MR. BESSLERS WONDERFUL WHEEL

[Gravmaster2000]

Michael-No, I never was in England, always here in USA state of Washington. As for the 'Viper' handle, I used to go by 'Vector Viper' in a lot of places back a few-when I was playing with Vectrex machines...+ I like snakes!
Hith! Hith!

Plus, a correction...I quote (talking about winkles ideas)
"But your pictures are NOTHING like my design works or looks."
--------------------------------------------------------^^^
UGH, nothing is working yet, and the Working model test
was not made to self-turn, just test the idea. Me saying 'works'
was wrong, folks, sorry.

[rlortie]

Ralph, it's the illustration number area - with the number yet to be carved into the box/block area. I think Bessler had not fully settled on the exact numbering sequence of the illustrations from about MT105 onwards.[/quote]

Thanks to all who replied with the answer to the black box.

My concern was that it looked possible for "D" to come in contact as approaching and again when descending from this black box.

I see by numerous posts that my explanation is still not clear.
First, I too am questioning as to whether this was a working model or a facsimile of a proposal.
Second, If "D" is heavier on one end with an off center pivot point heavy end hanging down, on both sides of the wheel, the only was it can do so is to rotate 180 degrees as the wheel revolves 180. As previously stated the two "D's" on one ''A" are mirrored as to pivot together. the heavy end is always down desending or assending. Didn't Bessler mention something about mirror images in AP or was it MT.

I do not claim to have all the answers but I do feel confident that I have revealed to myself the operation of this wheel, and it is not a half circle or fourths as I first stated. The rim is continuous and the axle and spokes are not shown. This drawing is meant to show the working actions of the principle.

As a mechanical minded person, I do not see why the rack and pinion or gears is being questioned. As Jonathan stated they could be pegs in one and holes in the other. THe only rebuttal I have for his statement, is that the holes would have to be elongated at an angle. just as a helix pinion drives a ring gear in an automobile. A true rack and pinion will not work, it is not designed so that one gear can track another in a helix circular motion. You can steer your car with a rack and pinion but you can not propel it with one. Think of a piece of twisted licorice.

Have any questions about my hypothesis, aim them at me, before this thread gets carried off into salting a birds tail. I got big shoulders and love to debate, that's how I learn things and why I am a member.

Ralph

[TommyK]

Hello Winkle,

Keep up the good work.

Your description is very close to my "working" device which has been labeled fraud by some members of this forum except that the need for circle is eliminated "360" works.

You will notice that when you bring an idea to this board everyone will jump on you with questions, this is because they want to "CASH IN" and then a day or so later you will be ridiculed with slander and be called fraud or be forced to belive that you are wrong because they cannot understand the concept 100%. (You're not wrong, and you're not a fraud!)

I gave this "working" concept to several members of this forum (last year)and none have yet to make fruit.

You are 100% right in your beliefs.

We could make it even simpler by telling everyone to make a wheel with steps on the inside and starting (2) slinkys on one side. (left or right) But, Ha Ha! Who would believe?

For the guy in Kuntztown, Nice place. Haven't been there since 1990 for some Sunday morning gliding right side of the Diner and down the road from the Crystal Caves. Lots 'O' Bats.

[winkle]

i'm still trying to put the stomped out stuffing back in myself

[Jonathan]

I said nothing about pegs and holes. Imagine a screw and nut. Now extend the screw and add substantial portions that don't have a helix, and that will be the parts A. Now extend the nut along a diameter, but leaving the hole unaltered, and you'll have an axle with a hole lined with spiral groves. Add another hole just like this at 90 degrees to the first. Thread the parts A through these holes. When A turns it will also move radially. It really is a neat idea, though it doesn't work.
Not to bring this up again, but since Ralph might not know: TommyK has given me and others information as he said. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and waited until and past his patent application date so that he could then tell me more, all without ill comment (though none of the info he gave me made any sense at all, some didn't even seem relevant). He's had plenty of time and opportunity, and then nothing. He's a fraud, who knows why.

[rlortie]

Jonathan,

Please consider this a public apology.

Some where between your descriptive understanding post and now, I lost track of what you actual stated. It was I who used the term holes and pegs as a descriptive image only.

As to all that picked up on this, Jonathan did not describe holes and pegs
in the referenced post. You will find it in my following post to Jonathan. It's getting late and I am brain dead.
Ralph

[rlortie]

Jonathan,

Thank you for the update reffering to the previous posts. Having been a member now since 6th of Jan. I still feel as though I walked into the middle of the movie without popcorn.

Ralph

[Jonathan]

I wasn't offended!
And you have jouneyed into a movie, a wondrous movie whose end is that of imagination, where many of the actors are paranoid and deluded. It is a film of space, and of time; a cinema of things and ideas, situated between the pit of man's fears, and the summit of his knowledge. You have ventured into, The Twilight Zone!-----Let's all go to the lobby,...

[racer270]

LOL!!!!!!!

[Michael]

I wasn't offended!
And you have jouneyed into a movie, a wondrous movie whose end is that of imagination, where many of the actors are paranoid and deluded. It is a film of space, and of time; a cinema of things and ideas, situated between the pit of man's fears, and the summit of his knowledge. You have ventured into, The Twilight Zone!-----Let's all go to the lobby,...

Hahaha, Bingo heir bingo.

[Michael]

Not to bring this up again, but since Ralph might not know: TommyK has given me and others information as he said. I gave him the benefit of the doubt and waited until and past his patent application date so that he could then tell me more, all without ill comment (though none of the info he gave me made any sense at all, some didn't even seem relevant). He's had plenty of time and opportunity, and then nothing. He's a fraud, who knows why.

I think this is why:
>I gave this "working" concept to several members of this forum (last year)and none have yet to make fruit.

Tommy's a sponge cake waiting for others to fill him up with fruit.
Cake + fruit = ???
Tommy can send me reeling by proving proof.

[Fletcher]

Hello Winkle. Keep up the good work.

Your description is very close to my "working" device which has been labeled fraud by some members of this forum except that the need for circle is eliminated "360" works.

...you will be ridiculed with slander and be called fraud or be forced to belive that you are wrong because they cannot understand the concept 100%. (You're not wrong, and you're not a fraud!) You are 100% right in your beliefs.

We could make it even simpler by telling everyone to make a wheel with steps on the inside and starting (2) slinkys on one side. (left or right) But, Ha Ha! Who would believe?

Hi Winkle,

May I suggest you do a search on 'Author' - 'TommyK' & read thru his posts to the group. After you have boned up on him, who better to say if your ideas & his latest post with clues & encouragement to you show any similarity or validity. It may be only obvious to him. I think he is looking for an emotional ally to align with him. Do your own research & form your own opinion.

This forum is about debate & opinion & not necessarily about faith & blind acceptance. Sometimes strongly worded claims are made which will attract attention, as I guess they were intended to do. Jonathan has asked you repeatedly if you have built your design (or even part of) to test your theory (read over your own posts to see why he felt it necessary challenged you about this - he was echoing the thoughts of the rest of us). So far you have steadfastly ignored his perfectly reasonable question which does not augur well & we have experienced it b4. It could could be avoided quite simply.

[jim_mich]

It seems like some people live in a parallel universe. Their wheels work in their own little world but not in ours?

[sleepy]

There has to be a happy medium here.Everyone gets frustrated with the sudden claims of "I've got a working wheel" when no proof is forthcoming.By the same token,we must be careful not to be too harshly critical of the overexuberance of some tinkerers,or the hurt feelings will result in an eventual stoppage of communication about our latest ideas.If you don't have an ACTUAL WORKING WHEEL,maybe you should post as"close to a working wheel",or maybe "on to something promising".Likewise,we should all refrain from personal attacks on people's sanity,honesty,sexual orientation,etc..We all know how exciting it is to make a breakthrough,so let's remember to keep our emotions in check,and continue the wonderful exchange of ideas.

[Fletcher]

Probably a rhetorical question !

Why do people find it so hard to take a breath & clarify or redefine public statements so they can be put in proper context without causing confusion ? A series of simple questions & answers usually settles it, if it is not intentional. No umbrage is taken, we all get excited from time to time.

We all want to solve this mystery but I for one don't normally confuse "I've got a good theory that looks very promising to me & I want to share it with you" with "I have a "working wheel" which then leads to a discussion of "working" which apparently doesn't mean the same to all of us. If you have a "working wheel" (full prototype turning unassisted under it's own power b4 your eyes for a number of revolutions) but don't want to divulge all, that's fine, but expect people to question in their own minds your sincerity as you're asking them to take you at face value & make a judgement call. Some will accept without question, the majority here will require additional proof & proceed with caution as they take this subject quite seriously & don't want to be unduly disappointed.

End of minor rant !