The handkerchief, the hole and the grease...

[path_finder]

This is not a trailer for a spaghetti western movie.
This is just an idea coming from three items, a tentative of explaining the why.
- the handkerchief, allowing the witnesses to evaluate the shape of the weights (officially: for protect them against the grease, in fact: for hidden the hole, not detectable through the tissue)
- the hole, important part of the weights and especially at this position (radial at the middle of the cylinder)
- the grease: needed for reduce the friction during the 'schsssssssssss' (heard by some witnesses)

How this design works?:
1. The two blue lines are two cables with grease.
2. The weights (in red) are slipping along these cables.
Two positions have been represented: one contracted and one expanded.
3. The famous 'A' (with legs) of Bessler is the mechanism driving the two weights (like an umbrella)
4. The linker (in green) is synchronizing the both pairs of weights by an alternate shifting motion
Obviously there is a second assembly (not represented here) in quadrature (90 grades) with the first one.
The two linkers are connected in view to implement a reciprocator (see an old thread about, here: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/download.php?id=6019

Why I did not show an animation as usually? because one of the benefit of the animation is the quick detection of the wrong effects.
In fact if the concept of sliding weights on cables is still good, this design in that state will never work.
Do you see why? it's obvious...

[Gregory]

The weights can only move on the blue line. If the blue track is a solid constraint, then the CoG for both mechanism will always stay at the midpoint of the blue line all the time, doesn't matter whether it is expanded or contracted... right?

[KAS]

Gregory is right.

The illustration shows a balanced wheel.

I may be teaching my granny to suck eggs here but if you draw a virtical line through the axle and measure the distance of all 4 weights from this line, you will see that each side is equal. They cancel each other out I'm afraid.

Kas

[path_finder]

Dear gregory and kas,
You are both right.
The COG of each pair is always located at the middle of each cable (therefore balanced).

[martin]

But when turning CF on the right would be stronger than on weights on left.
It looks balanced however in rotation and CF taking their place it would be no longer that much true.

Just my opinion ( I could be wrong).

Martin

[ruggerodk]

You don't need the cables. Instead fix the 'A' directly to the wheel.

ruggero ;-)

[path_finder]

Dear ruggerodk,
I'm sorry, but if you remove the cables there is no reason for the pair of weights to still respect the vertical line: the assembly falls until the keeling position in the lower part of the drawing (one of the advantage to build an animation).

[axel]

The weights can only move on the blue line. If the blue track is a solid constraint, then the CoG for both mechanism will always stay at the midpoint of the blue line all the time, doesn't matter whether it is expanded or contracted... right?

Yes that's right, but if the wheel was rotating slightly to begin with, moving the weights towards each other would create angular momentum and more rotational speed.

Axel

PS: Angular momentum is the killer of any design that calls for moving weights towards or away from an axis. The weight must move along the curve of the perimeter. That also eliminates the problem of centrifugal force. CF is also a killer of rotation.

[path_finder]

What can we conclude from all these divergent opinions?
1. Always balanced: this could be an advantage
2. A centrifugal force: where applied
3. A variation of the momentum: what effect?
Does anybody in this forum want to reveal his secret design?
It's time for sharing.

[Bill_Mothershead]

This kind of reminds me of an article in Scientific American from
last summer (or fall?) about "swimming in space."

In deep space (a no gravity situation) it IS possible to actually
move (change physical location) by moving weights around
(mounted on arms and a 'tail'). Note that this does NOT
expend mass (like a rocket MV=MV).

This expends or uses energy (to move the weights relative to each other
in the proper sequence) so the topic is not really related to
'free energy' machines. Or is it?

JC recently posted (kinda off topic actually) about an idea that
a machine that turned gravity (force) into [perpetual] mechanical
motion (eventual electrical energy output) might be run in reverse...
using electrical energy input to create mechanical motion
which creates a thrust/force (with no loss of mass).

In any event, the original diagram in this thread (weights on
arms extended/retracted, etc) sort of reminded me of that
SA story and their weight shifting sequence to change the
COG of the entire system.

Even though it seems a bit off topic, I encourage anyone reading
this to go to the library and find the magazine and read the
article. I am sure I didn't understand it all and probably
misunderstood some of it, but it is the kind of stuff that
would inspire the right person.

[ruggerodk]

Dear ruggerodk,
I'm sorry, but if you remove the cables there is no reason for the pair of weights to still respect the vertical line: the assembly falls until the keeling position in the lower part of the drawing (one of the advantage to build an animation).

Obviously...I should have underlined!...the 'A' would still also be fixed to the linker.

Then, the pair of weights will follow the same 'invisible' vertical ine.

[Fletcher]

This kind of reminds me of an article in Scientific American from
last summer (or fall?) about "swimming in space."

In deep space (a no gravity situation) it IS possible to actually
move (change physical location) by moving weights around
(mounted on arms and a 'tail'). Note that this does NOT
expend mass (like a rocket MV=MV).

Bill .. I read a similar story in New scientist a few years ago - the device was theorised by a nasa scientist as a means for locomotion in space i.e. zero 'g' - it looked like a frog swimming or the way you do breast stroke in water kicking your legs, but in empty space - the idea was that he used mass & inertia in curved space to get a trust factor, IIRC - but as you say it still took energy to move the weights on pivoting arms.

[path_finder]

Dear ruggerodk,
You put the trouble in my mind.
For sure the two 'A' mechanism are still attached on one side to the middle of the blue cable and on the opposite side with the linker.
There is perhaps only one way to implement your suggestion: if the linker is hollow and a bearing (in grey behind the linker) is fixed on the main wheel center and is slipping inside this linker.
Instead I'm suspicious.
You force me to finish my animation.

NB: in my previous post, instead to read

if you remove the cables there is no reason for the pair of weights to still respect the vertical line

you should read: ' if you remove the cables there is no reason for the pair of weights to still respect the blue cable line' (wich rotates within the wheel)

[Bill_Mothershead]

Fletcher wrote:

Bill .. I read a similar story in New scientist a few years ago - the device was theorised by a nasa scientist as a means for locomotion in space i.e. zero 'g' - it looked like a frog swimming or the way you do breast stroke in water kicking your legs, but in empty space - the idea was that he used mass & inertia in curved space to get a trust factor, IIRC - but as you say it still took energy to move the weights on pivoting arms.

Please forgive me for I am about to do two bad things...
[temporarily] hijack a topic/thread AND post off topic. Sorry.

It was hard coming up with a URL that is about "Swimming in Space".
This URL is a wordy/academic thing that is hard to understand.
Scientific American article explained it better AND has COLOR pictures.

groups.csail.mit.edu/mac/users/wisdom/swimming.pdf

There are MANY sites devoted to "reactionless drives"
but this one might sum it all up (they dont work.)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionless_drive

So there appears to be a contradiction (or more likely my poor
understanding of the article, especially about the "curved" space.)

Maybe, probably, likely nothing to do with a Bessler wheel.

Or maybe it does.

Picture gravity as like a stream and in this stream is a frog
trying to swim upstream/against the flow (ascending side of wheel).

The frog is a mechanical/robot/device with weights on articulated
arms/legs. It is trying to move its center of gravity up (swim
in space).

Hmmm, a bit of a stretch.

Oh well, its been kinda slow on the forum lately.

[path_finder]

Dear all,
As promised I made one animation, but just one for the example.
There is an infinite amount of possible paths based on the dynamic position of the linker (in green).
My animation is based on a particular rule: the center of the linker is rotating on a small circle centered a little bit right aside the main center.
You can observe the motion of the green linker versus the center of the wheel: it's a sinusoidal forward and back motion, allowing the contraction/expansion alternatively of the both 'A' mechanisms.
For sure any path is possible, depending the external conditions you can apply to the linker (some force and/or additional linkage).

The most simplest path consists in the stay resting at the center (the center of the linker coincident with the center of the wheel): in that case the rotation of the wheel creates a centrifugal force for all the four weights, located at the same distance from the center.

The most interesting situation is when you replace the rigid linker by a spring
What happens? The fan of WorkingModel simulation software will have some corn for the mill..