before and I'll just bring it up again. This is going to accelerate and when it does, the AM/CF forces are going to come into play. These forces will not be directly proportional to the speed as it increases....I'm sure you understand this....where is the point that this will have an adverse affect? Can you see how this will increase the force that the weight will apply to the ramp? Just asking......

Steve

In all fairness and putting personal feelings aside (as well as save my integrity)... I pulled up all 16 drawings submitted by Jim. I have without bias scrutinized them with caring diligence.

Now! You apparently see something here I am missing, otherwise I do not believe you would be asking about acceleration, AM/CF and effect on ramp. To be frankly honest I do not see anything to cause or have effect on/or to create 360 degrees of rotation.

If I am missing something I would certainly like to be brought up to speed!
As I see it, to be of value and expect the pendulum to rotate the disk the pendulum pivot must remain stationary. What drives the pendulum? Or maybe I should be asking what design are you referring your above questions too?

Ralph

[debbie]

Debbie,
You live in France but you write in English as an native of England.

Are you English?

By the way, I think you are doing very well for a newbe but I'll let you work out who the good guys are and who are the ones that just like the "sound of their own voice".

I am English Pete, we retired to France four years ago. Well, if you can call house renovating, looking after our goats and horses, running a club for expats, admin two writer's forums on the internet, trying hard to finish a novel I started before coming here, (the list goes on) retirement, then yes, I'm retired.

In my later working years I worked with adults with learning disabilities and some mental health patients. There was one woman in her thirties who had absolutely no literary or numeracy skills and very little communication. Yet if she heard a piece of music or song that she liked she could sit down at a piano and play it once right through, note perfect. However she could not repeat the piece without hearing the song again first. Another client, a man in his forties with similar disabilities, could do a 1000 piece jig saw, even one he had never seen before, in minutes. He could also do the same thing picture side down. I would like people here to think about that.

Debbie

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Ralph....giving a bit of the "benefit of doubt", that if it indeed does make more than 1 revolution...there is going to be some acceleration. I was wondering if he could present some of the math on that aspect. What would the force be trying to fly outward from CF and how will it apply into his device.

He says we do not understand the math, OK...show me! I want to learn! What he has shown is an almost static over balance....what happens mathematically when it actually starts to maintain rotation. He says the ramp will be attached to the axle and have he ability to shift a bit...i agree with this if it stands any possoble chance. I just think that the ramp will absorb all the reaction forces and the other end will not protrude as he thinks it will.....but, I could be wrong....


Steve

[Bessler007]

One approach is to reduce the mass of the wheel to a point where the resultant mass would be. It is also called the system center of mass. The attached gif is an approximation of where that COM is.

You're quite correct about the fact that an idea has to preceed the mathematical analysis. A good picture would precisely place the parts of a model. I noticed in your picture the curves are different. Was that by design?

The attached gif didn't take into account the mass of the structure holding the weights. The more massive it is the less effect any imbalance you create would have. If you jumped up and down on the bow of an ocean going vessel you would do an amount of work that wouldn't have near the effect as if you did that jumping on the bow of a canoe.

A massive support of the weights effectively reduces the torque of the imbalance.

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?

[debbie]

Thanks Bessler007,

The curves are supposed to be uniform, I just sketch quickly in Photomagic.

Am I to understand that the COM should be above the axle for it to have a chance of working?

Debbie

[Bessler007]

Hello Debbie,

I don't think it's possible to have the COM in the top two quadrants of the wheel. It would be fantastic if it could happen.

The closer you can move the weight to a horizontal line through the axle the better the chance a design has of working.

The elements of Jim's idea of letting the weight fall around 3 o'clock then again having that pendulum fall back on the wheel are excellent ideas as far as I'm concerned. They aren't new or novel ideas. From what I have been able to see the weight needs energy to move away from the wheel then also to move back to it.

Gravity alone won't cause those movements.

I approximated the masses on your wheel but the idea is this: You can replace two equal masses with one mass at the midpoint of the two. That replacement will have twice the mass of one of the original masses.

You may be aware of that but knowing the precise geometry of the wheel is the beginning of a sound mathematical analysis.

It is much simpler to take a general idea and examine it to see if your conclusions about it are correct. Looking at the math of an entire model will drive you nuts! :)

That's why I wish wm2d were more reliable.

[Fletcher]

Here are some thoughts contained on the Bessler-wiki page about CoG; CoM; torque; keeling & classes of wheels with hypothetically different CoG positions above & below the axle.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/wiki/index. ... Principles

An ideal gravity only wheel would have the CoG or system CoM orbiting to one side of the axle [not necessarily stationary nor above or below] but it must spend more time on one side of the wheel than the other to give an average asymmetric torque.

All gravity only designs so far, once placed out of balance with an input of energy/momentum [they start in balance], can quickly find their way back to the zero torque position below the axle, they are unable to cycle from that balanced position to the starting unbalanced position again, thus recovering full Potential Energy in the process - if they could they would be considered OU.

[winkle]

ovyyus

Could be we need a complete fool on the job. Could be I'm starting to sound like winkle

Bill you smooth talking rascal

what can i say being me is a dirty job but somebody has to do it

this gravity wheel business is kinda like trying to stay warm in winter by filling you're pockets with hot Chile pepers

[ovyyus]

:D