The summary of my latest studies

[path_finder]

Dear nneba,
Many thanks for your first comment.
- I'm afraid the Bessler design was not so simple as you pretend: IMHO the comment on the boy of carpenter was a tricky comment for mystify the people
- my personnal research it NOT limited to Bessler. I'm pretty sure there are several solutions using numerous and different concepts (like the flowerbowl, wich is not specially simple)
- usually the first buildings are always more complex, but further can be simplified and optimized.
In any case, good luck in this crazy world.

[path_finder]

Work during the sale continues...
This particular mechanism, using some springs, is not the best one tested.
In the video below the motion is not self inducted for a long time, nevertheless very close to be.

[Grimer]

...
I'm pretty sure there are several solutions using numerous and different concepts ...

I agree with that. The more I analyse the Keenie Wheel, the more different from the Bessler I find it

[path_finder]

The gravitic version of the Hamel concept

In relation with my previous post here: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 0224#80224 I want to discuss further the benefits from the tops.
The drawing hereafter shows a three stages gravitic generator, like the magnetic version of David Hamel, but using no magnets at all (only the gravity).
For memory see here: http://peswiki.com/index.php/Directory: ... amel_Motor
There are three tops located one over the other.
Due to the respective position of the weights (attached at the rim of each top) and of the application point (just below the top plane), each top is always in equilibrium even in case of precession. For sure when the top are obliged to rotate the hanging weights will try to travel with a bigger radius.
Note the blue weights eccentricity will be much greater than this one of the yellow weights because the bigger radius, and the same effect between the yellow and the red weights (as represented in grey on the drawing).
At the rest position all application points are aligned.
But if you apply a force (here per example a weight in grey) on the axle of the upper top (in light blue) the alignment will disappear and will oblige the tops to rotate.
If you replace the grey weight by a Watt governor, you will be able to control easily the rotation speed.
This idea seems interesting and I will build one.
NB: the drawing is static and only a pair of weights have been represented on each top (for sure there are many possible around).


edited
For the fun: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-xoFoXJrH0

[nneba]

Hello Everyone,

This is my vision for the future of the wheel (with regards to it its optimal power generation abilitys) I picture 360 LARGE wheels, each side by side forming a cylinder. Each wheel is offset by one degree in the direction of travel. This churning drum would produce vast amounts of torque, eh?
(yes Im canadian)

nneba,
Just so you know, I dont pretend

[path_finder]

The motion of the assembly is well resumed in the animation from the Jean-Louis NAUDIN web site here:
http://jnaudin.free.fr/images/wbl3anm.gif
As you can see there is a big difference with my previous drawing: the lowest contact point is free and mobile (yellow part of the animation), instead in my drawing I drew a fixed pillar (in grey). I made this in a first step in view do not make the drawing too much complex.
In fact I had the intend to use a very old concept I detected few years earlier and which has been published yet by me in this forum:
see here for memory: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/download.php?id=6286
If you leave the central point free, this point will be an excellent contact point for the researched purpose.

By the way I made an important jump in the understanding of the flowerbowl, which appears to me now as a subpart of a top.
The springs at the back side (in violet in the previous post here: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/download.php?id=8811) can be easily replaced by some hanging weights if the flowerbowl is used in an horizontal position.
In that case the hole in the middle can be provided for the axle of the top.

[path_finder]

This idea seems interesting and I will build one

This is the first stage of the three-stages assembly I decided to build in view to learn more about the concept.

[path_finder]

Same concept, but vertical this time (one single stage): the 'peacock tail'.
see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-Oq9rgBeYA
Many thanks to nicbordeaux (author of this video).

[path_finder]

The design of Mr David Hamel was based on the repulsive force coming from the magnets, therefore his cones do have the summit at the bottom.
Here the three stages gravitic device uses the gravity only (I'm not an iconoclast and I want NOT to pollute this forum with any magnets).
The purpose of the following calculation is to determine the dimensions and positions of the contact points for each of the three stages.

The first important goal is: at the rest position this whole assembly must be stable.
This property can be obtained if the main COG (Center of gravity) is located under the lowest contact point.
On the drawing this COG is the red cross and the main contact point (in red also) is located at two unit ABOVE the COG.
(In fact we are obliged to start from the end and go back until the yellow upper top).
Now we must imagine the three stages assembly in a manner where the final COG is at this place.

The red COG is obtained by two masses at equal distance of this red cross.
The first one is the lowest stage of the device (in blue), consisting in a disk with 9 (NINE) weights.
The COG of these 9 weights will be located at the blue cross, even if the contact point is located much more higher ('contact point' in blue) than the red cross.
The second will be the combination of the two upper stages A and B (respectively with 3 and 6 weights) which are summarized by the grey cross.
(in view to obtain this position for the grey cross, we are obliged to keep a distance of 4 units for A and 2 units for B).
At the end of the construction we get the three axles of the A,B and C stages, like shown at the left side of the drawing.

At the rest position all these axles will perhaps be not exactly vertical (due to the difficulty to get a perfect balance for each stage) but will be static and the whole device stable.
The upper cup of the yellow axle can now receive the downward active force at the origin of the rotation.
Now the question is: when this assembly is in rotation how to recuperate the rotational motion outside of the device?

[daxwc]

PF, your top_level3.mpeg or rollmill3.mpegis causing my computer fits every time I load up this page. Keeps wanting me to download an Intel program that never loads in after and I have to reboot my computer.

[path_finder]

Dear daxwc,
You got the same problem than AB Hammer. See here my suggestion:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 0149#80149
This is coming from your web browser which is unable to decide anything when you click on the triangular 'read' button. The solution is simple:
- either don't click on this button, but instead right click on the picture and select 'download the file'. After completion open your favorite 'movie reader' on this downloaded file.
- either use VLC (see the above link) with a right click on the picture, and select 'open with VLC'. You can then click on the 'loop' function if needed.

Anyway there is still another problem: for limiting the trafic (?) Scott authorize only ONE reading of the movie. Therefore you must click on the 'refresh page' icon for another read.

[daxwc]

Thanks PF, but I wasn't trying to download the movies, juat the page its self. I finally figured out just to close the intel download boxes rather then say allow or not allow download.

[path_finder]

Dear daxwc,

for limiting the trafic (?) Scott authorizes only ONE reading of the movie

Then for that reason, when you try to download the whole page, if it is not the first time you will wait for an infinite time (a part of the page will never arrive for the completion of the download).

[path_finder]

Another tested mechanism for the above design based on the 'tilting axle'.
This one works very much better and the plate tilts very well.
But due to the high value of the needed torque (the 1cm radius of the crank) a bigger rotational speed is required for the centrifugal force.
In that case the whole assembly is too smooth and oscillates, jumping like a 'washmachine'.
In fact the driver radius must be as bigger as possible, but in this case the both linkages at each side must accept an eccentricity equal to the diameter of the driver.
This is the reason why the showed mechanism (with legs of 4 cm only) had to be replaced by a bigger one.

NB: the shot has been taken close from one side, introducing a perspective.
The indicated distances (24cm) are really equal, the apparent difference coming from the parallax.

[path_finder]

Another improvements have been included.
The first purpose was to increase the size of the tilting mechanism (see above): this has been made (see the two red circles) mainly by the mean of the two squared plates added to the both sides of the frame, giving a more higher position.
The results are significant, I can obtain a self rotation of about ten turns.
The remaining problem is still the weakness of the frame, always too much smooth.
The reference horizontal bar is not perfectly fixed (see the defects in yellow) and therefore the tilting mechanism has a limited reduced action.
The next step is to let more rigid this frame, with a good level of chance this time to get a full self rotation.

Note: in another recent post, MatosDeMatos makes a suggestion for the Bessler wheel. Carefully looking it seems to be founded on a similar principle (tilting plate).