Bessler's Wheel

[AB Hammer]

On over unity I also posted and the best answer that came from there is that it is more to make sure that the wheel was leveled correctly. I see where all answers are good, I was asking due to the 1/3 scale one I am building and will add all the extras to for the show.

Thanks

[P-Motion]

Hello PM,

Does the pic below describe where you see the work being done? I think I've finally understood what you're trying to say.

The dark area is where the work happens and the light area is where the weight catches up with the wheel. Is this correct?

I looked at different ranges of the ratio of work to resetting. In the grey one work and reset are equal.

Bessler,
The red one I think most accurately describes what Bessler said.
It is possible to have the arm extended for about 60 degrees and resetting for about 20.
With 4 arms, this would mean that it would be in an ob state for 240 degrees or more of its' rotation.

[Bessler007]

Hello PM,

Does the pic below describe where you see the work being done? I think I've finally understood what you're trying to say.

The dark area is where the work happens and the light area is where the weight catches up with the wheel. Is this correct?

I looked at different ranges of the ratio of work to resetting. In the grey one work and reset are equal.

[Bessler007]

you answered me before I asked! Are you psychic? :)

I modeled the blue one with wm2d. The moment the weight collided with a straight ramp the wheel stopped. I tried 3 different ramp designs. Two of the ramps rotated with the wheel and one was stationary. None of the results were promising. One of the pseudo ramps was curved.

It could be if the weight were held constant wrt the force of gravity while it was doing the work there would be more energy. The indication I got from the sim was the mass would travel faster. Hence more energy. It moved roughly 1/8th of the diameter of its rotation faster when it wasn't fighting gravity as it descended. I thought that ratio was interesting.

Other than that all I can say is build it.

You shouldn't be surprised if what you think is an original idea has been attempted by someone else in a near identical manner. There are only so many ideas to go around. :)

[P-Motion]

I actually think the ramp Bessler used moved. He had nothing to secure it other than the exle itself. This would mean that it had to hang.
An interesting aspect is that with a ramp that has a downward path would keep the axis ahead of the weight. This would mean that the weight is still exerting force on the wheel.
So while it is resetting, it is still helping to develop momentum or at least not using momentum to reposition itself. And bessler was said to have used 8 arms, not 2.
The question though is how much energy does it take to keep a counter balanced arm spinning. For some reason, most everyone seems to think a lot of energy. I guess the weight would have somehting to do with it. Like if the complete arm with 2 weights weighed less that 6 pounds, how much force would it take to let it spin how much ?
Of course, the greater the radius, the more energy. And if garvity accelerates at 32f/s^2, does the increased radius allow for greater momentum to be developed than the needs of the increased circumfrence ? And is this why Bessler used 8 arms ?
Because then one weight could always be in an OU state ? Otherwise, sufficient momentum might not be able to be developed. It might require a constant OU state to maintain spin.

But am going to worry about other things. This doesn't pay the bills.

Hello PM,

Does the pic below describe where you see the work being done? I think I've finally understood what you're trying to say.

The dark area is where the work happens and the light area is where the weight catches up with the wheel. Is this correct?

I looked at different ranges of the ratio of work to resetting. In the grey one work and reset are equal.

[rlortie]

P-Motion,

The question though is how much energy does it take to keep a counter balanced arm spinning. For some reason, most everyone seems to think a lot of energy. I guess the weight would have somehting to do with it. Like if the complete arm with 2 weights weighed less that 6 pounds, how much force would it take to let it spin how much ?

I have suspended as much as 84 pounds excluding mounting arm weight. Yes it take extra force to overcome static inertia on start up. Once achieved very little force is required. My experiment ran as long with or without it. Just needed a bigger push to start.

Ralph

[Bessler007]

maybe like this
:)

[P-Motion]

maybe like this
:)

Kas asked about something like that.
I wonder if having the weights connected through the arms would allow for that.
The top right weight in a clock wise rotation would be moving downward. It might be possible to get the weights to shift since the lower right weight would be the primary force.

[rlortie]

007,

Sure glad to see that smiley regarding your above .gif :-)

I wonder if having the weights connected through the arms would allow for that.

No it will not: Check 'Albums" by name look under rlortie. I once built through overlapping telescoping spokes (eight of them) various ramps and ramp location were tried.

Best results ( but no winner) were obtained by having the spokes pass at a right angle to the axis on flanged carrier bearings. Off set from axle approximately 6"...

Ralph

[GraViTaR]

The hardest thing to make on this is the latching mechanism that holds the arm in place from the 6:00 position to the 3:00 position.

The latch engages the arm at 6:00, then releases at 3:00.

[P-Motion]

Ralph, didn't see where any of your designs are similar to what I've been talking about. What I've been mentioning is a simpler concept than what you've been trying.
Ya know Ralph, it is like I told one person I know, I'm going to give it one shot and then drop this subject.
And what I find funny is you sound like my dad. All he ever told me or one of my brother's is, it won't work. And it always did.
And the one thing about pm is being able to develop enough momentum to allow for free spin. And since over balance is necessary, it may be that reducing the extension of a weight might conserve sufficient momentum as it would have a shorter radius meaning it would use less energy to rotate for a period. And unless the bearing robs to much energy, then do believe that restoring the weight in the last 20 degrees of its' downward movement is where the least energy woudl be expended if any, to do that. It may be that people get greedy and want maximum power when that might not be what can be a sustainable behavior.
@Gravitar, when the lower wheel is under the axis, try having it the same distance away as the top one.

007,

Sure glad to see that smiley regarding your above .gif :-)

I wonder if having the weights connected through the arms would allow for that.

No it will not: Check 'Albums" by name look under rlortie. I once built through overlapping telescoping spokes (eight of them) various ramps and ramp location were tried.

Best results ( but no winner) were obtained by having the spokes pass at a right angle to the axis on flanged carrier bearings. Off set from axle approximately 6"...

Ralph

[rlortie]

P-motion,

Sorry the wheel design in question, is inside the box that is completely closed.

Send me a Private post with an address and I will gleefully deluge you with pictures. Most if not all contain to many bytes to attach here.

Ralph

[P-Motion]

Ralph,
Pics can always be reformatted to jpg.
One thing I remember about Bessler's wheels are their size.
With what I've been discussing in how I think Bessler did it is that with an arm that is 4ft. long, it can extend to 5 ft.
With 100 pound weights, this would be 100ft. lbs. of force trying to rotate 400 pounds of weights.
Why do I get the feeling that is possible ?

Jim

P-motion,

Sorry the wheel design in question, is inside the box that is completely closed.

Send me a Private post with an address and I will gleefully deluge you with pictures. Most if not all contain to many bytes to attach here.

Ralph

[bluesgtr44]

Hey Gravitar....any idea as to how fast this can go before the reaction forces become greater than the ability to push the weights up to the latching mechanism...I mean, it seems that the faster it goes the harder the impact will be on that ramp mainly because the CF is going to want to keep the mechanism extended. So, at what point does the CF become greater than the off set weight? Unless I am looking at this wrong....that point would have to be there, right?


Steve

[rlortie]

Here is a ramp design.

Each spoke and weight is made up of perf. flat bar and two roller blade wheels. Total weight of wheels and spokes is two pounds 7 ounces.

Each spoke is held in place by four pairs of flanged bearings. These are placed out near the perimeter for stability and maximum leverage for the MDF 3/4" disk they are attached to. Friction on the spokes is almost negligible. The bearing carriers may also be placed near the axle if desired. An internal ramp can be utilized by adding a cross bar mounted to the backer board.

The complete unit is four feet in diameter. The stationary rim/ramp is attached to a backer board that is adjustable in all 360 degrees of orientation. You can start and end the ramp at any point desired. You can adjust the stroke to any length of your choosing. you can add more weight if desired. Change the number of spokes ETC.

This is a universal test bed capable of performing every conceivable approach to a ramp design that I could imagine. None of them worked!

Edit: No attachment, told it is too big. It is in .jpg and I still have not learned how to reformat to fit here. I moved it to Paint and changed the "save as" from .jpg to .gif. Still to many bytes to post. I will send it to anyone willing to reformat so that it can be posted here.
Ralph