The summary of my latest studies

[path_finder]

I made a big step.
I discovered recently a confirmation of what I had in the back of my head since few months: IMHO why Bessler did not used some gears with teeth.

Any practical experiment shows the limitation of the gears with teeth: the desynchronization.
I observed this disconvenience many times in the past, and this is the only reason why until today I had no chance to drive the excellent concept of the 'hamster design' into a reliable and usable device.
Faced to this difficulty I tried to implement the technology reinvented for the 'cycloidal reductor'
(see for memory here:http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/downl ... 8656e9256c).
This drove me to the use of more and more complex building, like here:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/downl ... 39197015ee
Unfortunately I forget at that time the need for two equal sets of parts, and because the heavy and hard job to duplicate these parts, I decided to suspend this building in view to discover another way more simple and efficient.

I'm pretty sure Bessler has been faced at the same difficulties.
And the question was for me: how Bessler did solved simultaneously the two problems of
A- the rotation of three imbricated wheels
B- the synchronization without the use of any teeth

Why A?
We must return back to the fundamentals of the geometry.
If you want to get a permanent fixed point at 3:00, there is one solution, discussed many times before
Remember here: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/downl ... 7b8c0e65d2
The 'wheels inside the wheel' of Ezechiel?
But this is not sufficient: we need another wheel (the third one), rolling inside the second with a diameter equal to a quarter of the main wheel, the famous 4:1 ratio.
Here now we got the fixed point, located at the middle of the 3:00 radius.

Why B?
The small teeth are useful for the small gears.
In the industry the gears with a big amount of teeth are only those rotating slowly.
When it must rotate rapidly, usually the number of teeth are reduced within the different stages inside the reductor.
Another technics shall be used, like here: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fichier:En ... .488_-.jpg
(the famous 'chevron' gear from Citroën)

In my experiments I tried several times the use of some imbricated polygons, like here
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/downl ... b54a7f4896,
but without a full success.

And few nights ago I found a possible explanation for the device at the right side of the MT138 'toys' drawing.
This structure is a kind of chain which can be fixed on a disk, in view to constitute a perfect polygon where another polygon can move perfectly like here:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 8f05#59288
The drawing below shows the principle.

But what is much more important is the possibility now to implement a very efficient way to synchronize these polygons, moving like in the 'cycloidal reductor'.
At that level I know now why the '55' of our friend John Collins could be useful (next post).

[path_finder]

If the inner rim of the wheel is an hollow dodecagon (12 faces), a rod (in blue) joining 5 (five) poles can jump from (N-1) to (N+1) just by the action of the gravity.
In that case the mechanism is in advance at each turn on the main wheel from the jumped distance. This is the reason of the error (not easy observable) in the position of the red spokes even if the rest is perfectly correct).
When this rod is completed with two 4 (four) poles length at each end, we have a 'pentagon/pentagram' primemover, which can be duplicated or multiplied for a more complex association.
The springs are not represented here (their purpose is to accelerate the jump).
The animation below shows the principle.
There are several variations.

edited

[path_finder]

Another version where the violet rod is limited by the blue one, with an impact at 3:00.

[path_finder]

IMHO there is my suggestion for the Apologia drawing and the reference to the '55' number.
There are 5 (five) rods, with a length equal to 5 (five) spaces in the dodecagonal inner rim of the wheel.
In that case the game of the kids on the street could be the hopscotch, where the kids jump step by step over some forbidden places.
The way to implement the hopscotch could be the stilts. Look at this shot here:
http://www.juggle.co.za/colourful%20stilts.jpg
Do you remember the right side of the MT138 ?

edited:
Sorry I made a mistake. It is NOT Apologia but the MT137 drawing.

[path_finder]

Hereafter now, the full wheel with the weights (in red) and the springs (in violet).
Note the anticipated move of the rods at 11:30 (instead at 12:00 if free) under the action of the elongated spring from the right side.
Do you see the peacock and the creyfish tail?
Et voilà.

[path_finder]

During the building there is a tricky point to take in account:
if you keep all rods moving in five parallel planes you will have some difficulties to connect the springs between the two most external planes.

There is a way for solving this point: the two ends of each rod must be on the two different sides (like explained in the drawing below).
Note also this is a similar way how the spokes are mounted on the bike's wheels.

By the way the rods are not in a perfectly vertical plane but are wobbling like the demonstrator of the Pr Laithwaite
(remember here: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 6ae1#69994).
The shot below is a excerpt from the referenced second video link.

I'm not sure but this can be the origin of a precession effect with a big rotation speed (or with some big weights), explaining why Bessler needed to fix strongly his wheel to the floor and the roof with the both pillars, and had to reduce this effect by the use of very elongated axles.
This can also explain why the wheel cannot roll on the floor: free on the floor it spins on itself by an erratic uncontrolable way (may be, not be confirmed yet by my building)
By some aspects the wheel seems to be a gyroscope.

[getterdone]

I think your on the right path, I'm working on a very similar design.

Keep up the good work

[path_finder]

Dear getterdone,
Many thanks for the encouragement, regarding the few comments received (may be my literature has no interest for the members).

I'm pretty sure many here are working on the same theme.
I'm just surprised that no one found already a solution based on this principle, which has been published already in june 2009 here:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/downl ... 34554902c6
But at that time I did not make the link with the jacob ladder. Nobody is perfect.

And I'm sure to be not the single thinking at this way.
Thus why a so low level of share in this forum?

[path_finder]

Another tip for the builders:
How to build easily a perfect dodecagon with some sharp angles: with an electrical copper wire enrolled around two sets of hexagonal pins.
The drawing hereafter shows the principle (the dimensions have been exagerated for a better understanding).
By the way depending of the diameters of the pins, the size of the dodecagon useful for the mechanism can support a significant reduction.
This method has been explained earlier in the past, see here:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... f14f#63016

Note this is a variation of the above post about the chain of the MT138 right side.
But in addition this can explain the purpose of the small circle (pins?) at the edge of this chain on the MT138 drawing.

[getterdone]

Dear Pathfinder, your right, in the past I've always prefered working by myself in the garage, then once in a while posting a picture of a wheel on this forum, avoiding discussing the design as much as possible. My next build ,fallowing your example, I'll start a thread and make the build public.

Thanks for the insperation

[shap-O-vert]

Path_finder said on Friday:

There is a way for solving this point: the two ends of each rod must be on the two different sides (like explained in the drawing below).

That drawing captures the concept beautifully. I agree with your hypothesis PF. This is what I’ve been working on but with a slight difference in the numbers. As you’ll recall I’m working on 5 at 80 degrees on one side and 4 at 80 degrees on the other, to give 720 degrees in one 360 degree rotation. My maiden post pointed out this concept and how I think Bessler characterised it in MT 138.

It is such a slow process building this thing however. I should have paid more attention and practiced my skills in Farm Mechanics classes!

Ciao

shap-O-vert.

Edited after Unbalanced's post to say it was not my maiden post but my 2nd post under the "Anvils of MT 138" thread.

shap-O!

[Unbalanced]

It has been a while since I have seen a concept that has captured my interest and imagination as much as yours has Path-finder. Though I have a hard time believing that equilibrium is not represented here, I still love the idea.

Well presented and conveyed... good luck on the final outcome. I have played a great deal with this MT but never in this manner where the rods are able to fall through the center. A concept with a likely ability to be bi-directional.

Even if this turns out to be another static model, you have inspired me to get off the couch and back into the gravity lab. Thanks

[path_finder]

Many thanks for shap-O-vert and Unbalanced.
Interesting comments I will take in account.

Practical building. The angle of the dodecagon are indicated by the arrows.
I suspect the size of the test wheel could be to much small, but anyway this is a good way to verify the concept.


edited: obviously this part is doubled.

[Bill_Mothershead]

Pathfinder....

And I'm sure to be not the single thinking at this way.
Thus why a so low level of share in this forum?

Ouch! You struck a nerve!

You have really good ideas and your skills to build are great.

MANY of us have good intentions but our skills and ideas...not so good.

Your post and ideas and pictures are so good that I am humbled.
I stay silent because I have no useful ideas that would help.

Know that you are not alone and many people silently watch your work
and hope, wish, and pray for you to succeed.

[path_finder]

Dear Bill_Mothershead,
Many thanks for your kind comments.

I stay silent because I have no useful ideas that would help

Any idea - even apparently useless - must be NOT neglected.
How can yourself declare your idea is useless? Who knows so long this idea is kept hidden?
Nevertheless a lack of building skills can be well compensated in many case by the ability for an exact description of the idea. But I agree, it is difficult to explain easily a complex subject.