Besslers prime mover and its enabler.

[Daniel.R]

Although I don't trust Algodoo, I must say that the design is quite elegant, Graham.

Nice work. Will you build a real model of the idea?

I find it quite daunting to build real models. However, I’m lucky to own a 3D printer, which is very helpful when there are many identical parts. The prints are accurate enough. I guess Bessler would have laughed with joy if he saw the potential of a 3D printer, especially during his 10 years of building and searching for the solution.

/Daniel

[Roxaway59]

Hi Shadow, looks interesting and you are using the artificial horizon as a pendulum.

Graham

[Roxaway59]

Hi Daniel, I don't usually build something until I feel it stands a chance of working.

So far with the slope one things are moving in a positive direction but it needs something extra to make it work.

I have a few ideas to try on it.

Graham

[Roxaway59]

I am starting right at the beginning with the block diagrams.

This first one is just about the centre of gravity and for now just shows an area where the centre of gravity could have been maintained in order to keep the wheel rotating clockwise.

I know there has been lots of discussion about this over the years and I invite forum members to give their input as to what part of this area the centre of gravity may have been maintained and why.

If it turns out that there is a consensus of opinion that puts it in a more specific area then I will alter the diagram to suit.

Graham

[Fletcher]

Hi Graham .. system CoM/CoG well to the right of the axle seems about right ..

What we do know is that in order for a wheel to 'express' torque ( a turning force ) its system CoM must be able to lose some vertical height i.e. lose some system GPE - if it can't do this ( like a Roberval or Ramalli Balance ), while to the eye it may positionally look unbalanced, it has no actual torque "potential/latency" .. if it has torque and then goes on to lose some GPE, then the system CoM will follow a roughly circular or ovoid shaped track to right of axle until it is again at its starting position ( the full reset ) - this means that the system GPE loss is followed by a system GPE gain ..

Personally, I don't think that a wheel has to start with a system CoM above the x-axis ( thru the axle ) to be a "top-heavy" wheel - and because the CoM track will dip-down and be circular it will invariably drop below the horizontal of the x-axis anyway - the point is to have a GPE recovery system that causes the system CoM to circulate and continue circulating to the right of the axle - the further right the better for quick acceleration and always available torque from any position it is stopped at - to pin-point this exact CoM location would depend on the physical method employed to initially unbalance a wheel and after restitution make it a self-moving wheel ..

...............

I agree with your disciplined refocusing .. I have always been of the persuasion that extreme logic will solve this mechanical self-moving conundrum - and altho I don't dabble in electronics or music I do fix many things, or at least attempt to, before throwing it away or calling in a professional - and for me that always involves a diagnostic process - what is it supposed to do, and how - why isn't it doing it - start with an open mind investigating the more obvious and then moving on to the less obvious if I haven't fixed the problem ..

Good luck on the journey of "logical diagnosis " Graham - many will come with you on the journey because they are bone-tied of being wrong-footed and another promising rabbit-hole to Wonderland that evaporates to smoke and mirrors ..

[Fletcher]

I might as well point out that Karl saw the interior of the Merseburg two-way wheel, and he understood it - it seems even a two-way wheel wasn't that complex or difficult to understand, tho one would suspect it had more moving internal parts than a one-way wheel - later, after the translocation and lifting tests at Merseburg etc he along with other witnesses signed a certificate of authentication, and he said it was due to innate momentum - i.e. it must gain in momentum - hence why I suggest that while gravity is a force the system energy transformation in-out connection was already made to momentum as a first cab-off-the-rank for energy budgeting purposes - if you hear hoof beats approaching think horses, not zebra's - even if we don't know how this outputted energy to do work got inside the wheels, or how the chronic CoM unbalancing was maintained ..

And this ties up with the two-ways requiring a gentle push start i.e. they were initially balanced and needed an above a certain threshold input of momentum after which they became unbalanced and accelerated away gaining in momentum .. while the one-ways always had gravity torque from unbalance and didn't need any gentle push start it seems logical that 2 one-way systems in opposition would cause that initial balance of forces requiring the gentle push to create a directional torque bias by perhaps latching the retrograde system etc ..

[Robinhood46]

And this ties up with the two-ways requiring a gentle push start i.e. they were initially balanced and needed an above a certain threshold input of momentum after which they became unbalanced and accelerated away gaining in momentum

I don't mean to be contradictory here Fletcher, but this isn't, or may not be, entirely true.

I am not saying that it couldn't be possible, because i do think that it could, i just don't think it was likely. I am more inclined to think that the bidirectional wheels had the COM at 6 o'clock when they were stopped. Which isn't exactly the same.

Once the COM moved sufficiently, with sufficient momentum, it then started dancing around the wheel, causing the wheel to rotate continually, because the COM was constantly seeking 6 o'clock.

The bidirectional wheel was constantly seeking 6 o'clock just as the unidirectional wheel was, the difference between the two was that the bidirectional could find it, which the unidirectional couldn't. The bidirectional could only find it, if the momentum was low enough to allow it to find it.
Therefore when the wheel was at rest, the COM had found 6 o'clock, the wheel wasn't balanced. Obviously just my point of view.

[John Collins]

I agree with fletch. I recall von Erlach and ‘sGravesand’s inspection of the Kassel wheel, “ When I turned it but gently, it always stood still as soon as I took my hand away. But when I gave it any tolerable degree of velocity, I was always obliged to stop it again by force; for when I let it go, it acquired in two or three turns its greatest velocity, after which it revolved at twenty-five or twenty-six
times a minute.”

To me the essential point is that the one-way wheel was permanently OOB and was so in any stopped position. The same applied to the two-way wheels but being permanently OOB for each direction, meant they were perfectly balanced in total when stationary. ‘sGravesand noted that a more effective push overcame any tendency to balance, bringing into action which ever direction was able override any balancing factor.

I’m certain that two such experienced gentlemen would have noted any tendency to prefer a COM at six o’clock.

JC

[Sam Peppiatt]

To@,
I think Robinhood is right, the bidirectional wheels had to be temporarily bottom heavy, in order to remain stationary. Because, they didn't have a friction break and weren't tied down with a rope. So, there must have been an internal dynamic break, of some sort. Also, it maybe that all four wheels worked exactly the same way. Then he simply added a reversing link to the last two wheels. Upgraded them if you will------------------Sam

ETA John Collins. An effective push, (Jo F. described it as a tolerable push) was required to overcome the temp. bottom heaviness caused by the internal break. I've explained many times how it worked.

[Robinhood46]

Gravesand noted that a more effective push overcame any tendency to balance,

I’m certain that two such experienced gentlemen would have noted any tendency to prefer a COM at six o’clock.

I am seeing a contradiction here John.

How should we interpret "overcome any tendency to balance"?
I'm interpreting this as "giggling about a bit" swaying from left to right a bit before settling ".
In which case, only one of the two such experienced gentlemen didn't note any tendency to prefer a COM at 6 o'clock.
Am i bias because of balance in French, meaning swing or sway?

[Sam Peppiatt]

A contradiction is right.
Gravity can't be turned off. Some thing had to have prevented the last two wheels from turning, when they were stopped. If they were balanced,(when stationary), they would just take off like the first two wheels------------Sam

[Roxaway59]

Yes what is being said here about the bidirectional wheels having their centre of gravity at 6 o’clock when stationary is perfectly logical to me too.

The only way it could have been anywhere else when stationary is if something centred about the axle was holding something up.

If you class an artificial horizon as a separate entity from the centre of gravity of the wheel then that of course could do that but certainly the CoG of the machine as a whole would be at 6 o’clock.

You can argue about how far from the axle the CoG is because since we don’t know the precise mechanism yet it cant be assumed that is wasn’t at a fair distance from the axle even though given that it was said to be easily rotated one naturally could assume it was closer to the axle.

The CoG can be a fair distance from the axle if the positive feedback loop kicks in from the moment it is turned in the form of weights moving contrary to their natural movement and actually assisting the rotation of the wheel from the start. This would give a very unnatural feel and make the wheel feel lighter than it actually was.

Before I continue I just have to post this picture. If anyone can instruct me on how to insert pictures in text when posting that would be useful to me because I can never get my posts to do that and my pictures have to be at the bottom of my posts.

Graham

[Roxaway59]

In this picture that I have posted previously you see a real experiment and I am indicating the path of steel ball bearings that are spring loaded as they go around the wheel. I conducted this experiment many years ago when I was designing a wheel I wanted to test.

The wheel is turning anticlockwise as you can see and the laws of physics kick in with every action has an equal and opposite reaction.

The equal and opposite reaction is the path that the ball bearings naturally take and as you can see they are shifting further out to a position between about 4 and 5 o’clock moving the wheels CoG along with them and opposing the turning of the wheel in a negative feedback loop.

All those years ago when I looked at this there was one main question going through my mind and that was can that effect be reversed?

In all honesty I think the answer is yes and that is precisely what Bessler did.

He turned a negative feedback loop into a positive feedback loop. Which to anyone turning that wheel would feel weird.

Graham

[Robinhood46]

You can argue about how far from the axle the CoG is because since we don’t know the precise mechanism yet it cant be assumed that is wasn’t at a fair distance from the axle even though given that it was said to be easily rotated one naturally could assume it was closer to the axle.

The CoG can be a fair distance from the axle if the positive feedback loop kicks in from the moment it is turned in the form of weights moving contrary to their natural movement and actually assisting the rotation of the wheel from the start. This would give a very unnatural feel and make the wheel feel lighter than it actually was.

I could copy and paste your words and pretend they are mine, or i can just agree 100% with your reasoning, there would be no difference.

[SHADOW]

Spéculation: le centre de gravitée n'est pas à mon sens à 6 heures.
Les deux roues sont unidirectionnelles est automotrices, elles s'équilibrent par l'intermédière d'un système type ceinture de sécurité automobile.
Le lancement à bonne vitesse donne la prédominence à la roue lancée et l'autre se met à l'arrêt mais prète à repartir.

Speculation: the center of gravity is not in my opinion at 6 o'clock.
The two wheels are unidirectional is self-propelled, they are balanced by the intermediation of a system type car safety belt.
The launch at good speed gives predominance to the thrown wheel and the other stops but is ready to start again.