Besslers wheel may have been a Hamster Wheel.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Path_finder,

While we are on the subject of Vs I have been working on two wheels set at angles ( V Wheels ) and tilt to create a distance differential that use ropes and pulleys to move weights, my latest design is to place a third smaller weight shift wheel ( of any weight shift design or combination of weight shifts) in between the V wheels wherein the weights are pulled to a place to unbalance all three wheels.

I see no reason a drum like wheel with a large hamster is inside cannot be used as the middle wheel, just as long as the number of legs match the number of recesses and only operate in the same recess this is so the rope do not cross, the ropes pull the hamster over to the descending side of the wheel weighting that side to create a imbalance in all three wheels, the rope and pulleys can be connected to the hamster via bearing swivels to its legs or centre and suitable point on the compression wheels

I will see if I can find some time this week to draw and post it, but to give you a rough idea here’s a drawing of just one of the many weight shift wheel that may use in this principle.

The only problem being Bessler did not have a wide enough wheel to build it like this.

Regards Trevor

Edit, remove double wording and add missed words. plus the discription of the drawing below

Using the Compression Wheels as a Distance Differential Device!
By placing one of the hundreds of failed Out of Balance Wheels (OOBW) between the compression wheels (CW1 & 2) it maybe possible to make them work!
Because of a change of width between the wide point (WP) and narrow point (NP), means you can move the weights (W) more or less where you want to, with a added advantage of putting a lot of the weights being moved weight onto the outside rim of the compression wheel, which has the effect of moving the weight a greater distance away from the axle! this is achieved by simple adding ropes (R) to move them! the wide & narrow can move to suit each design in fact adjustments can be made to accommodate all options of Weight Shift Wheels (WSW). the WSW wheels are fixed to the compression wheel by universal joints (UJ) on both sides.
Below the drawing shows a side view with CW 2 missing and shows only the weight moving ropes for ease of drawing!
the bottom drawing shows the back view!

[path_finder]

Dear Trevor,
Many thanks for sharing your concept. But I'm a little bit confused, not understanding well your idea.
The bottom part of your drawing seems to be a side view (because the legs of the holding frame). In that case the R rods at the top shall be tied and therefore the weights in the upper parts of the elongated holes (what is not the case on the upper drawing).
On the other hand you wrote 'OOB' (overbalanced) for the internal wheel. I'm not sure this is the appropriated term: 'excentered' would be better. So long no axle can be fixed on this wheel without to preserve its unbalance, it will be only excentered.
Another point of frustration is 'in fine' the small shift of the weights, therefore giving a poor torque. For what purpose the elongated holes are so short?

IMHO this design is facing with the most difficult part: how to link the primemover with the main wheel rim on a non-keeling counter-reaction basis
Waiting on complementary data. Thanks

[Tarsier79]

The conical path seems to be the mechanical equivalent of a SMOT. The SMOT is not actually over unity, when I was looking into it, the loop could not be closed.

Trevor, in the conical path, the weights COM is dropping, so I don't think there will be any jumping, especially considering the speed of the device. The angle it will climb is low compared to its size, and to get more speed You need to drop the COM faster, and its run-up will be shorter.

Pathfinder, If you are considering a build like this, you might need a guide to stop the cones from misalignment. I was considering making the double cones from two plastic beer funnels, but the enormity of a build like this and the calculation of the angles will take some time and effort. I may build a single ramp for testing, but have some other builds I would like to spend some time on first.

Cheers

[path_finder]

Dear Trevor,
What's about this design?
The blue rod is rigid and maintains a fixed distance between the two opposite red 'V' parts.
The weight is in the middle of this rod.
After review, the COG is always on the right side of the wheel: the center of the rod follows a small circle where AB is a diameter (A=center of the main wheel, B=center of the rod).
On the drawing only one set is represented. Any other multiplication of this set will not be useful: it's just sufficient to increase the value of this single weight.
Can you confirm this?

edited:
After reflexion, IMHO two sets are needed.
The first set alone will drive to a keeling position (when the center of the rod reaches the center of the main wheel, corresponding with a vertical position of the rod).
A second set in quadrature (90 grades) is therefore a mandatory.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Path_finder,

The main advantage of the V wheels is the designer can change the wide point and narrow point to a position to gain a pull or compression to suit his design, in the proposed hamster design the wide point Pull would be some where around 9 to 10 o’clock on the descending side.

The main disadvantage with V wheels using solid weight shift designs is that most of all the total weight is being pull down between the two V wheels by gravity, and the very little weight shift advantage is lost to greater negative forces thus a jam up between the wheels.

The idea of the middle wheel is to put most of the weight in the system back on the axles greatly reducing the negative forces between the V wheels and then try to gain a positive out of balance in the system.

If you look at the above design I have not asked the V wheels to do any direct lifting, its more like pulling the weights over, there is another advantage in that design wherein when pulling the weight over will transfer some of that weight to a outer position on the V wheels. On the above drawing I have only shown the working rope to keep it simple, with using ropes on my V wheels failed designs has shown me where the forces are as you can see the ropes tension, my videos are to long for you tube and I lack the skills and soft ware to edit them if you can recommend some easy to use soft ware then I will give it a go.

I suggested a video club on com buzz but I think we would be better posting them on you tube and the links on Ralph’s Posted subject: A depository for failed and teaching wheel designs, even though it is still work in progress.

The best option for the V wheel is fluid or buoyancy but I will not go into detail here as the V wheels need there own thread.

This is work in progress so I do not have all the answers, but I have already solved a lot of the problems, I believe the V wheels worthy of more R&D.

Regards Trevor

Edit, the V wheels should be viewed more as a prime mover, sum of your many weight shift designs could benefit from being placed between these prime mover V wheel as it could give them a extra dimension as with most weight shift designs.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Trevor, in the conical path, the weights COM is dropping, so I don't think there will be any jumping, especially considering the speed of the device. The angle it will climb is low compared to its size, and to get more speed You need to drop the COM faster, and its run-up will be shorter.

Hi Kaine,

it was just a thought, but thanks for your input. Edit maybe worth a play to see what the increased velocity could do, thats the advantage with this forum your thought get pulled into all sorts of stuff.

Regards Trevor

[path_finder]

IMHO this concept merits a building

I decided to build a quick demonstrator in view to check the concept and discover the eventual tricks.
The only suspicious point at this level is the small size of the device. We will see well.
Note the design where the angle of the both rotating plates is variable and can be adjusted within different values for test.
The shot hereafter shows the device in construction: the spokes and the wires for the linkage are not implemented yet. I left enough room for a second hamster (eventually).
Note also, like explained many times, the hamster (made by a disk and two weights) has no connection at all with the central axle.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Path_finder,

here is a list of what did not work taken from another thread.

If anyone is interested I have some V wheel videos, one shows 8 long 5kg weights that make up 4 scissors, one show 4 long weights being pulled up and down tubes using the width distance differential via ropes and pulleys, one using a small weighted disc via ropes and pulleys, one using a very big weighted disc via ropes and pulleys, one using small levers via ropes and pulleys, the videos are my own personal record as I find them easy to store and saves a lot or drawing, these did not work but the V wheel is still work in progress for me at least.

I will try to post the hamster drawing this week.

Half of my V wheel rig is in use on a very successful torque test, as I am going public with that wheel design I will need to be able to show the tests and rig to backup my claims.

When my V wheels rig is back together and I start building again I will post the results.

Regards Trevor

Edit, add from.

[path_finder]

Dear Trevor Lyn Whatford,
IMHO the key is to suspend the hamster to the both rotating disks by the means of some V shaped wires linking the outer rim of the hamster and the outer rim of the disks.
When on the most distanced side, the wires will pull the hamster forward, shifting the hamster on a virtual curved inner rim (the hamster at that time seems to climb in the vacuum) without any end...

If this is the secret of Bessler, the angle of the two internal plates must be very flat, what is explaining the need for a big size. On the other hand, if he have built more smaller wheels, the widnesses would have discovered his secret very easily because the observation of the greater value angle of the axles (and disks).


edited:
Note:
this way is conform to my drawing above:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/download.php?id=8179
the blue rod (assuming a constant distance between the two opposite ends) being here replaced by the disk diameter.

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Path_finder,

I have never liked the cross over linkage of solid weight shift designs as I have always found that there is a large pull back to the ascending side with them, and all the weight seems to be working at the bottom of the wheel which is made worse if its in between the V wheels (I made the same mistake with some fluid designs as well ), even with pulling them up with ropes they have to go way past top dead centre before they start to do any positive work.

My similar design was long weights sliding in tubes. Perhaps I should send you the videos for two reasons, one to help you and two you may see something in them that I cannot or have missed. send me a PO box address (via PM ) and I will get some copys made and sent. you have shown us all so much that I would like to return the favour.

Cross over linkage pushing and pulling on wheel fixed pivots is not so bad as the pivots stop the weight drop.

Edit add quote and Brackets,

The only problem being Bessler did not have a wide enough wheel to build it like this.

[path_finder]

Dear Trevor Lyn Whatford,
Many thanks for your proposal. But if your videos are interesting, why not share them with everybody, instead with one single person? So far let publish them (with mention of your copyright) either here (if the size is not too much), either on Youtube (or any other depot).

Regarding the question of the rigidity of the linkage (and therefore the linkage) I don't think the 'A legs' linkage could be the best one.
IMHO there is the justification for the use of the springs.

I'm pretty sure many clever members made the correlation between the 'V' shaped disks and the scissor of the MT138 toys page.
A small variation of the distance of the most extended arms (A side), will be transformed in a big translation in the B side (see the drawing hereafter).
IMHO here is the idea.

[path_finder]

The first results of the 'V' shaped wheel, with a single hamster linked by a double set of springs (see the shot hereafter):
1. The mechanical constraints are important: see the folding of the polycarbonate plates.
2. The value of the angle has no significant importance so long the axles are not coincident anymore.
3. The small size of the demonstrator is not relevant
4. The wheel runs by itself an half turn as previously suggested. This is conform with the remark made above:

After reflexion, IMHO two sets are needed.
The first set alone will drive to a keeling position (when the center of the rod reaches the center of the main wheel, corresponding with a vertical position of the rod).
A second set in quadrature (90 grades) is therefore a mandatory.

I want to improve the design, in particular by including a second hamster in quadrature.
This remains to me a word of Bessler explaining he was obliged to add a second crossbar. A coincidence?
In addition I pretty sure it is possible to replace the two 'V' disks by the scissor shown in the previous drawing.

[Stewart]

I red somewhere, during the manipulation of the weights by the witnesses, it was not possible for them to touch nor see the axles.
Somewhere also a witness is speaking about 'a conical like shape for the axle'

Stewart, please help us. Thanks.

Hi Pathfinder - is this the quote you're thinking of...

b) Before translocating the wheel, the Inventor who was performing the test for the officially appointed Commissioners, took out the weights and permitted one of them to be touched, wrapped in a handkerchief. He did not allow the weight to be touched on the end, but lengthwise, it felt cylindrical and not very thick.

It's a quote from John Collins' book 'Perpetual Motion: An Ancient Mystery Solved?'. I have not seen a copy of the original letter yet to be able to confirm whether the translation is correct.

Stewart

[Trevor Lyn Whatford]

Hi Path_finder,

Dear Trevor Lyn Whatford,
Many thanks for your proposal. But if your videos are interesting, why not share them with everybody, instead with one single person? So far let publish them (with mention of your copyright) either here (if the size is not too much), either on Youtube (or any other depot).

It is an open invitation but with no response and as you showed interest in V wheels I made an offer to send them to you, I have ask for help on tech support so people should see them soon hopefully.

If anyone is interested I have some V wheel videos, one shows 8 long 5kg weights that make up 4 scissors, one show 4 long weights being pulled up and down tubes using the width distance differential via ropes and pulleys, one using a small weighted disc via ropes and pulleys, one using a very big weighted disc via ropes and pulleys, one using small levers via ropes and pulleys, the videos are my own personal record as I find them easy to store and saves a lot or drawing, these did not work but the V wheel is still work in progress for me at least.

I should get some time tomorrow to draw and post that hamster design.

Regards Trevor

[path_finder]

Dear Stewart,
Many thanks for the answer.

Dear Trevor Lyn Whatford,
Using a video editor, try to cut the most important sequences, and compress the file into an efficient format (.ogg ?).

Dear all,
After some additional studies I came to this conclusion: the 'V' disks wheel is nothing else than a Nth version of the CAM design.
On a theoretical point of view the angular position of the two disks is an artificial way to inform the inner of the wheel of the 3:00 position versus the earth ground
For sure this way is much more simpler than passing through a shaft through the central axle, and this is why this configuration seems to be more attractive.

In reality this design make a conversion of the distance between the two disks into a linear shift.
The needed mechanical work to do this job is energy consuming and perhaps not the best way.
IMHO the cam design, using two coaxial shafts (one linked to the rotating wheel, the second linked to the internal fixed cam) should be much more efficient.
The still remaining question is: what shape for that cam, and what additional mechanical set?