Another possible path for the Bessler wheel

[path_finder]

A lot of questions on the same subject can be found in this forum: from where is coming the energy?
Even if the gravity field must be taken in account, the answer could come from a deviance of the conservation 2th principle, not applicable in some certain circumstances.
In particular this principle could be not applicable to any multiparted item in rotation, where the COG of all the parts is not located inside the matter itself.
The patent of Tesla is based on this idea. See here again for memory:http://fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/tesl ... -motor.php
The constitution of the experimented wheel above falls in the same case.
An earlier post suggested the same possibility: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/download.php?id=6340
In addition this concept can explain why any design in 2D has no chance of success.

edited:
Instead (original version):
this principle could be not applicable to any multiparted item in rotation, where the COG of all the parts is not located inside the matter itself
may be this version is better (new version):
this principle could be not applicable to any multiparted item, where each part has a different motion speed and where the COG of all the parts is not located inside the matter itself (not a closed system for the gravity field in that case).

[path_finder]

The next step is the design conception and building of the synchronizer (the sub-assembly driving the weights in accordance with the above defined rules).

Here is the first attempt, based on the rhombical frame.
The principle has been explained here: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 6725#56725.
Despite it is an 2D only structure, this kind of mechanism has been selected because it is one example of a multiparts item where the different parts have a different relative speed versus the main COG (so far respecting one of the most important rule).
Obviously one single frame cannot alone assume a full 360 grades rotation.
In the first shot you can see a single cell consisting in one single frame, mounted between two parallel transparent hexagonal disks in a vertical plane.

On the second shot two cells have been assembled and linked together.
Each arm of the two crosses is fixed to a disk. So far if we number the disks (from #1 on the front to #4 on the background):
- the disk #1 and #2 are independent (the disk #1 supporting the pair A1/A2, the disk #2 supporting the pair B1/B2), and it is the same for the disks #3 and #4.
- the excursion of the two arms of the cross let rotate these two disks in an opposite direction, and let move the weights
The disks are linked by pair (the disk #1 with the #3, and the disk #2 with the #4).
But the internal configuration of the disks #3 and #4 is dephased of 90 grades versus the internal frame of the disks #1 and #2 (the famous 'pedal' effect).

The assembly must be included inside the wheel, with the both axles (in green).
When the COG of the first cell reaches the keeling position, the second cell becomes active, relocating the main COG.