The summary of my latest studies

[Richard]

Balance may be achieved by "counter balance"

I think Bessler may have used a pendule as a frame work of counter balance in one or more of his wheel designs?

..this could have been a neccessity of hiding the workings of his wheel...where one might have deduced certain aspects of the design had there been earthen bound frame work.

Great links Ralph..thanks

richard

[path_finder]

Dear Ralph,
I agree the concept is not new, and I don't try to keep any paternity for a concept in the public domain since the Middle Age.
The crossbar above is not another device than a double reciprocator (many topics are in this forum about this mechanism) with a eight arms star.
What is new is the way to use it, the major point being to be NOT centered on the main axis like suggested so many times.
The crossbar shown above is for the wheels of order four (like Bessler?) and can be multiplied by four on the same wheel, each one dephased of 22,5 grades (in that case there is no collision of arm in the center).
So far the system will be equivalent to the 'fixed point' design, like suggested earlier here:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/download.php?id=6364
with the exception the system is now balanced and therefore the four parts are now fixed, in addition no gear is used at all.
The related animation will be soon displayed.

For memory here is the mechanism of order three (for the flowerbowl): http://www.mechanisms.co/diskandfork60.html (link already signaled earlier)
which is multiplied by three inside the flowerbowl.

[path_finder]

Like said earlier, hereafter the animation showing the 'peacock+crossbar' principle (double eccentered reciprocator).
Note there are only four rollers but eight shocks by turn on the inner rim, the crossbar rotating with a speed twice the main wheel.
This is just for the view of the motion: the final version of the wheel requires at the minimum TWO units of this crossbar (for the balance) and two particular primemovers (for the torque forcing the crossbar rotation and so far avoiding the keeling).
The next animation with 16 groves and two crossbars is in progress (and the building too).

[path_finder]

For the builders,
There are two ways for the implementation of the 'peacock/starwheel' design.
- the first one using some grooves, like in the animation above, and slide a single roller inside.
- the second one using some radial rails, like in the both shots below, with a couple of rollers (like in the monorail transportation system)
I went to check the both, in view to detect the most efficient one.

But I made a big error with the second way: I fixed first the couple of rollers to the mobile disk.
The first shot shows the wrong building (during the rotation we cannot preserve the orthogonal position of the couple versus the rail).
I have been obliged to modify the mechanical design, by mounting each of the four couples of rollers on an axle, like shown now in the second shot.
Nobody is perfect, but now the motion of the crossbar is correct.

[AB Hammer]

Path_Finder

How are you going to get past the center of gravity shift to your drive wheel and keep it with your driven wheel?

[path_finder]

Dear AB Hammer,
The answer is here:
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 7103#87103
But any primemover assuming a permanent unbalance whatever the rotation, can be used.
This unbalance produces a torque which obliges the crossbar to rotate, by the way going up.

[AB Hammer]

Path_Finder

You may not see what I am seeing. So I will await your build and then we will see if I may be looking at it wrong as well. Then we can discuss it in detail of what happened.

Good luck

Alan

[path_finder]

Dear AB Hammer,
If your question was in relation with the unbalance, the animation below shows how this can be solved by TWO 'crossbar+primemover' as said earlier.
By the same way we can also use FOUR 'crossbar+primemover' (in quadrature), but the peacock/starwheel in this case must include 32 grooves/rails.

[AB Hammer]

Path_Finder

Each of those intended drivers have there own centers of gravity. You have to be able to overbalance each and every one you add to get it to perpetuate. The larger wheel that seems to be the flywheel, will not carry out any perpetuation needed. So like a series of flywheels may spin for a good time but will slow down until stop like so many that have tried. This is what I can see from your drawings and animations on this approach.

Alan

[Richard]

..hi Alan..

the above animation..does not include the ..prime mover..Ecentric orbit..Outside the wheel radius...

..that prime mover would be between two such (above) cross bar assemblies..

richard

edit: or "on / around such an arrangement.

[AB Hammer]

Richard

I believe you are talking about this part. Note the locations of the fulcrum and remove the wheel device in the back and count the weights and their location.

http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/download.php?id=6381

Now lets look at the basics of the thought pattern here. IMO it is good, but certain aspects need to be reevaluated. It is very easy to shift the center of gravity to a device and not realize it. Lets take a ramp for instance. Once a weight hits a ramp at about five O:clock the center effect of the wheel shifts over causing the ascending side to become larger to the center of gravity. This deals with effect and not the center mountings. With path_finder's these are mounted and no longer just an effect. So now look at it and see what has to be done or changed to get the power needed to truly drive the device. I have to get some work done in the armory and I will be playing with this on paper to see what can be done.

Note IMO path_finder has a great mind and works hard. We just can't seam to see everything or this might actually be easy.

Alan

[Richard]

Hi..Alan

...Did as you suggest..

..what I'm seeing, still, is a "leverage" whereby the one will lift the others.

..good thing for us this pursuit has not been easy...else what would we do with our time.:-)

richard

[AB Hammer]

Richard

But the one will not lift the others. It would have a better chance of going the other direction. There has to be something more.


Alan

[Richard]

Hi Alan...

..the only thing I do not see is the actual "fulcrum" design..

as long as there is a transmission leverage...at this point..

..as I understand it...this is a uni directional wheel..and any ratcheting..is assumed...

..No doubt..Path_finder will soon ease our questions..

richard

[path_finder]

for the builders:
I must admit the building for the 'peacock/starwheel' based on the grooves, is much more simpler, efficient and reliable.
So far I decided to abandon the version with the rails and the couples of rollers.
The pins sliding inside the grooves are four skateboard bearings.
Don't take in account the plenty of holes on the small disk: this is a recycled part.
The shot hereafter shows the final job (must be duplicated for the other side) and a short video demonstrates the efficiency.