I was thinking about cycloids and decided to draw a graph of a cycloid being generated by a rolling wheel, in this case a wheel rolling under a surface rather than the more conventional depiction of a wheel rolling above a surface.
As I looked at it I wondered why Bessler didn't start off his wheel on a flat surface and let it roll. This would have been a spectacular demonstration and people would have instantly appreciated the transport implications of a wheel which rolled and rolled and rolled without ever stopping.
Why, even the military would have been interested.
Presumably since the wheel can do work it could have managed to climb a slight slope, an even more spectacular demonstration than a wheel running on a flat surface.
Yet, as far as I know, nowhere is there any evidence that he did this or that anyone suggested that he should.
Why?
What does it tell us about the nature of the wheel?
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
Good idea. It would have been impressive to see, but would require too much space to demonstrate; too little security and perhaps the construction of a strong enough rim to support th weight, even of the one-way wheels, might have been too difficult.
His construction of the two-way wheels followed the failure to sufficiently impress with his one-way wheels. His pleasure, too, at mystifying his admirers may have been redoubled more at the thought of the two-way wheel than one which rolled up hill.
When this secret is known I'm sure demonstrations of uphill wheel rolling will follow.
I can understand the overbalanced per se bit though.
To me it suggests he didn't do it because the wheel would not have rolled.
And if it would not have rolled this eliminates hamster type solutions cos if it had a hamster and was working like a treadmill then it definitely would have rolled.
The wheel needed to be supported at axle level not at ground level - which is curious since if the axle remains central to the wheel then the reaction force from the ground must go though the axle.
Does this mean that the axle is not in fact central to the wheel but is continuously eccentric as in the case of the Rubber Band Motor.
If you put the Rubber Band Motor on the ground and heated up one side it would just sit there, would it not. The axle would be pulled away from the centre and that would be it.
John Collins wrote:Good idea. It would have been impressive to see, but would require too much space to demonstrate; too little security and perhaps the construction of a strong enough rim to support the weight, even of the one-way wheels, might have been too difficult.
His construction of the two-way wheels followed the failure to sufficiently impress with his one-way wheels. His pleasure, too, at mystifying his admirers may have been redoubled more at the thought of the two-way wheel than one which rolled up hill.
When this secret is known I'm sure demonstrations of uphill wheel rolling will follow.
JC
Ah! I'm interested to see that you think it would have rolled up hill, John.
If you had a wheel that went round perpetually wouldn't sheer curiosity have impelled you to see if it would roll - especially with the smaller wheels which could have rolled on a table or smooth floor.
Will your wheel roll, John?
One thing for sure. Wheels that roll and wheels that don't belong to different orders of mechanism. Maybe that's been the problem. People have been trying to design higher order hamster-type wheels that will roll.
Frank
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
The above diagram show the relationship between a hamster driven wheel and the earth. This type of epicycloid wheel will roll and roll till the hamster drops dead from lack of food. If the food was inexhaustible and the hamster was immortal then one would have a Hamster PMM.
The Bessler wheel is a hypocyloid wheel with a twist. Here the relation is not between the wheel and the earth but between the external wheel and an internal wheel or wheel equivalent. Weights are the equivalent of the hamster and gravity the equivalent of the hamster food. Since weights are for all practical purposes immortal and gravity is inexhaustible we have a Gravity Perpetual Motion Machine.
Since Bessler's external wheel is the analogue of the earth I suppose one could say that Bessler moved the earth - quite an achievement, eh!
The Pop Keenie wheel gives the game away more than somewhat. But I wouldn't want to spoil the thrill of discovery for you so I'll emulate Alsetalokin and leave you chaps to work that out for yourselves......
Edit: I've just noticed, that globe's transparent, You can see the shadow of Oz, etc. Neat, eh!
Attachments
Last edited by Grimer on Mon Jul 20, 2009 8:25 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
Dear Grimer,
I agree with your point about the cycloid.
In a previous topic the same question has been discussed earlier: Why Bessler did not let roll the wheel itself on the floor?
At that time the common answer was based on the fact that removing the weights could be much more easy for translating the wheel.
If this assumption can have a first level of confidence (due to the possible poor hardness of the wooden structure), I'm still thinking this is NOT the correct justification.
As mentioned earlier (see http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 9ed240aec8 )
this is almost a question of relative position of the different rotating axles: as soon the wheel is put on the floor, immediately the internal principle become inoperative.
This is obvious if you observe the main axle in the following design http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/downl ... bb441922b5
On my opinion the valuable reason is here, confirmed by the fact that apparently the two pillars were screwed on the floor and on the roof.
This kind of assembly is working only if the main axle if hard tighted (if not, the main frame will jump like a crank ).
Last edited by path_finder on Mon Jul 20, 2009 10:40 pm, edited 1 time in total.
I cannot imagine why nobody though on this before, including myself? It is so simple!...
A nudge might cause it to stop, what would a bumpy old road do? FWIW i don't believe the wheel would roll.
I think the "dynamic motivation" as fletcher says is quit dependant on the acceleration of mass by the "prime mover" i believe that the wheel is fine tuned to run within a very narrow window(ie RPM range) not double paned. IMHO an imperfect accell/decl situation would cause it to stop.
I may be possible if the surface is controllable to get it to run on a flat surface( by recalibrating it). But to imagine it thumping along on some ole dirt road ................ I just can't imagine that mechanism. But who knows....
FWG2, The RPM range is a good point! I wonder how the load on the wheel from rolling would compare to the load that was put on the wheel by lifting the blocks?
path_finder wrote:Dear Grimer,
I agree with your point about the cycloid.
In a previous topic the same question has been discussed earlier: Why Bessler did not let roll the wheel itself on the floor?
At that time the common answer was based on the fact that removing the weights could be much more easy for translating the wheel.
If this assumption can have a first level of confidence (due to the possible poor hardness of the wooden structure), I'm still thinking this is NOT the correct justification.
As mentioned earlier (see http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 9ed240aec8 )
this is almost a question of relative position of the different rotating axles: as soon the wheel is put on the floor, immediately the internal principle become inoperative.
This is obvious if you observe the main axle in the following design http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/downl ... bb441922b5
On my opinion the valuable reason is here, confirmed by the fact that apparently the two pillars were screwed on the floor and on the roof.
This kind of assembly is working only if the main axle is hard tightened (if not, the main frame will jump like a crank ).
Having now gone through http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 9ed240aec8 I now see that this whole subject has been discussed fairly extensively in that thread which I refer members to who have joined since last December and would not think of looking at a thread referring to the use of depleted uranium as being relevant to rolling wheels.
In the thread Fletcher commented:
"Yet this is not a test that Bessler did that was recorded to my knowledge & you have to wonder why as it would be very impressive & a point of difference, if not a marketing curiosity."
I agree. I think it is unlikely that the Bessler was a hamster design. Perhaps John's wheel which is based on Bessler's information will resolve the matter.
I have found the reference to the Pop Keenie wheel accident.....
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 1299#21299 "it was the end result of numerous models made of wood with iron weights. according to my uncle it did run. two of the old boys daughters were still alive & i talked to them . they also said it ran. including i wooden wheel that tangled & exploded sending the weights thru the woodshed walls"
..... which sounds more lack a failure to control rpm than a rolling failure.
Who is she that cometh forth as the morning rising, fair as the moon, bright as the sun, terribilis ut castrorum acies ordinata?
Contradictions do not exist.
Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises.
You will find that one of them is wrong. - Ayn Rand -
It would be a tremendous load to walk the wheel on it's perimeter....now, to walk it on the axle with a rail design, I could see that a lot more clearly. So, when he transferred the Merseburg wheel from one stand to the other....instead of having his assistants carry the damn thing, it would have been a heck of a sight to have simply constructed a rail from one stand to the other and let the wheel walk itself from one to the other via the axle. We already know it could have done this as far as overcoming the load is concerned. I'm not sure how it would have affected the disposition of the mechanism, though.
And if we were to slightly raise the rail so the wheel could walk uphill....I'm not sure how this would affect the application of those weights "applying themselves at right angles..." as far as functionality goes....would it start trying to swing a bit?
Steve
Finding the right solution...is usually a function of asking the right questions. -A. Einstein
