New Idea

[KAS]

In a desperate search for a solution to this enigma, I decided to look into past for tried and tested leverage devices in a faint hope that history could reveal something useful.
Turning to the Navy for some inspiration, the one device that has always intrigued me is the block and tackle. These pulleys enabled sailors to lift enormous sails with relative ease, albeit slowly. Could this technology be used in a Bessler wheel?
To reduce the effect of ascending mass significantly, I still believe the best option is to remove some from the equation altogether or at least temporarily transfer it to an area where their effect would be minimal.
Using pulley tackle technology, I thought perhaps the weights could be utilised as part of the mechanism.
The above drawing (BRW2) illustrates how I think this could be achieved.
To lessen the effect of the mass contained in the 4 returning chambers, every other cylindrical weight could slot into the static core as in my previous design, but this time they could be utilised as a kind of roller bearing. As the outer wheel rotates, every other weight could slot in and roll up the inner core. The weight could then ascend to a pre-calculated level where they could roll back into their original chamber on the lea side. This method has 3 advantages:-
1.The radius of the ascending mass has been reduced.
2.The rolling action halves the effect of the mass lessening the work on the ascending side.
3.The inclined ramp at the top of the static core is used for transferring the weight to the descending chamber. Weights on this ramp is considered at rest and taken out of the equation.

The pay back to this design is that the rolling weights in the core move at half speed but as I am utilising every other chamber, the sections of the inner wall between each chamber is used to roll each weight up to the pre-determined height. The weights are then removed from the ascent radius at the 11 oÂ’clock area where thy roll onto the ramp.

Any suggestions or comments?

[ken_behrendt]

KAS...

Your design looks like a variation of Doc's "Double Buzzsaw Wheel" which, unfortunately, was shown to be unworkable.


ken

[KAS]

Its not quite the same Ken.

From what I make of Doc's design, the chambers on the inner core collect and deposit the weights to the outer wheel. No leverage is being utilised as in my proposal.
Perhaps my drawings are not very clear.
As the weights on the ascent are being rolled as a kind of bearing, half the effect of the mass is absorbed by the static inner core. This, coupled with the fact that the raduis of the ascending weights is much reduced should result in a bias of mass on the descent at certain points in the rotation.

Well, in theory anyway.

[ken_behrendt]

KAS, you wrote:

From what I make of Doc's design, the chambers on the inner core collect and deposit the weights to the outer wheel. No leverage is being utilised as in my proposal.

Actually, Doc's wheel did involve leverage via a 2:1 gear ratio between its center wheel and the outer wheel. The outer wheel would make two revolutions for every single revolution of the inner wheel. The idea was that this would then allow a quarter turn of the inner wheel's weights to raise half the number of weights through a half turn of the outer wheel. In any event, my model convinced me that the driving torque due to the weights on the inner wheel was exactly counterbalanced by the counter torque produced by the rising weights on the outer wheel. Thus, no net motion was possible for the design.


With regards to your design, it would be nice if you could use the same color on a weight to show, from frame to frame, how that weight is moving as the device rotates. Also, it might help to indicate the directions of rotation of the parts. This will make it easier for members to see how things are supposed to be moving within the design.



ken

[KAS]

Please accept my apologies.
I included a rotation line to illustrate the rotation of 45 degrees but I can see that there could be confusion over weight positions.
(See coloured drawing attached)

Kas

[rlortie]

Ken,

Actually, Doc's wheel did involve leverage via a 2:1 gear ratio between its center wheel and the outer wheel. The outer wheel would make two revolutions for every single revolution of the inner wheel. The idea was that this would then allow a quarter turn of the inner wheel's weights to raise half the number of weights through a half turn of the outer wheel. In any event, my model convinced me that the driving torque due to the weights on the inner wheel was exactly counterbalanced by the counter torque produced by the rising weights on the outer wheel. Thus, no net motion was possible for the design.

Darn it! ken there you go again, jim_mich is correct in saying you would replace sugar with salt. Your assumptions should be stated as such. There is no fact in your above quote.

There is no substantiation that Doc's wheel ratio is as you describe. We are not even sure at this point which wheel is the intended driver and which is the shifter. The ratio is still left to the imagination.

IMO the inner wheel is a balanced loader or ammo clip, feeding the upper and relieving the spent weights. Eight spaced weights on the inner keep its balanced except for the momentary time for weights to change places. This concept will obviously not work with your assumed but written as fact ratio.

Ralph

[LustInBlack]

KAS : Nice concept.. I don't think something similar has been tried...

[rlortie]

LIB,

Yes something similar exists, only the core is not static.

Ralph

[ken_behrendt]

Ralph wrote:

Your assumptions should be stated as such. There is no fact in your above quote

Unlike you, I actually went to the trouble of making a WM2D model of Doc's "Double Buzzsaw Wheel" and the directions of motion I assigned to its inner and outer wheel were not assumptions, but based on where the CG of the weights actually was located.

That location clearly indicates that inner wheel was delivering roller weights from its lower descending side and accepting roller weights from upper ascending side of the outer wheel. Both wheels were moving in the same direction and the ratio of speed of the outer wheel to the inner one was 2:1 which makes sense because the outer wheel's ascending side only carried a rolling weight in every other one of its "pockets" while the inner wheel carried a rolling weight on every one of the pockets of its descending side. If the ratio of speeds between the wheels was not exactly 2:1, then the distribution of roller weights between the two wheels would not remain stable as the wheels rotated.



ken

[rlortie]

Ken,

Unlike you, I actually went to the trouble of making a WM2D model of Doc's "Double Buzzsaw Wheel" and the directions of motion I assigned to its inner and outer wheel were not assumptions, but based on where the CG of the weights actually was located.

Unlike you, I built an actual facsimile of the wheel using full size tracings sent to me by snail mail. I installed actual weights in a variety of combinations. I did not assign any thing that would or could be by assuming which is what you are stating. How do you assign something without by assumption or substantiation?

If you have substantiation as to what you claim to have assigned, please let me know how you did so. Doc and I would be most grateful.

I am in contact with the inventors family including Uncles,Cousins, Grand children and Great Grand children. They or I am not ready to make any claim on the wheels mode of operation. That includes the current owner.

Ralph

[ken_behrendt]

Ralph wrote:

If you have substantiation as to what you claim to have assigned, please let me know how you did so. Doc and I would be most grateful.

Below is attached a screenshot showing the location of the CG of the wheel. In my model the inner and outer wheels are supposed to rotate CW because the CG is located to the right of the wheels' axle. This was obviously the intention of the device's inventor.

Note from the rotational velocity graph that this design, despite the chronically displaced CG still does NOT run! This is one of those designs in which there are "hidden" sources of counter torque that render it unworkable. The source of this counter torque is not really that hidden, though. It is due to the weights on the outer wheel. This situation tends to arise whenever one has a design in which the dropping weights (on the inner wheel) are intended to lift the rising weights (on the outer wheel). It's like a person expecting to rise in the air by pulling up hard on his belt!

Anyway, only a 2:1 ratio between the rotational velocities of the outer and inner wheel will allow this to work. Any other ratio will not allow the wheel to maintain the distribution of weights shown.

To put is as bluntly as possible...this device is not workable and can NOT be made to work regardless of any modifications made to it!


ken

[rlortie]

OK! Ken,

I will write the last two living family members who both swear they saw it running and tell them that you say,

To put is as bluntly as possible...this device is not workable and can NOT be made to work regardless of any modifications made to it!

I am sure they will both be happy to hear this so that they know they need mental help.

Ralph

[ken_behrendt]

Ralph...

Regardless of what family members may claim now, my analysis of this design showed it was unworkable based on what details I saw about it. Also, the geometry of the design makes any modifications of it impossible if it is going to maintain the distribution of weights I show.

We do not know exactly what the details were of the observations that family members claim to have seen. Did they witness the device running continuously with their own eyes? Was it capable of performing any work in its environment while it was running? Did any of them personally test the device? Or, did they just hear someone else talking about its alleged performance and somehow believed they saw that performance personally?

If they are in error about their claims, then that does not necessarily mean that they are in need of "professional" help...time and the "will to believe" can blur anyone's memory of events...


When you built your "facsimile" of this design, did you see any tendency for it to work continuously?



ken

[rlortie]

Ken,

When you built your "facsimile" of this design, did you see any tendency for it to work continuously?

Yes I did, and I informed Doc and one other member of my excitement. It showed considerable tendency to continue with only a partial of the weights installed. I wrote that the fat lady was not singing yet, but definitely clearing her throat!

After completing and installing the remaining weights it no longer performed with any tendency to run. This was the point that I decided to do research on the history of the device, rather than research on a total trial and error basis.

One individual claims that the two wheels counter rotated. This I simply could not fathom for obvious reasons. But as jim_mich says, I will leave no stone unturned.

That research has now lead me to Florida where I am awaiting a reply that I may never receive. This thing was built in 1909, there are few left to question.

Which brings us to another point. Twelve weights were found with the machine, none of these were installed. I am not so sure that it required or was meant to have all twelve weights in it. Or even more for that matter.

Also, the geometry of the design makes any modifications of it impossible if it is going to maintain the distribution of weights I show.

We do not know that the distribution of weights you show is in the correct placement or not.

Was it capable of performing any work in its environment while it was running?

Both claim to have seen it running. No they themselves did not test it, one stated that it ran but did not produce much power. It is claimed that the inventor used a board levered under the drum as a brake and governor. The board was said to have gotten very warm and started smoking before bringing the wheel to a stop.

I am only stating what I have received in letters from family members. Please do not blame the ticket salesman if the train is late.

Ralph

[james kelly]

Now Ralph; I don't want you bothering me with facts. I have already made up my mind.