Bessler's 2 Wheels

[not_me]

Alan,
I guess what sometimes is misunderstood is Hansel and Gretel.
Of course, the last build I was going to do which you disliked was based on the thread you posted the link about.
But the trail changed directions. Sometimes, slow change is something that can be appreciated. It gives a person time to adapt.

[AB Hammer]

One of the biggest problems IMO with the posted design is that fluids always flow down. It is a good idea to fully analyze a design for all possible problems.

[not_me]

Alan,
Can you post without mentioning me ?

[greendoor]

oh shut up. Just punched your red light.

[DrWhat]

can't we all just be friends?

[triplock]

Jesus, if I wanted to witness this kind of back stabbing pettiness, I would have stayed married to my ex-wife..... :-(

Chris

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Alan & Jim,

You should look at my fluid weight design on the bottom of page 1 of my web site, first you need a good compression system or you have nothing!
the fluid need to be cupped to prevent the weight act down the transfer pipe, then you need a anti siphon device!

www.real-free-energy.co.uk

So why are you arguing over that design!

Regards Trevor

[nicbordeaux]

can't we all just be friends?

Where would the reward be in that ? LOL.

[AB Hammer]

Hi Alan & Jim,

You should look at my fluid weight design on the bottom of page 1 of my web site, first you need a good compression system or you have nothing!
the fluid need to be cupped to prevent the weight act down the transfer pipe, then you need a anti siphon device!

www.real-free-energy.co.uk

So why are you arguing over that design!

Regards Trevor

Greetings Trevor

I have played with the spit V axle approach as well as others on this forum. Here is one that I did a couple years back. The design tends to put allot of angled stress on the axles causing extra friction.

PS For the record. I am not doing anything that Jim is doing. My work at this time is completely dry weights.

By the way Trevor. Those are some nice builds on you web page.

[bluesgtr44]

Whew! Been busy.....as usual lately. Thought I would catch up on this one and it seems that maybe I won't. Thanks anyway......later.


Steve

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Alan,

That's the point, to put the forces on to the bearings! The design you show will not work because of the high friction on the hinges due to change of angles so the lock up is between the wheels and not on the axles thus will not work!

It works better as a compression system or a rope pull system!

A shared member has some videos you should see!

Regards Trevor

[AB Hammer]

Trevor

Yes you are correct but there is one other detail that makes a difference as well. The angle where the two axles would meet if they went through to meat looks like that is the true center of the wheel. I am interested in any videos people have done. Please pm or email me the information. Thanks

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Alan,

That is where I put the third (out of balance) wheel see right at the bottom of page 1 of my web site!

I will post some thing on the Dynamic Juggler post this week end, it to do with you and two other members!

Regards Trevor

[not_me]

oh shut up. Just punched your red light.

@greendoor, drwhat, triplock and trevor,
all of you missed something. When I posted the deisgn that Alan said something about needing to be considered, I posted I doubt it could work.
A quote by Einstein is that for a wheel to work, it needs something independent of the wheel.
Fluids do not fit this description. And I have already considered that design. When I posted a different design, Jim_Mich posted a design based on fluids which proved the design I posted could not work.
The design I posted did not use fluids. But using fluids and not using them are considered the same thing.
In engineering, the difference would be noted.
With the design Alan mentioned, enough over balance may not be possible because of the flow rate of the fluid and the time it would take to shift a sufficient amount of fluid or displace it which is what would actually happen.
This means the fluid when at the bottom would be moved into the tube between the 2 opposing sides. Fluid already int he tube would be displaced into something on top or after top center of the wheel.
This would require understanding how much fluid needs to be displaced how quickly, ie., how much does the wheel rotate while the fluid needsto be displaced ?
And to be honest, everyone can punch my button red or any other color you like. It means nothing to me. After all, the engineering in this post will be ignored. Why ? I haven't seen any actual engneering discussed.
Saying something needs to be considered and citing specific things are 2 different things.
An engineer, not a good worker, could say at 1cfm/90 degrees of rotation = X lbs. of force
The force required of a weight on a lever to create the necessary action to allow sufficient fluid to be displaced. That's the basic problem to be considered. Something anyone should've noticed but it seems everyone missed.

[jim_mich]

Jim/not_me,

Posting a bunch of formulas makes for dry boring reading. And the numbers are only good for the specific sizes and dimensions being used.

It is much better to post simple formulas for specific needs and let others learn how the formulas work. Then they can use numbers and values specific to their own situations.

Way back in 1968 I worked as a draftsman for Double A product's Hydraulic Power Units, a division of Brown and Sharp. I fully understand hydraulics. The only reason I bring this up is your continuing derogatory statements about lack of engineering here on the forum. Why are you being so rude?

There is no magic gain using hydraulics. Hydraulics is just a different method of using leverage.

A quote by Einstein is that for a wheel to work, it needs something independent of the wheel.

This is an absolute lie! Einstein never (as far as I know) discussed anything about a PM wheel. He never said what a wheel needs in order to work.