The Bessler wheel can be usefull for the building of any gravitic engine

[path_finder]

Dear all,
I'm back home and after completing my reports I'm ready for still continuing to share my data.

About the title of this new topic: only the idiots don't change their mind.
Even if it was not my first concern, I should admit that the quest of the Bessler wheel design has been very useful for my understanding of some basic principles.

Some members, like ruggerodk and murilo (thanks to them), are sharing their designs.
I'm a little disapointed to see the very small level of messages since the last ten days. Either the screwdrivers are very busy in the basement, either the members are full of a deep perplexity in front of their paper page. Or the idea do not become milliardaire anymore with a patent for any gravitic engine, may have discouraged a lot of 'last minute' inventors. And now this forum is even corrupted by a pollution for MS$ adds (please Scott!, help us! we are regressing)

I will now have the time to build the 'hamster design' described in my last post. I will post a shot as soon as possible.
(remember: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/downl ... f9c7a9d657)

Anyway hereafter is the new animation 'crossbar_Gx6.gif' based on two parts:
-1. The 'virtual fixed axle' obtained by the 'crossbar' design
(remember: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/downl ... f9c7a9d657)
-2. The prime-mover based on the excentred cam, here with six weights
(remember: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/downl ... f9c7a9d657)
The crossbar obliges the drum to rest at the 3:00 position whatever the motion of the wheel.
The wheel rotates under the torque given by the 6 red weights rolling on the rosa drum outer rim.
The springs (contacting the weights on the drum) are not represented.
Any comments?

[greendoor]

I would tend to rephrase that and say "Any working gravitic engine will be useful for building a Bessler wheel". But then, I think that's basically what your last thread was trying to say ...

By that I mean we need to demonstrate a basic working principle, first and foremost. I would be happy even if it wasn't a wheel - i'm working on a device to elevate mass higher than the height it falls. It won't be a wheel, but I feel it matches Bessler's poem description, and if this works i'm sure it could be re-interpreted into a wheel. Bessler was very limited by having to hide the mechanism.

Pathfinder - you have presented both some delightfully simple and some very complex mechanisms, but I feel it is all in vain unless you have a solid free energy working principle. Just hoping that some energy will come from nowhere doesn't inspire any confidence to build anything. I would just expect a locked-up stalled wheel with all forces balanced.

I think we need to be able to describe in a few words, and back up with some basic maths, where we think the energy is coming from. I have every confidence that those builders who have (allegedly) built running wheels succeeded because they knew exactly the principle they were chasing.

I know your perfect path theory - but I can't see this creating any energy.

Pequaide on the other hand can describe how he creates energy in the lab - but we aren't seeing any mechanisms that could be built ...

I would urge you to think about the very simplest thing that could be built to demonstrate surplus energy ... maybe not even a wheel for a start ...

[bluesgtr44]

Hey P.F., I really like the ideas that pop out of your head. Let's take the idea you have posted here and then do a bit of a comparison to your hamster cage idea. This can maybe give yourself and some others a bit of insight as to what I try and look for anymore. This insight and about 75 cents may be able to get you a cup of coffee somewhere. I look at systems as they are statically.....and then try to see how they will be when they are dynamic. I am nowhere near as good at explaining these things as are Jim and Fletch or Stewart or Michael so bear with me.

So, for the design you have here. There is nothing within the framework that will break the symmetry. I know I have mentioned this a bit, but with every test I have done....if the main frame of the system is rigid, the rest of it will be held by just that! So, if this is the approach.....then the symmetry must be broken some place else. That only leaves the weights themselves and/or the connecting aspect of these weights to the main frame. This system you have here will not work as it is. The best way I can think of to see this, is to build the thing and force it to turn. Do this in the same way you may think it would turn if it actually accelerated on it's own. This is a very eye opening way of seeing whay is actually happening with those reaction forces. Now, when I say force it, I don't mean make it fail. Try very hard to keep it in the state of OOB you think it should be at as it would naturally accelerate. This is where I understood why these basic types of designs do not work in and of themselves. I do, however think that designs such as this may be able to be used once we find that prime mover.

Now, the hamster cage. Here it seems to be a more non-rigid framework. There is actually a part of what I might would consider the main frame that is able to be dynamic. It rises and it falls....this would appear to create a maintainable offset of weight distribution. But, I believe it to be more of an illusion than a reality. As this accelerates, the ability of that rising and falling wheel to deliver those weights to the right location at the right time is going to cost the system more and more energy.

Think about this......when we see our ideas, our systems....we don't generally factor in these aspects when we initially come up with the concept. We generally see it as a system that is setup initially OOB and then it just "takes off".....but, in reality it simply gets to the point where the reaction forces take over and it keels! I have done some tests and such trying to see where these points are and trying to work around those. This is a very, very disheartening adventure......

Fletch had a thread recently and I take blame for probably killing it. I think he was after something else and I just wasn't on the same page with it. But, it didn't really get much attention and I think it is a HUGE question as far as what approach one would/could take in trying to create a maintainable off balance or off set. It was this one.....

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2844

....Depending on the size of the wheel and the weights, there will be a maximum speed at which the system can turn before the forces start to kick in. If you're losing those forces, this is where you have to maintain that speed. If you are trying to use those forces in some way, it seems that the system would need to achieve a certain speed to be able to take advantage of this approach.....and I could be wrong in this. There has to be a control factor of these forces whether they are used or nullified.

Thanks for all the sharing of these ideas, P.F.! You have a very good knack for the mechanics in this.


Steve

[LustInBlack]

PS: This will not work, your weights are concentrated when ascending.. It's in equilibrium ..

You need to put all your ascending weights to the exact center of the wheel or find a way to ascend descending weights.. ;P

[path_finder]

Dear greendoor and bluesgtr44, many thanks for the comments.
The link given by bluesgtr44 asks for name/password and is displaying the following message: 'The topic or post you requested does not exist'. Please check. Thanks

Dear LustinBlack,
Look at the picture http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/downl ... f9c7a9d657 and remember that the main axle is the black one (not the red center of the drum).

[LustInBlack]

Yes, but your weights move faster when descending, you should simulate this...

[broli]

Yes, but your weights move faster when descending, you should simulate this...

It's not because they move faster or are concentrated on one side. The problem is that assuming they follow said path while contributing torque in a traditional way.

This is incorrect. For instance when the weight is at 12 o'clock of the inner guiding wheel the torque contribution is zero as all the weight rests on the guiding wheel. While if you didn't have the wheel there it wouldn't be zero. This system is actually perfectly balanced.

[path_finder]

dear broli,
May be the assembly don't work (it needs to be confirmed), but I'm sorry, I have some difficulties to believe these weights are perfectly balanced (the rotation axle is the red point and the COG is located on the blue point).

Back on the assembly: the speed of the weights has only a marginal effect on the COG calculation. But remember that the center of the blue drum is dependent from the four light blue rollers (virtual fixed axle) and therefore floating in the air.

[broli]

If it's floating in the air then it's part of the system and my comment no more holds. But this addresses the next question. How is it floating? That is the main key. As the wheel is rotating you have a part inside that never changes position. So far I see no reason why that inner wheel will maintain that position.

[Grimer]

If it's floating in the air then it's part of the system and my comment no more holds. But this addresses the next question. How is it floating? That is the main key. As the wheel is rotating you have a part inside that never changes position. So far I see no reason why that inner wheel will maintain that position.

That's not really a problem.

The mass distribution of the inner wheel could be very biased so that the centre of gravity of the inner wheel is directly below the axle.

[path_finder]

Dear Broli,
Many thanks for your post. We must be rigorous.

Regarding the calculation of the center of gravity: there is sometime a big trouble in the calculation, because what is important is not what you see but where all parts are connected.
URL on Desaguliers for the newbies: http://www.todayinsci.com/Books/MechApp ... /page2.htm

I go back to your torque calculation (cf http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/downl ... 2cd4be14f6).
Your way is true if you limit the integration within the green angle (60 grades).
As mentioned earlier I don't agree with your point of view, because I think that the horizontal path should be taken in account in the torque calculation.
The weight don't disappear during this time.
On practical way this horizontal path should be in fact a curve (may be a part of cycloid, an ellipse in a good approximation).
I put at your investigation this elliptical path, much more conform with the reality.
In this case the torque value is: P x r[1 + cos(alpha)] x cos(alpha)
and the work is the integral from -pi/2 to +pi/2, wich is different of the left side.

[path_finder]

Hereafter a shot of a demonstrator I used for some experiments last year and showing the principle of the 'virtually fixed point'.
The crossbar mechanism is not order 4 (like in the previous animations) but of order 3 (like in the flowerbowl), but the principle is the same (instead to be the center of a rotating square, the 'virtually fixed point' is in this case the center of an equilateral triangle, in red on the shot).
Just for explaining that I'm not a armchair theorician and I make a lot of practical experiments to confirm the first level of confidence.

Dear bluesgtr44,
I agree with your approach (static then dynamic analysis) but I don't understand why you say that this design has NO symetry broken: the center of the crossbar is excentered (the attachment axles on the external rollers are excentred at 3:00) and I can tell you, if I maintain the base vertical, any torque applied to the top red plate let rotate the yellow plate, the axle of the red plate still remaining at the same position.
The question is: what kind of prime-mover should be installed on the red plate, in view to produce the appropriate torque (the drum above could be not the most clever). But I have my idea about.

[david jenkins]

Path_finder;
On your post dated June 2nd you have a simulation that I find fascinating. I see a way to keep your blue inner wheel stationary. Have an upside down triangle with a weight on the left side and your blue wheel on the other. Attach a weight at the bottom twice as heavy as your blue wheel and its opposite weight. As your wheel speeds up the inner blue wheel will start to drop down and act as a limiter. Just a thought.



Dave

[path_finder]

Dear david jenkins,
Many thanks for your suggestion.
The problem is NOT TO FIX the blue drum center (it is), but to LET ROTATE the red plate.
The blue drum (where the weights are rolling) center is attached with the COG of the red triangle, therefore it rotates around this point because the crossbar itself rotates.
The circular shape of the drum in this case is conserved in any position for the rolling weights (an ellipse could not be useful)
But because the linkage with the yellow rollers this point (the 'virtually fixed point') is always stationary.
This position is independent of any rotation (in the both directions) of the both yellow AND red plates (it is only dependent from the original position of the excentered axles on the external rollers).
Therefore we need a prime-mover to do that (not present on the shot).
Per example if we adapt a red drum around the red plate, an hamster will do that.

[david jenkins]

Thank you for clarifying that for me. It helps me understand your wheel. Have a good day.



Dave