This is my wheel concept 2017, not Bessler's 1717...

[Fletcher]

... Surely the closing of the loop problem will be there. But this time, as the torque reaches zero, forcing auto wheel to stop before the loop is closed, hopefully the larger drum wheel/flywheel will still have some momentum to push the auto wheel past the resetting remaining few degrees turn.

Hi Raj .. I don't think you have changed-up your designs enough to get a runner. Build and see what happens. Best.

[raj]

Thanks Fletcher!, for a reply I expected.

" To built " is the easiest but best advice.

To follow this advice, is the most difficult.

Raj

[Fletcher]

A kindly word of advice .. I know you are doing your own thing Raj but if Bessler did it before all of us then we should perhaps consider some of the pearls on offer.

The biggest one IMO is that his one-way wheels ALWAYS had torque, in ANY POSITION !

You know how it is, you can move a wheel to point of maximum torque in one direction and then the other direction, then the mid point of balance. That's absolutely bog standard behaviour for OOB designs. Sinusoidal torque curves and positions of zero torque.

Work out an engineering plan of attack that gives torque in any position to your wheels and you are over the hump and rolling down the other side. That can be torque thru 180 degrees to 360 degrees.

Best.

[raj]

My dear Fletcher, I admire your franc-parler.
I read ALL your posts with great care, and keep learning from the contents.

Of all the designs and drawings presented on this forum, there are not many that shows lifting weights, moving/closing loop almost a full 360 degrees orbital path from center of wheel, down and up again almost back to the center, while the wheel turning only 180 degrees, as shown by your sims.

This, to me, looks good.

Raj

[ovyyus]

The biggest one IMO is that his one-way wheels ALWAYS had torque, in ANY POSITION !

Also, amazingly, the one-way wheels probably maintained that constant forward torque even when forced to rotate in reverse. As might be expected from a wheel acting like it was wound up with a hidden spring.

[raj]

" L'union fait la force "

" Male/female"

" Action/reaction"

" Ying/yang"

"Positive/negative"

" Etc/etc"

Nature works in pairs.

A single mec will never give the proof I need.

I need everything in pair/pairs to work in synchronized collaboration to do the work.

That where my difficulty lies in building.

Attempts to concept proof build continues, with discarded home materials and zero facilities.

Raj

[Fletcher]

Of all the designs and drawings presented on this forum, there are not many that shows lifting weights, moving/closing loop almost a full 360 degrees orbital path from center of wheel, down and up again almost back to the center, while the wheel turning only 180 degrees, as shown by your sims.

This, to me, looks good.

The key is the torque Raj .. to understand what it would feel like to hold that wheel and feel the torque in any position. No sinusoidal torque curve where torque builds and drops off and builds and drops off again each sector. It would feel exactly like a clock spring force and that was a major criticism that he later addressed in the two-way wheels by having them stop and stand still with no lock down.

If you can't visualize that one-way torque then search google for Rubber Band Heat Engines and study a few designs.

https://www.google.com/search?tbm=isch& ... =603&dpr=1

The water bath ones or the light source ones would give a good approximation of how the torque feels and you'd see how they can pull thru 360 degrees for example.

I don't particularly believe in coincidences. I do believe in irony. Things can be hidden in plain sight. Have you ever asked yourself why Besslers' wheels were the proportions they were ? Even his first one was 3 foot wide by 4 inches thick. That's a very narrow internal space when wheel spokes/structure are taken into account, especially for fat fingers. Those proportions never really varied right up to the large two-way ones, which were all disk shaped. Yet when looking for a sale he could have built multiple wheels side by side on a single long axle to demonstrate power. He even said so. But he never actually demonstrated multiple wheels on an axle. ... Because questions would be asked. "Hey JB, why be wasteful; why not just build one wide drum wheel on the same long axle instead of multiple identical thin disk wheels side by side ?" ... Because he couldn't, and for a very good reason, hence why all his wheels were thin disks and not fat drums. The disk sides wooden structure was part and parcel of the Prime Mover which was hidden in plain sight, and in every wheel he built of various types/'principles', IMO.

[raj]

I am still in search of proof of concept.

I am not ashame to say that my concept testing prototypes are a lot of disgusting crap works, not worthy of showing on this forum.
But I keep posting my attempts to show my dedication to my wheel.

I can assure when my final wheel will be build by paid professionals, it can be 12 feet in diameter, and no thicker than eighteen inches disc shape drum wheel, just like Bessler’&, with 4 lb weights inside, because weights will small fist size.

Raj

[raj]

Finally what would count is the WORKING wheel, not the shape, size or beauty of the wheel.

Just like the iron-horse.

Raj

[Fletcher]

Raj .. there are no coincidences in Besslers' wheels. They are all disk shaped, with the same proportions, for a reason. Some just bigger than others. There were none shaped like a drum on its side, even when that looks like an obvious way to go. When he wanted more power he just increased the diameter but not the thickness.

He never took a wheel off of its stand and let it free-range. This would have been a very good and novel demonstration to his critics and supporters alike. To see it supporting its weight on its rim and rolling along flat ground or climbing a small incline. He never did that. The two-way wheels which could be stopped might have been super impressive to see accelerate from a small push and climb an incline. The one-way wheels more so, because they might have had immediate torque to roll up an incline the moment they were released. They should have been fighting to be let go. He didn't free-range them for a reason. ... because his wheels weren't really wheels. They needed to be placed in a stand to work. The exterior hid and disguised from eyes the stored strain energy (the bow) in the Prime Mover wheel framing that was discharged as all-of-wheel torque.

So although you are right and a working wheel is what counts at the end, and you are free to do what you want, I simply point out to you and others that there can not be any coincidences in Besslers' wheels. Even the wheel shape has a purpose and function to the end goal.

[ChrisHarper]

Raj & Fletcher,

The light 'wheel' cover was a perfect disguise for it played into people's preconceptions of what a P.M.Device should look like. This deliberate piece of misdirection is as true today as it was then.

Bessler was also quite happy to for others to conclude that it was a 'more weight to one side' device, knowing that, as it did initially, others would assume overbalance.

IMHO, Bessler had to mount his wheel onto a fixed support.

Torque was directly proportional to diameter, with rpm inversely proportional to dia.

The wheel width played no deteriminate part, other than to be the required minimum to permit the internal operation of the weighted / sprung / strung / swung mech *

* take your pick

Chris

[eccentrically1]

The ratios of the wheels’ diameter to thickness were all different. The Kassel wheel increased in thickness for power but not really that much in diameter. And it wasn’t much more powerful than the Merseburg. And they were all ‘drum’ shaped.

It would be hard to say why he didn’t roll them along the ground, but my guess is most likely they would either easily tip over or, for some reason, they had to be in their supports to work.

[Fletcher]

Hi Chris .. IIRC you said your wheel design was a mass balanced one. Did you ever build it and test it ?

[Fletcher]

The ratios of the wheels’ diameter to thickness were all different. The Kassel wheel increased in thickness for power but not really that much in diameter. And it wasn’t much more powerful than the Merseburg. And they were all ‘drum’ shaped.

It would be hard to say why he didn’t roll them along the ground, but my guess is most likely they would either easily tip over or, for some reason, they had to be in their supports to work.

You and I might disagree on what a disk and a drum shape is. I'm going to pedantically describe a drum shape as like a 44 gallon oil drum on its side, where you can fit in two, three, or more disk shapes. And the proportions of the wheels were very similar. The two-way wheels were slightly thicker proportionally, but not by much. Not for all intents and purposes. They certainly weren't drum shaped when he wanted more power. He simply suggested adding additional wheels to the same axle.

They might have risked falling over, but even then they could have built channels to run in, had men run beside it to tip it back up if it hit rough ground or the wind blew, or heaven forbid, make a set of training wheels on each side of the axle to keep it upright in transit. Ever seen a small kid learn to ride a small bike ? They were in stands for a reason.

[ChrisHarper]

Fletcher,
Yes I did build a wheel. Two in fact.

The 2nd was better in terms of self-induced rotation, for no other reason than I had learnt more from the internal motion of the first one.

My trio of distinctly different methods use weights as the driver. Without the interplay of the masses(gravity) the crossbars would've just sat there like an ugly bird without a prom-date !

Chris