Zeroing in on Bessler's wheel

[Sam Peppiatt]

Wheel Update,
Two rollers working together in tandem has cracked it wide open! Looks like they can be across from each other or two on each spoke, as many spokes as you want. One roller drives the other and the other drives the wheel. With only two moving parts, it's about as simple as you can get.

I should think any one on this forum can figure out two moving parts-----------------Sam

[Sam Peppiatt]

Update,
Not working. It didn't roll backwards but, instead it all slid backwards. Yiks! Still haven't found a good way to shift the rollers. I really need some one with a back ground in mechanics, to solve it for me.-------------------Sam

[Sam Peppiatt]

A follow up,
I'm thinking a toggle might work. Not only does the cross-bar move from side to side, it also moves up and down. The bar would strike the toggle as it moves down; flipping it. Then the toggle spring would shift the rollers to one side and OOB it. After 180 degrees it would flip the other way. It would probably have to be translating. Not sure of that------Sam

[Sam Peppiatt]

This idea tends to fit one of the clues. "When a weight began to fall the wheel would stat to rotate". The sound wasn't from a falling weight but, from the toggle hitting it's stop,(if I'm right that is). Another one, some thing about how fast or suddenly the weight would shift. The springs on a toggle are very fast; insentiently. If you like clues that is---------------Sam

[thx4]

Salut Sam, décidément ce forum est devenu moribond..
Je te joins une vieille idée de Georg Kuenstler, un ami...Qui avait en partie la même idée que toi, au moins la même direction.
Je t'ai fait un croquis rapide, mais c'est l'idée, les deux cylindres sont reliés par un fil de fer ou autre mais cela permet de contrôler le recul.

Hi Sam, this forum has definitely become moribund...
I'm enclosing an old idea from Georg Kuenstler, a friend of mine...who had part of the same idea as you, at least the same direction.
I've made a quick sketch, but that's the idea, the two cylinders are connected by a wire or something, but that allows you to control the recoil.

[thx4]

https://youtu.be/umZnDZNJypE?si=Ryn8dhy2-R9LFgEm

[Sam Peppiatt]

Hi thx4,
Moribund? Does that mean I've become the squadron leader? I admit, I'm struggling with it-------------------Sam

[Sam Peppiatt]

No, toggle not working another bad idea-----------------------SAM

[johannesbender]

thats okay happens to everyone , if there is something that worked then i guess 99 percent nothing is going to work .

[Sam Peppiatt]

johannesbender,
yea, you're right jb, maybe more than 99 % wrong------------------Sam

[Tarsier79]

Sam Wrote

Tarsier79,
First off thanks for your reply. Most won't even talk to me. You're right the LAW or basic laws don't change any. Let me back up a little bit--------------- I have two rings, OK? One at say 9;00 and the other at 3;00. Both are at an equal distance from the axle. They are 11.5 inches in diameter. The rollers are 8 inches in diameter and 1/2 inch thick and weight 8 pounds each,(I have yet to find a way to displace them).

They are held / controlled by a crank shaft with a small drag link and are connected together by a cross-bar. This just means that they can roll around freely when I give the wheel a spin. Which is no small accomplishment! That's it; no levers no pulleys. They are perfectly balanced.

It's not complicated! Eight pounds is lifted upward as eight pounds falls. One counter balances the other. It's just as Bessler described it. "they gravitate to the center and climb back up". If you don't mind his bull shit way of saying things.

You seam to imply over and over again that I'm all fucked up,( if you will for give my French). So, explain it to me where have I gone wrong. What is it that I'm doing so bloody wrong-----------------Sam
Top

DAX wrote

My opinion Sam for what it is worth :) No I am not trying to kick your baby just trying to understand it as it does appear in MT.


From what you’ve described Sam, it sounds like the crank and drag link are indeed playing a crucial role in the system. They might be providing the leverage needed to move the rollers, even if it doesn’t seem like a traditional lever or pulley system. This leverage could be why the system appears balanced and why the weights are able to move as they do. If the concept relies on leverage, there could indeed be a “dead spot” or a point where the system loses its mechanical advantage. This typically happens when the leverage provided by the crank and drag link is not sufficient to overcome the forces acting on the system, such as gravity or friction. I mean at some point the mass of the crank and draglink themselves become involved.

So does the mechanism stall in the same spot every time? I know it has been SIM but have physical models been built? Although I usually read your threads I can’t remember what has all happened.

Sam wrote

daxwc,
No, kick it all you want, I do. First off I'm pretty sure it's not on MT or if it is I must be blind as a bat. The reason that it doesn't run is because I haven't found a way to shift the roller(s) to one side or the other. In this regard the rollers are no different than any other weight. If they shift in on the up side and out on the down side, the wheel will turn.

A wheel is a little bit like a rotating lever. The weights have to slide in on the up side and out on the down side. But, the wheel can only turn so far, then you have to start over / reset them, right? Which can't be done as far as I know. They can't be lifted back up.

What has to happen is; the process needs to be continuous, to avoid the problems with levers. A work around if you will. This is what the Ring & Rollers bring to the table. They have the inherent, I claim unique ability, to shift in and out continuously and give the wheel continuous torque, independent of the phase. And, and they lift them selves back up automatically.

However, trying to find a way to displace the rollers has proven to be very difficult, maybe impossible. Maybe all of you are right, what do I know----------------------Sam

[Tarsier79]

Hi Sam

Everyone understands things differently. So what makes sense to me may not make sense to you. Don't be angry if you don't agree with what I say. Feel free to rebut anything you don't agree with. I am human and I make mistakes just like anyone else.

The ring and rollers is a gravity system. It doesn't rely on momentum, CF, impact, etc. Gravity will only push a wheel around when it can lower the center of mass in the whole system. So, weights moving in a constant path gradually rising and falling cannot rotate, because if you multiply the weights enough around the wheel, no weight actually falls.... No fall, no rotate. This is no secret, and you probably already know it.

The caveat to this, if a weight is lifted into position at a "reduced cost" or "free" (as you allude that the R&R does), then lift free, drop and extract energy from gravity...

This logically extrapolates to me (as usual, i reserve the right to be wrong), that your falling weight has to fall freely to its lower position, then the lift is engaged to move the weight at the correct time. A gradual lift will impede the weight falling, and therefor the energy that can be extracted from it. This is also why a roberval balance mechanism doesn't spontaneously turn. Additionally, this means your mechanism must lift the weight, not just shift it horizontally.

When your roller does work, work is also done on the roller. It is much heavier, so its movement is much smaller, but its negative effects will be equal to any positive effects. So although it looks free, it actually isn't. As your "wheel" rotates CW, your roller will roll inside its track slightly lagging, and this lag will increase whenever a load appears on the roller/s. This also means that rotation of the wheel,( not the roller) is providing energy for the lift. Or another way do describe it: rotation forces the mechanism under the roller to lift the OB weight into position. This isn't a "free lift". When it takes the same energy to rotate the wheel as it takes to lift weights into position, this leaves no energy left over for the rotation.

So without even a mechanism to work with, you need an operating principle, and IMO the R&R fails at this level.

[Sam Peppiatt]

I think you are in denial, Tarsier-------------------Sam

[spinner361]

A scientist may want to hold off on the arrogance until having some proof of a working concept. Then, upon having some proof of a working concept, a scientist may want to humble themselves, if for no reason other than to respect the responsibility that has been given to them.

[Tarsier79]

Spinner, Im sorry you lack any understanding of mechanical first principles or the logical investigation of them spinner. Perhaps it is your own arrogance that blinds you to them. I humbly extol you to to broaden your perspectives.

What am I in denial of Sam? If you want to discuss or disagree with one or all of my explanations, feel free to present a counter view and I will try to explain myself. If not, I can leave you to your own discoveries. All of us only learn what we want to, when we want to.