MR. BESSLERS WONDERFUL WHEEL

[scott]

I can only hope my eventual disclosure doesn't go like this.....SHEESH!!!

ROTFL (scaring the cat)
Thanks Viper...

[Jonathan]

Winkle, you've been posting, sometimes only a few minutes apart, as if I'm taking my time answering. I'm not glued to my computer waiting for a chance to reply to you! I do understand what you're saying. I do see the half circles that Jim has missed, but I don't blame him for missing them, because I think they are a figment of your imagination. MT136 clearly is supposed to work by having the "catching bars" d spin, and the screw B connected to them causes this spin to make them move to one side, overbalancing the wheel. I'm sure Stewart's translation will confirm something to this effect when he gets there. (BTW, it isn't clear to me how those things are supposed to be caused to spin).
Jim, there are 4 c's in MT136. The two that form the boundary to the first quadrant reside between two concentric circles. Now ignoring the fact that these two circles are clearly intersected by the actual mechanism four times, pay attention only to two intersections that are diametrically opposed, it doesn't matter which two. Put hinges there, and you'll have a wheel with two half circle arms. The "catch bars" are the flywheels (rather simplistically represented) called d on the ends of the rod A with the screw B on it.
Winkle, if one inner circle doesn't work, then no number of them will. Adding more doesn't add anything, it merely takes the net torque over time and makes more of it real at any time. If there were an infinite number of these wheels all offset from each other by an infinitesimal angle, then there would be no need to find the sum of the torques through time, because it would be constant, all possible torques in the one wheel version would coexist, and I think the net would be zero. I believe you have not answered my "have you built it" question, because the answer is no. I also believe at this point that there is a good chance you're bonkers.
Scott, I've forgotten, what does ROTFL mean again?

[Jonathan]

PS Note that the "catch bar" theory of the flywheels d doesn't make much sense since diametrically opposed d's are shown at different distances from the center.

[Stewart]

I'm sure Stewart's translation will confirm something to this effect when he gets there.

Unfortunately Bessler only wrote notes next to MT1 to MT54 and the toy page.

Stewart

[Jonathan]

That's right. Well, I'm still pretty sure about the nature of MT135.

[rlortie]

jim_mich....look at MT136that outre ring looks like part of the wheel it's not.....it is two half circles drew to look as part of the weel....if you picture that right side half circle doing what it should the top will fall away till the middle hits that little catch bar

I don't see any half circles? I don't see any catch bar?


MT136 does not look like two half circles to me. I see 4 Quarter circles.

a change in mass by quarters would be smoother running and less weight to recover per cycle.

This concept is so simple, with my radius cutter and router I could make one using particle board and four small strap hinges. At present I would be limited to a four foot diameter.

I have a question for the Math boys. If I make the wheel wheel 44" in diameter and make the outer ring 4" wide for a total of 48" what will the the measurement of the imaginary square be at the four hinge points on the 44"inner wheel.

Ralph

[jim_mich]

44 x Sin(45) = 31.113



44 inches + 4 inch wide x 2 = 52 inches ???

[rlortie]

44 x Sin(45) = 31.113



44 inches + 4 inch wide x 2 = 52 inches ???

Thanks Jim for your reply, and you are right 52" would be the diameter. As usual, I messed up. My material is 48" wide, if I cut a four inch doughnut out of this I will only have a 42" diameter wheel and not a 44"

THank you
Ralph

[Jonathan]

I'm not sure what you're asking about the math Ralph. But here is an illistration of what I guess is what winkle is seeing. Red and blue are each arms, orange are hinges, and the parts labeled d (unaltered) serve to limit their motion.

[winkle]

MT136 does not look like two half circles to me. I see 4 Quarter circles.

a change in mass by quarters would be smoother running and less weight to recover per cycle.
4 quarters will not work if you make them you will wast you're time and wood i been there a good while back

[winkle]

Jonathan you said- MT136 clearly is supposed to work by having the "catching bars" d spin, and the screw B connected to them causes this spin to make them move to one side, overbalancing the wheel. _____________________________________________________________ for that to be posible the axel would have to be stationary with the wheel rotating independentley around the axel otherwise there would not be eny thing to move them back and forth one thing is we know his axel turned

[Jonathan]

No, if the axle is stationary, then the wheel doesn't turn, because clear it is the only thing the rod A and flywheels D connect to. The axle must be connected to the rest of the wheel, which appears to make it pointless, though it may serve some purpose of causing the flywheels to spin, one can't be sure.

[winkle]

No, if the axle is stationary, then the wheel doesn't turn, because clear it is the only thing the rod A and flywheels D connect to. The axle must be connected to the rest of the wheel, which appears to make it pointless, though it may serve some purpose of causing the flywheels to spin, one can't be sure. _____________________________________________________________-if taken at face value all of them are pointless thats the point

[Jonathan]

Well, you're welcome to that opinion. Anyway, have you built this device or not? If not, all your comments seem premature.
On a pretty much unrelated note, I clicked the IP button at the upper right of your posts, and it says that once Joel Wright posted from the same IP. I don't really understand IP's, so that could be meaningless, but maybe you know him?

[Jeff L.]

I built a quick version of this wheel with 2 disks / 4 arms out of plywood, with 20-inch disk and 2-inch thick arms, mainly because of the ease of construction and confident tone of the original post in this thread. It was a short diversion from another wheel I'm building and I thought I'd give it a try despite my instincts. Maybe I did something wrong, but I couldn't get it to do more than coast and make noise, regardless of what I tried. So, at this point, I'm a nonbeliever in this configuration until I can see one that works. I also feel like I was duped and should have known better... I'll happily eat those words if proven wrong.

Jeff