Another possible path for the Bessler wheel

[path_finder]

This is the first time where my signature can be an useful sentence: this path is in 3D and the resultant path is of the same kind than the 'tennis ball' curve, see here:
http://www.mathcurve.com/courbes3d/cout ... ture.shtml.

The weights are acting by pair.
They are cylindrical but their axis is NOT orthogonal to the main wheel plane like usually designed: their axis are tangential to a circle centered on the main axis.
Each pair of weights is linked to the main wheel plane with a 'A legs' shaped double rod, attached by an axle (orthogonal to the main plane).

During the rotation of the main wheel the weights are rotating around this fixation point, respecting these rules:
- at 3:00 the both weights are vertical, close together, and the rods are horizontal, giving the maximum excursion OUTSIDE of the main rotating inner disk.
- at 6:00 the both weights are horizontal, very distanced, and the both rods are on the same horizontal line
- at 9:00 the both weights are vertical, close together, and the rods are horizontal, giving the maximum excursion INSIDE of the main rotating inner disk.
- at 12:00 the both weights are horizontal, very distanced, and the both rods are on the same horizontal line

The center of each weight is changing of vertical plane, but the COG of each pair follows a circle equal to the inner disk outer rim, but excentered and giving the permanent unbalance.

The question now is: what kind of mechanism could be used for the described motion of the weights. But a good observer will find easily the solution, in relation with another recent topic and by remembering the MT toys drawing.
The animation below resumes the concept.

[Tarsier79]

Hey Pathfinder

Looking at your design, you still have to lift the weights through rotation. This is just complicating a simple OB mechanism, as it has the same height-width problems and I don't see anything positive this mechanism adds to rotation.

Cheers

[path_finder]

Dear Tarsier79,
Please look carefully, separating the static and the dynamic point of view.
Consider the pairs of weights by couple (diametrally opposed): the energy for lift-up one pair is compensated by the energy of the falling opposed pair.
But anyway in either position the COG is always at the right side of the main axis.
Hoping the next drawing hereafter will bring more details.

edited:
The horizontal translation needed in the 'elongated cam' design, is here replaced by the rotation of the weights, with a repartition of this shift along all the circular curve.

edited: any replaced by either

[unstable]

Hi,
path_finder also seems to me that at every phase the weights should be lifted against gravity. I do not see any point where the weight go down and therefore can provide energy (KE) to rise another pair.

Claudio

[path_finder]

Dear Claudio,

But anyway in either position the COG is always at the right side of the main axis

.
Where is the COG: at the EAST of the main axis (assuming the wheel rotates clockwise, 12-3-6-9).
Why hope better?

[path_finder]

In a normal situation any COG located a little bit excentered from the main axis on the 3:00 radius will drive the wheel finally at the 6:00 keeling position (after few oscillations).
But due to the mutual linkage of the opposite pairs of weights, and because the particular configuration of this design, the COG is fixed and still remains on the 3:00 radius, so far the keeling position will never be reached.
What is strange in that design, is the fact that the weights are balanced either the rotation of the wheel, but their COG is always excentered.
It's a kind of gravitic Leyde bottle...

[beapilot]

Path_Finder,

First, thank you for taking your time to create the drawings and animation. Thank you for your contribution to help others for future reference. The bad news, your EAST OB will be at the kneel position because there is no way you can get the other weights to lift. You must have equal distance on the weights to allow another weight to be lifted. In that cause, all weights are balanced and the wheel usually do not move. In your case, you do not have a weight that will lift your other weight (or torque) because you eliminated that balance weight.

Good try,

Joshua

[path_finder]

Dear beapilot, unstable and Tarsier79,
Many thanks for your comments.
Unfortunately I have no chance that a single member of this forum can verify this concept with a WM2D simulation (wich could confirm my assumptions), for the obvious reason we are here in 3D (it may be one of the reason why nothing useful have been got until today from this software, but it's another story).

I apologize do not have drawn everything, assuming most of the members here will make the necessary additional connections:
indeed with too much details we cannot see the major basic parts.
I will not make any other drawing for the moment so long the corresponding building is not completed.
But I can give to you a complementary information on the final building: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/download.php?id=6323
If you look carefully the motion of the 'A legs' linkage point of the rods, you can observe this point follows a diameter of a circle (with the appropriate dimension) rolling along the inner rim of the main disk.
So far once started, any move of the main wheel will readjust the eight rollers (and therefore the eight weights position) and relocate the COG always on the 3:00 radius.
This operation don't consume any gravitic energy, the available energy (for the rotational relocation) is only coming from the rotational energy of the weights and the flywheel energy of the wheel.

Remember this point: be careful with the first impress, only the building can tell us the truth.

[murilo]

Finder, hi!
You are almost there... you are almost in my visit-room! :)
This is what I call 3D wheel and it's shown in some of my msg here!
I have proved what I also called as Murilo's wheel, in some tips - many years back and also more recently ''chronically unbalanced wheel''.
I have proved by myself, in hard models, that the unbalancing is violent, persistent and evident.
Case someone don't believe this, there is a very easy way to experience this weight trick.
You only have to hold a heavy book with your extended straight arm, at your front. With the arm in this position you will try to bend your hand at 90deg and at 180deg.
At 90deg of the extended arm it's evident a weight loss at torsion point!
It's really interesting!
The principle is this, but for 4 or 5 times I failed in the command or switching mechanism and let it to a future solution.
The switching must be OF SURE against gravity!!! ( at 6h and 12h.)
Your design is quite similar to mine and I have photos.
Best!
Muliro

[Tarsier79]

Pathfinder

Claudio and beapilot are correct. Your weights are being lifted through the entire rotation.

[path_finder]

Dear murillo,

the unbalancing is violent

I agree 100% with your comment.
It's the reason why I give the preference (on a static point of view) to the balanced designs.
A major concern during my previous building was - for sure - the destruction of some sub-assemblies because the rotation speed.
From this point of view the suggested design could be much more stable.

Dear Tarsier79,
The energy level for lift-up each weight from 6:00 to 12:00 is only given by the fall of the diametrally opposed weight. Due to the balance the summary is null.
The only remaining point regarding the energy is from where is coming the energy for rotating of each pair of weights.
The answer comes from the flywheel energy (the wheel itself, once started) or from the centrifugal energy coming from the rotation of the weights themselves.

For a correct observation you must consider this suggested design like a torus.
http://www.jotero.com/bilder/maxwell/ma ... 28-%29.jpg

With an homogeneous surface this torus will be balanced.
Once started, it rotates loosing it's initial flywheel energy because the friction on the axle.
Now let's suppose that this torus is made of rubber and therefore can be self twisted like a moebius string but in 3D, a single meridian supporting a population of weights around a full turn.
In that state the tore will rotate, trying to reach its keeling position. Until now I agree with you.
But in addition, suppose there is a mechanism obliging this tore to self rotate around its internal circular axis for the only purpose to preserve the original position of the heavy meridian like in the animation hereafter (click on the picture for a better view, there is a trouble).

I regret you are still thinking in two dimensions.
I agree, it's not easy to imagine if you are not used to think in your head in three dimensions.
I will try to make an animation illustrating this last explanation.
For the moment the following second picture will describe perfectly the content of the suggested gravity wheel (order four, with eight weights).

I really think the secret of Bessler could be the Moebius umbilic torus (twisted twice)
See the reference to MT124 here: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 0900#50900 and the MT136
Remember also the twisted characters in the MT toys drawing, and also the reference to the moebius string.


Interesting links in relation with:
1. An excellent animation can be found here: http://math.elon.edu/~jbeuerle/Coolstuff/UmbilicTorus with the exception this torus is twisted once (imagine it twisted TWICE).
Click on the left button of the mouse for moving.
2. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... all%29.gif
3. The villarceau circles, where we recall back the famous 'vesica pisces':
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/c ... ircles.gif
The following animation hereafter is coming from here (many thanks):http://www.mathcurve.com/surfaces/tore/tore.shtml. Look at the bottom of this page the strange sculptural pillar ornament shaped with this concept. Perhaps Bessler visited this museum in Strasbourg and saw it, who knows?
4. A collection of various torus solenoidal curves (located on the surface of the torus):http://www.mathcurve.com/courbes3d/sole ... oric.shtml
Unfortunately the combination 5/12 (of the Apologia drawing) is not present. One cent as prize if you find it inside here:http://www.knotplot.com/knot-theory/torus-zoo-xing.jpg.

[path_finder]

The above developed concept can be implemented within different orders (not only on the order 'eight' like in the previous drawings) and in particular with the order THREE.
In this order there are three pairs of weights respecting the same rules: the rotation plane of the pairs of weights are dephased of 120 grades
This is typically the geometry of the 'flowerbowl' trilobed disk, at the origin of my personal quest (and therefore my interest for the gravity wheel, and then Bessler in particular).
Hereafter is a shot taken from the building of a demonstrator showing the first step of the assembly.
You can see the three scissors, the terminal summit of each scissor being on a temporary basis attached by a rubber band to the opposite rod of the frame.
On the next step this A summit must be linked to a mechanism wich assumes the expansion/reduction of the scissor (and by the way the rotation B of the weights in the corresponding pair, moving the COG on the segment C) in relation with the main wheel rotation.
This mechanism can be a excentered circular cam where the summits of the three scissors are rolling.
It can be a more complex mechanism using four identical gears, like shown earlier here:http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/download.php?id=8169 (in fact here: 2x4). At the light of the above analysis I know today why the model in this shot was wrong.
But I have another way to do the job, requesting no gear and using only rods, like explained earlier also here: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/download.php?id=6578
Note: on the shot because the parallax the three rods of the frame seem not to be parallel: they are.

[path_finder]

Hereafter is a short animation (the size of the video was too much) showing the motion of the pair of weights under control of the scissor summit.
The previous frame was too small for incorporating any mechanism: this is the reason why the dimensions have been expanded since.
But the mounting is the same than above, excepted the room available now on the center of the wheel.
As you can see the COG is passing alternatively from a close to a remote position versus the main axis.
The next step now is to use a mechanism for the linkage of the summit to the rotating wheel in accordance with the rules of the drawings in the previous posts above.

[murilo]

Yes, path!
You will see that a 180 deg articulation is not mandatory to get unbalancing and 90 deg will be enough.
Centrifugal force and gravity will act as positive and negative... maybe one side switching should neutralize the other...
Best!
Muliro

[path_finder]

Dear murillo,
Many thanks for your pertinent advice.

In fact, I hope this is the good translation in english: 'doing a lot, allows a little' (or also 'abundance of goods don't harm to'').
My intent is to adjust the linkage mechanism in that way where for the starting position everything is balanced with all the pair of weights aligned orthogonally to the main wheel (in a practical way at zero grade position if you assign minus/plus 90 grades to the possible rotation path of each weight).

So far the challenge is to design a mechanism wich will start the rotation with a small excursion alternatively aside this reference position.
Then with the acceleration of the rotational speed this excursion will increase until the centrifugal force cannot be sufficient for supporting the minus/plus 90 grades excursion.
I hope the limitation of this excursion perhaps at plus/minus 45 grades.
In the worst case we could go until minus/plus 85 grades but in this case the physical collision of the both weights will anyway surimpose a dead end.

I'm still continuing my tests in this direction. The modified wheel, with now a free room in the center, is on the following shot (the linkage mechanism is not implemented yet, and the pair of weights are keeling on a temporary basis)

The purpose of this strange structure is first to recycle some old used parts, but almost for the respect of the rules edicted in the Tesla's patent: the final COG is dependent, not only from the geometry of the weights, but also from the mass of the frame wich must be as light as possible (see the topic on the Mr Würth machine).