The summary of my latest studies

[path_finder]

Hereafter two shots of an important part of the building: the crown, part of the reductor.

The crown has been made by fixing the chain on a disk (34 rings).
This is not an common use for a chain, but it is the only way I found for an easy building of the crown (a part for I had a lot of troubles until now).

The second shot shows how this crown can be used, allowing a satellite to rotate on the inner rim of the crown.
This shot shows a crossbar where the axle of the satellite is fixed.
This eccentered crossbar is obtained by the linkage to the four equal rollers of the main wheel (see the previous post).
But in the reality, even if the principle remains fully valid, this crossbar must be removed because its center part does not allow the pass-through of the main axle (an old problem, many times encountered by the builders, see here again:http://drgoulu.wordpress.com/2005/12/29/eviteur-daxe/).
This is the reason why the crossbar must be replaced by an hollow crown, like explained in the first shot.

A big point deducted from my experiments since few years (a point also shared by some other members) is the notion of rotational lever.
Another important point is: the hamster shall not run on the inner rim of the wheel, but on the inner rim of a virtual eccentered drum, linked to the main wheel by a rotational lever.

[path_finder]

Hereafter another shot where the crossbar has been finally replaced by the above crown.
Also in second place a small video showing how this linkage assembly works.
Put your favorite video player in the 'loop' mode and look at the motion of the different parts (rollers, crown, satellite).
The crown here is actuated manually, but for sure in the final use everything must be reversed: the primemover will be attached to the satellite and will drive the full assembly.

[path_finder]

The next shot below shows how the primemover will be included in the final assembly, in particular the linkage with the main wheel thanks the satellite, the crown and the rollers. Note the internal free space (there is no pass-through axle in this design).
There are several possibilities for the primemover itself, the subject of my actual experiments.
The applied principle is to bypass the 22,5 grades limit for the hamster thanks the shift effect given by the reductor.
The key of the success is: the radius of the virtual drum (where the hamster is climbing) must be greater than the radius of the wheel.

[Richard]

Path-finder

thank you for this..it is brilliant...I'm left to speculate if Bessler in MT 143 was essentialy expressing the same, only with fly wheels?

The tensioner may be the coup-de grat to succsess for this design.

The weight of the chain and chain Cog between sprockets will always tend to have a negative pull on the sprocket next in procession...with the tensioner and solid tranference possibility of the chain it'self....:>)

best of luck

richard

[path_finder]

Dear Richard,
Many thanks for the encouragement.
I'm not really confident in the Bessler drawings.
IMHO it was just an album of technical failures with a didactical purpose for his future students.
And even if I'm successful there is no reason why my design was this one used by Bessler.
The first experiments are very promising.
IMHO the model of primemover could be any, taken from the various designs suggested here in this forum, respecting few fundamental rules:
- it must be always balanced, even in motion
- the centrifugal force being only the energy source
- the springs used as eccentricity limiters of the weights, therefore the speed (and avoiding the destruction)
- the both directions being available. The unidirectional version could be obtained from a primemover based on the chaos (see my tests with the imbricated rolling drums and the clutch small roller)
In fact what is important is the artificial way to increase the path of the climbing hamster.
Aside the hamster design, I still believe in three other concepts completely different.
But here we are far from Bessler.
These are only personal thoughs.
I may be wrong.
But the truth will come only from the practical experiments.

[path_finder]

A new step in the building: now I can start my tests.
First I test the influence of the flywheel effect by populating the outer rim of the main wheel (the shot has been taken when only four weights were fixed for that purpose).
Then I will look at the best configuration for the primemover. IMHO positioning the weights at the center for the start phase is not a good idea: the centrifugal force will be very poor. Indeed I think the weights must be as remote as possible from the center, but all in a balanced configuration. Then the position of the spring is important.
There are a lot of tests before a perfect implementation of the concept. Think first, then verify.

[wheelrite]

Aaaah, springs ;)
regards
Jon

[Axelf]

@path_finder
you make a good job

Greetings from the neighboring country

[murilo]

Aaaah, springs ;)
regards
Jon

I would say different!
I would say: Aaaaaaaaaah, reductor??? 8[
(this sounds too much as an heresy when you deal harvest free gravity... aren't you maybe wasting g power?)
regards!
Muliro

[scott]

Path_Finder thanks for this and your many contributions. You really set the bar high. Good luck!
-Scott

[path_finder]

The first shot show an example of primemover (this one was just used for the measurement during the building).
Note the two centered cogs, one in each side, which will climb inside the two crowns, like in this animation: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... mation.gif.
In fact I was obliged to build a second crown, the exact copy of the first one.
Each crown is linked to one side of the main wheel thanks the four rollers.
For the second crown I made a little difference with the original: I replaced the four transparent disk by four equal rods just rotating around a pivot (instead a bearing).
This will obviously increase the friction but should be marginal (It will be possible at any moment to change back for the bearings in the future). But this induced some lacks of rigidity in the final square supporting the crown, this is the reason for the presence of the small wood ball (a 3DA rolling spacer, shifting away the crown from the four rods). This kind of disconvenience happening at the last minute.
The second shot shows the full assembly: the stand, the main wheel, the two crowns and the primemover.
In view to increase the momentum of the flywheel there are a lot of weights fixed on the rim of the main wheel (much better than an heavy full disk, see the formula, this can explain the plenty of weights in the Bessler boxes, not any active weights but only some masses on the rim of the wheel, 96 items ), and regulating the mechanical process.
Some geometrical improvements are still needed.

[path_finder]

In accordance with the title of this thread, my latest conclusions:

1. The concept seems to be excellent.
In the past I described this concept as the 'hamster design', but now I'm convinced the final design is a combination of two concepts:
- the hamster design, like shown early in this old animation: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/files ... tside2.gif
- the reductor design, like shown early in this other one: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/files ... a_size.gif
I'm not sure (it will be verified) but I believe this concept should be more efficient when these two additional conditions will be implemented:
- a size of the crown the largest as possible (may be 5/6 of the main wheel inner space)
- a size of the hamster the largest as possible (may be the 4/5 of the crown). A to much small hamster (like in use now) will give an high rotation speed and will increase the sources of the mechanical troubles.
This estimation gives more credibility to the number 55 (see John Collins blog).
The drawing hereafter includes these new values (12/10/5) symbolized by the hypocycloid at the upper right corner of the drawing.
Note also the two ratchets.

2. Nevertheless it requires a perfect mechanical assembly: it was very difficult until now to overpass few turns of the main wheel without to get some locks or mutual desynchronization of the crowns (they must remain perfectly parallel and equally dephased from the vertical line). You can see in the shot below the mechanical limits of the actual building (the red cross shows a shock between the primemover and the main wheel, after few turns and under the centrifugal force effect.
In addition the thickness of the wheel must be not to much, because an hollow structure can be rigid enough if the rim is strong, what was not the case with the four screwed rods in use. The links between the two sides of the wheel must be reconsidered.

3. The weights on the rim increase the inertia of the main wheel, regulating the rotational speed. But in fact they are not a mandatory. This can explain the comment of Bessler (I don't remember where) saying the wheel works with or without the weights. IMHO it's coming from a voluntary confusion of JB between the primemover's weights and those used for the flywheel.

For all these reasons, instead to try to improve the mechanics with a plenty of corrections, I decided to build a new one, capitalizing the acquired experience. Don't worry, this is just a question of few days. I'm pretty sure we are perhaps close from the first demonstrator, but still far from a final reliable device.

[Richard]

Dear Path Finder

Is the shock between prime mover and wheel built into the design or a result of cf (as you mention) and needs to be rectified?

Most surprising analogies, as to weights added and number 55; It is well attributed to JB as you suggest. Do I assume correctly that this (these) observations unfold through the bldng. process, but are not the rules that govern your design?

I'd be remiss to not thank you for a most appreciative presentation that equalls the design it's self.

richard

[path_finder]

Dear Richard,
Many thanks for the comments.
The shock occurs when the CF modifies the position of the lever (in particular with this specific model): in rest position there shall be space enough (calculated for). But any other primemover with a limited size can rotate without shock. On another hand if you reduce the size of the primemover in view to allow a wide eccentricity of the actuated arms, the CF effect will be not sufficient.
Another way for avoiding the shocks is to change the geometry of the levers, and/or to change the power (force) of the springs. But the CF effect is better when the springs are weak.
IMHO the 55 concept is not specifically from Johann Bessler but an explanation from John Collins, like indicated.

[path_finder]

As promised a new wheel has been built with the implementation of the described features improvement.
In this new building the linkage between the main wheel and the primemover is much more simpler: the four rollers on bearing have been replaced by just four strong springs on a simple pivot. Apparently this seems sufficient.
In the small video below the primemover is empty, but this time everything rotates well, allowing the next experiments.
Note the position of the primemover, suspended on the main wheel by the two sets of four springs: it's axis is moving on a circle centered on the main axis, and always keeling as long the primemover is empty. When the primemover mechanism moves the COG on an temporary eccentered position, the linkage let rotate the main wheel in view to correct the deviation with a lever effect, the ratio depending of the both radius (primemover versus linkage).