The summary of my latest studies

[path_finder]

Recently I went to verify an assumption regarding the action of a lever on the ascending side of the wheel.
In an old thread I showed a surprising phenomenon where, although the fulcrum is located on the left side, the lever is able to let rotate the wheel clockwise.
Remember here: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 1600#81600
In view to be sure, I repeated the experiment and can confirm the action shown in the video.

If we accept this concept, assuming the wheel rotates clockwise, now the challenge is simple:
- the green weight being between 12:00 and 6:00, the lever actuates like in the experiment, and let rotate the wheel clockwise.
The corresponding torque is given by a weight value of W, at a distance of 3/2R, said = 3/2WR
- if we modify the contact point of the fulcrum to a distance of R/2 during the ascending side, the counteracting torque of the red weight will be 2/3WR.
This is summarized in the drawing bellow (The locking pins are in red, the fulcrum pivot is in yellow).
If this is valid for one single weight, what about a wheel built with a plenty of weights?
Do you see the benefit?

[path_finder]

I return back again to an old concept already published earlier.
After some further investigations I believe to have found an interesting improvement not yet discovered by myself.

The first animation below shows the concept we must concretize (like all theoretical animation).
For a better understanding the rotation speed has been selected very slow.
The major keys of this design are:
- all weights are attached to the outer rim of the wheel (no contact with the central axis therefore no risk for shorting the eccentricity of the COG, like Mr Desaguliers her: http://www.todayinsci.com/Books/MechApp ... /page2.htm).
- the weights respect the follow-up of the ideal-path (remember here: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 1612#55322 ).
- the requested flip needed between 4:00 and 6:00 (supposing a clockwise motion) is obtained thanks a big lever effect (no action directly on the fulcrum, but instead, an action at the end of the most opposite summit of the triangle).

If we analyse the path of this summit, we observe:
- a contact with the outer rim of the wheel during the time where the corresponding weight axle passes from 6:00 to 11:00
- from 11:00 to 1:00 the summit leaves the outer rim and reaches the geometrical center of the wheel
- it keeps this position between 1:00 and 4:00 assuming a good torque
- between 4:00 and 6:00 this summit returns back quickly from the center to the outer rim.
and so on.
The path used by the summit is an arc of circle with the same radius then the outer rim.
The second drawing shows these four arcs in color (each triangle has its own color, with the associated dark color for the corresponding summit's path).

Practically this can be built by the way of four groves inside a central disk, where a small axle (with bearing?) attached to the summit, can roll between the two ends of the grove. This can be made also with some rails or any similar solution.

Now the motion of this pin (axle) and the correct timing, can be obtained by a counter-cam, rotating behind these disk (rails) at a different rotation speed (may be alternative). What shall be this counter-cam: a simple cross?

Edited: Why not a Geneva Stop ?
An example of such as suggestion: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FlBqMLDdcJc

[path_finder]

Always thinking for a solution on the same concept, hereafter a drawing showing the principle of the mechanism:
The central cam (in yellow) and the pin (in red) are fixed to the earth (through a hollow axle per example).
Each pendulum is associated with a "Geneva drive" (Maltese cross) thanks a belt (or a chain) direct transmission.
The fixed pin obliges the pendulum to rotate between 4:00 and 6:00.
On the drawing only one sub-assembly is depicted. It must be multiplied by 4 (or by 8).
Comments are welcome. Thanks in advance.

[path_finder]

Far from home for now more than one month (after Abidjan I'm now in Comoros since two weeks), this is the reason of my poor contribution since a significant time.
But it is not forbidden to think: hereafter below is my last proposal.

The drawing below is just a description of the concept.
As you will see in the next drawing an important improvement can be done but saving the same concept.

The main wheel C is a drum (in rosa), where its axis is entirely free (not connected with the ground E).
This wheel is held in suspension thanks the two rollers A and B (in light blue), where the axles (in green) are connected to the ground E (in green) by a mechanical frame (not represented).
These two rollers are supposed to have a minimum level of friction, allowing the main wheel C to rotate.

The weight D (in yellow) is a free drum, rolling free on the inner rim of the main wheel.
The value of this weight fixes the value of the torque.
The weight D is linked to the roller B by a spring F (in dark blue).

As you can see the yellow drum is obliged to be always excentered and therefore will drive the main wheel in a clockwise direction, oscillating around a middle position, its center following the circular path in orange.
Trying to find a keeling position, the main wheel will always rotate because there is no other alternative, the yellow drum being relocated at each time by the force of the string.

Hoping the explanation was clear enough, the comments are welcome.

[path_finder]

Everything is now included inside the wheel.
The question is: shall one roller be supplied with a freewheel?

NB: Georg Künstler should be able to test it, by a minor change in his big wooden wheel.

[daanopperman]

path_finder ,

It does not matter if you hang the weight against the inside of a drum or against a wall , it will not rotate the wall or the drum for the weight is not rotating , it is simply hanging on the side , for the drum to rotate the weight must first rotate , like the hamster , the only way to make this idea workable is to have a continuous changing anchor point for the spring on the weight D .

path , have you given the idea of a master weight in a wheel some time , just think again , one weight when put inside a wheel put's ALL the weights out of CG and can never reach keeling , even if the wheel has revolved . It is like the hamster , but instead of running to the one side of the wheel and displacing it's own weight the hamster does not need to run at all , because the hamster has already displaced the weights by just being inside the wheel and just rolls along .

[path_finder]

Dear daanopperman,

the only way to make this idea workable is to have a continuous changing anchor point for the spring on the weight D

I fully agree.
A hypocycloidal mechanism rolling on the inner rim of the main wheel can do the job.

[iacob alex]

Hi P_F!
We add up Bessler's designs :143 (Maschinen Tractate).

As a matter of fact you have also a lot of...how many ?

You have a considerable skill (computer design & handycraft ).

By the way;what is your opinion about Aldo Costa (also French...).

I look at him as a hero and his Ferris-like Wheel monumental shape,as a very high price for a life-long obsession.

Nevertheless,his size remains as a real "lesson".

All the best! / Alex

[path_finder]

Dear Jacob Alex,
I'm pretty sure the Aldo Costa wheel works, but not for the common unbalance reasons.
I guess it's coming from the variation of the G value.
Varying like the squared inverse of the distance to the earth center, the variation of G shall be infinitesimal, therefore the torque is really ridiculous, obliging to use a giant size.
Just a personal opinion.
I have the intent to visit Mr Aldo Costa with Mr Dorotheo as soon as possible (it is not a long way from Paris). I'm now returned back for few weeks, but I have first to complete some reports.

[rasselasss]

Pathfinder,i envy your location,being able to visit Costa's Wheel..the video on youtube really did'nt give much in the way of detail to me, and i was surprised by Eric K's dismissal and his reasons given...wind,sun,friction expansion,contraction etc.....Surely a man of Costa's calibre would have built a smaller model in his workshop or wherever (still air,room temp.)before putting obviously,much time and expense to build his full size wheel...........i look forward to your observations and if he did smaller versions......Good Luck.

[path_finder]

Dear rasselasss,
The wheel of Aldo Costa is giant enough to be visible on GoogleEarth.
See here below. Not fantastic?

For a better understanding, I made a translation of the explanation, given in french by Aldo Costa, about the principle of his wheel.
The original french text is here: http://www.brionautes.com/article.php?sid=2224
I apologize for the poor translation.



THE ENERGY CONSERVATION thanks the theory of reversibility
The wheel is equipped with 'space-time' tensors, each 'space-time' tensor is a lever that activates a 'impulsion-gravitation' tensor. These two kinds of tensors are co-variant.
There are two dead points (or stop pins) for the movement of each 'space- time' lever, one at the bottom of the wheel, the other at the top center of it.

Description of a mechanism situated at the bottom and faced to the stop pin (I'm describing vertically) : above is a spring that pushes a mass of 2240 kg through its center and which slides on a vertical axle. Down the 'space-time' tensor divides the resistance by 10, that the mass and the spring creates on the 'impulsion-gravitation' tensor, by the fact that its length is 10 times greater (this length may be greater depending on the circumference of the wheel).

The purpose of the 'space-time tensor' lever arm is to raise the mass of 2240 kg to the center of the wheel with a height of 0.034m and to compress the spring.
The graviton is a small part which just hold the mass at this height, thus removing all its reversibility on the fulcrum and rotation axis of the 'space-time' tensor, which itself and the 'impulsion-gravitation' tensor must be in perfect balance on this same axis. The intermediate small rod between the mass and 'impulsion-gravitation' tensor must also be balanced on the rotation axis fixed on the mass, making it integral in weight with this latter. So far thanks their banaces, the two tensors and the rod, whatever their positions around the wheel, can not cause any kinetic thrust contrary to that wished.

One can notice that the spring creates a virtual upwarding mass of 2,240 kg, which instead of being an obstacle (as mass) becomes a push (in the form of pressure), which explains the annihilation of the matter, the masses being positively but inversely loaded.
Note that the fulcrum of the 'impulsion-gravitation' tensor which is fixed on the rod is a shaft that moves like an eccentric on something that runs circular, in this case the wheel. It is this process which allows the system to be reversible because once reached the top, this virtual upwarding mass turns into an actual downwarding weight, and because the tensor 'space-time' divides the resistance by 10, the mass is ultimately only of 0448 Kg.

In view the wheel can turn, the power to introduce into the machine must be sufficient to upraise these 0,448 kg. Thus we must create a sufficient inertia on a whole side of the wheel to overcome the resistance of 0448 Kg. In other words we need the active torque exceeds the torque of the resistance. The mass having a weight of 2240 kg, has a half-product of 1.120Kg. This half-product against 4.48 Kg, becomes a quarter-product, which is why we can not calculate the kinetic power by this classical way, but only thanks its reversibility. Example:
 2: 3.1416 x 2.24 = 0.636618283 = 1.426024953 = 0.048484848 x 0034: 4 = 0.012121212
Which is the kinetic thrust of a mechanism.
The constant being 0.636618283 : 4 or 0.15915457, which multiplied by 2240 kg and re-multiplied by 0034m gives us well 0.012121212.
So we need 0448 Kg : 0.012121212 = 36.96 mechanisms.
Reversibility increasing as the square of distance, 4 x 4 = 16 which gives us the big wheel an angle of 360 degrees divided by 16, or 22.5 degrees.

The half wheel needs 360 degrees divided by 2 = 180 degrees, divided by 22.5 degrees which is 8 times 36.96 mechanisms, giving us a total of 36.96 x 8 = 295.68 mechanisms to spread over the circumference of the big wheel.
The diameter of the wheel depends on the length of 'impulsion-gravitation' tensors which, in turn, determine the length of the 'space-time' tensors and the distance between them, and which rotate on their rotation axis of 22.5 degrees.
The inertia on the half-wheel is represented by 295.68 mechanisms divided by 2 = 147.8, divided by 4 gives us a good rate of 36.96 mechanisms for a thurst of 0.448 Kg.

We can change the characteristics of two types of tensors which are covariant, but we will never be able to change the constant of 0.1595457, after checking the results given by the nature and recalculate this number, because it can never change. As for the masses, they are invariant.

To load the wheel, we must make first a half-turn by hand. The lower stop pin causes the actuation of the 'space-time' tensor and of the 'impulsion-gravitation' tensor of each mechanism. Allowing half of the wheel to have its masses retained by the gravitons closer to the center of the wheel of 0034 m. This generates an imbalance that can grow by multiplication of mechanisms according to the needs.

The 'spacetime' tensors meet the upper stop pin at the center of the wheel.
The gravitons free the masses which are immediately repulsed back by the springs to their start position. So far the reversibility gives a meaning to the perpetual motion, that would not be possible if the machine would not be reversible. In view for the wheel to produce not only for it needs, but also for some other needs, the number of mechanisms and the circumference of the wheel can be doubled, for the sole purpose of preserving the length of the rope between the mechanisms, so that only one mechanism be present at the time for the load made by the bpttom stop pin.
Instead, if we increase the length of the cord there is an acceleration. The doubling is not a limit, only the strength of materials must be taken in account, furthermore the number of wheels in parallel on the same axle must be increased.

The exchange of mass said negative against a mass said positive, does not produce any kinetic energy. It simply allows to keep the one that was introduced.
The overpower obtained by doubling the mechanisms and the circumference of the wheel, gives us a boost equal to that needed for the wheel to turn.
This additional angular momentum, which has a thrust of 0,448 kg, is recoverable at the center of the wheel.
This is a perpetual motion requiring no external power, it operates in closed circuit.
This is the first gravitational engine that requires servicing and any revisions as for any mechanical device.
The relativity of the center of gravity of the wheel, puts the wheel in a constant search for balance which can no longer be found.
The conservation of the motion for the 'space-time' tensors thanks the 'impulsion-gravitation' tensors, allows the movement of the masses, causing under a form of angular momentum, the conservation of energy.

If, despite these explanations, the perpetual motion remains esoteric, Aldo Costa is at your disposal to help you pass a written explanation to visual demonstration of his machine which is in a museum at Couilly Pont aux Dames.
Its main features are:
- Frame 18 feet high,
- Wheel diameter 17 meters,
- 118 rays,
- 236 mechanisms,
- 34 mm offset mass,
- Weight of the masses 2.240Kg,
- Wheel weight 4 tons,
- Chassis weight 4.5 tons,
- 22 tons concrete foundation.

Author / Inventor: Aldo Costa
Internet production: Bertrand Gallot, Bixis mouvement-perpetuel@bixis.com

[iacob alex]

Dear P_F !

Many thanks for your posting of Aldo Costa respectable achievement.

He had an idea,a plan and worked it out....formidable! His theorethical explanation is on that line (inside the actual conjecture...tensors...).

To be short,he followed the classical image,the so long-time "heritage" : the Bashkara wheel "obssesion".

I have on my mind a simple question :can it work better with two opposite spikes/arms,only?!

As you know,for the moment I am the single person betting on lever...regarding the wheel vs. lever apparent dilemma.

All the best ! / Alex

[rasselasss]

Path Finder...i appreciate your time and trouble for the translation...Thank you.

[AB Hammer]

Aldo Costa

A fantastic piece of work he did. But also an example of how far we may go if we believe we are correct. He doesn't have a smaller wheel to show it works and the wind blows the big one around as well. This is why he can not prove his success outside of an achievement of the build size that he did himself.

[rasselasss]

Path Finder,i would appreciate your thoughts on this rough sketch and your opinion,....consider this an inner core of a wheel mounted at axle end ..with equal length connecting rods from the weights to a common eccentric pivot.. timed to give "best"overbalance and attached to the hub.....would it assist ,to give overbalance to an outer wheel built on the perimeter or possibly on the other side of the hub....its just a thought and i know you have done a lot on this...Thanks.