We don't care the Bessler wheel, the most important is to build a working wheel...

[path_finder]

This message should be in better place here (instead in the 'off-topic' part of the forum)
So far I make a copy:

The Tesla brand name choosen by a new electric car manufacturer is just a marketing action. Tesla will twist himself in his grabe for sure, this car being manufactured without any Tesla process and only with a conventional technology.
I agree totally with the assumption that the gravity cannot ALONE allow the setup of a gravitic engine. Tesla 'flying stove' was based on the principe where an object having a rotating COG not coincident with it's eventual geometrical symetry axis will be submitted to a gravitic force coming from the gravitation field. In this animation the balls are half filled (the white part is empty).
The blue and red crosses are the COG of the colored half balls.
The main COG of the structure is the small circle in black (sorry for the glasses).

Note:
Don't forget that the weight of ALL components of the structure must be taken in account for the COG calculation (the black circle don't take in account the angle gears and rods).

For some reason the same animation want not to be uploaded here.
So you can see it in the 'off-topic' section (title: 'thank you')

Hi Scott, the problem seems to come from the fact that the pictures table in your data base don't accept two pictures with the same name (just modify the status of the field or split the tables for each forum's section).

[path_finder]

hereafter the animation I cannot attach in the previous message (I changed it's name)

[path_finder]

May I give some personal reflexions on the Tesla 'flying stove' patent.
(for the new guests: http://fuel-efficient-vehicles.org/tesl ... -motor.php)

The experiments made by Greg Smith seem to be limited by the use of eight conic gears and almost by the use of an external motor (He tried also a pneumatic 20K rpm one, but apparently without success). And in addition the systematic search for the speed seems NOT to be the solution (Tesla said that after a certain rotation speed the gain will become not significant).
As explained earlier the calculation of the main COG must take in account ALL components of the used structure.
It's clear that if the fixed mass of the motor, rods, conic gears and frame represents 95% of the mass of the whole structure (motor + gears + rods + frame + mobile weights) versus the mass of the mobile parts, the final radius of the main COG rotation around the central axis will be reduced at less than 5% of the radius obtained from the rotating parts. Thus the resultant gravitic force will be very low and obviously perhaps not measurable (in any case far away of the full levitation).

At that point I came at the conclusion that an effective gravitic engine (based on this principe) must be build:
1. without any external conventional motor
2. With a mass of the frame almost close to zero.
What an hard conception!
The first question is How to synchronize the rotating parts without mechanical links
The second one is How to maintain the rotation of the mobile parts without any conventional motor
Anybody does have a solution for these both questions?

[DrWhat]

"Synchronize... without mechanical links" is an unusual request!
Any parts such as eg two pendulums back to back if not linked will slowly drift apart due to different friction on the components, slight variations in mass and structure affected by air friction, and so on.

The synchronization you speak of may exist but in a less then 100% way. Four pendulums at equidistant points around the edge of a wheel can synchronize but at different phases relative to each other. The rotation has to be very steady to avoid adding noise and deflections of those swings.

Find a way to keep one of the pendulums displaced further out or in at one side of the wheel and you may have a solution. But in this example you will still need a prime mover to redirect the weight/s. And any force the prime mover imparts onto the pendulums needs to be less than the force that the wheel produces. And a feedback loop.

So to avoid mechanical links to me is near impossible. Bessler mentioned his "connectedness principle" or similar. This could have multiple meanings.

As for the second question, I'll let you answer that LOL

[path_finder]

Dear DrWhat,
You forget the magnetic field, wich can synchronize four pendula modulo 90 grades with a magnetized central axle. But it's just an example.
I will prepare a small animation about this example. Be patient please.

[path_finder]

This animation 'whirlA.gif' uses the same principe as the first one above, and is based on the same rotating COG principe also (cf Tesla patent).
But here the rotation of the balls are a little bit different (the rotation axis are orthogonal to the main plane, instead parallel in the previous animation).
We suppose here (like for the previous animation) that the plane of the four balls is horizontal and we are above this plane (bird view).
The red ball of the links side and the blue ball of the top rotate clockwise (like the clocks).
The red ball of the right side and the blue ball of the bottom rotate counterclockwise.
With this design the synchronization linkage is much more simpler. We can use (few examples):
1. some light gears linking the balls axis and the wheel vertical axis
2. some cords or light chains around the rim of the weights
3. any other very light linkage using an arrangement of magnets with a correct dephasing position.
4. a flexible round spring
etc.

In an earlier topic I asked more data on the direction of the Bessler's cylindrical weights axis.
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/downl ... 8231084f44
Thanks to Stewart wich answered that no information was available on this particular point.
Thus the planar position of the weights axis can be a very important parameter in the Bessler wheel (as the red proposal in this previous topic)
Within a natural human behavior, we all suppose always that the axis of each cylindrical weight was horizontal. Why not tangential to the wheel's rim?
But let's suppose now that we assemble four weights with their axis tangential to the rim of the wheel.
With this arrangement we follow the design of the animation below.
I will try to make a new animation showing the whole wheel supplied with two crew of four weights.

Note also that if we double this crew on the opposite side of the wheel:
- The other crew of four weights has a rotation vector inverted with the first one.
- On a pure gravitic point of view the wheel is always balanced

[path_finder]

Dear all,
Let's forget for a moment the Tesla principe and remember now the previous animations I showed for describing a possible design used by Bessler within his two first unidirectional wheels.
After several weeks of posting, I'm a little bit disappointed to see that all datas I put at your disposal don't give me the hoped result: no one of the readers in this forum posted any shot of any practical attempt using these data. May be I was wrong and I should give more details (not enough explicit).
So far it's the reason why I give you today a much more detailed information, in view to know in the next days that one made a working wheel.
Therefore the animation below is much more directive.
But CAUTION! there are still few tricky points:
1. no strings have been drawn. I leave to your sagacity where to connect all the strings (it's not really difficult by using a specific MT drawing).
2. The cam has the good and definitive shape, but IS NOT FIXED TO THE CENTRAL AXEL!...
Remember the restriction I pointed earlier: it's imperative to have NO MECHANICAL LINK with the main axis.
(Any link with the main axis will reduce the COG distance to the center and therefore reduce the torque)
Thus an important question is: 'how to obtain a fixed cam (like in the animation) but linked to the outer rim of the wheel?
Also for the second point I DO have the solution (wich can explain the 'crossbar'), but I leave you thinking about for few days.

[Fletcher]

path_finder .. I once built a wheel very much like your animation - I used a shaped piece of wood for the cam & had it located by two different means - first I used a bicycle wheel hub as my central axle - this allowed the rim to turn around the axle [which was stationary] - this meant that I could attach the cam & position it where I wanted as part of the non-turning axle arrangement - it was awkward & the nuts that held it tight tended to work loose or I'd strip them over tightening them so that the cam could take the weight & not move - the second method was to use a central hanging counter_weight with a T-bar, & the cam was attached to that - the counter_weight had to be very heavy to keep the cam in position & still it moved or rocked a little.

What I discovered following this line of thought was that as soon as I had the 'rim levers with roller weights' rest on the cam to transition outwards the cam took the weight so that they could no longer contribute full torque to the down going side of the wheel - in fact the whole wheel got pretty bound up with friction & with springs got even worse - so what I got was a way to trade height for distance but no continuous rotation, alas - a sim package would show you this pretty quickly [as I started to do thereafter] - that is, unless you have a work around for this negative momentum sapping effect that I have missed ?

These were my experiences for what they're worth !

[ectropy]

Hi Pathfinder, This is a very popular design but can never produce a self starting self sustaining rotary motion. In addition to Fletcher`s observations, the following;
1) All weights that are in contact with the cam on the horizontal plane do not contribute any torque to the wheel as the weights are supported by the cam. Rather, much friction is produced. By the way I would not use springs to hold the weights to the cam. A grooved cam track with cam followers would produce less friction.
2) Difficult to ascertain how many weights are on the left and right at any given moment but it would seem that there are more on the left than the right. (Disregard the weights supported by the cam on the horizontal plane). No mechanical advantage or if any, not enough to overcome the huge frictional losses.
3) The weights on the top of the cam are accelerating. Going to use up a lot of torque (if available) to accelerate the weights.
Regards

[path_finder]

Dear fletcher,
Many thanks for your positive answer.
I confirm the unsuccess of the first way you talk about: if the cam is linked to the rim it will rotate with, at the same speed and not be in fixed position. If you leave loose the screw, the cam will fall by gravity due to it's unbalance.
Also I confirm the unsuccess for the second method: any single T-bar system will require a very heavy pendulum for stabilize the cam.
Anyway this is not surprising because in addition these two attempts are linked to the central axle (remember the rule).
Therefore we all agree to forget such as design.
What we need is a design starting from the outer rim and holding the cam at the center without any physical link with the main axle.

Dear ectropy,
Many thanks too, your remarks are pertinent: you are absolutely right, during the horizontal portion of the cam, the contribution of the weights to the torque is NULL (the gain in energy depends only from the difference of altitude). But this is not important if the energy given by the excentricity is able to overcome the balance (remember that the available energy is the green area of the animation). Your point number 2 don't take in account the torque, so far the number of weights on each apparent side is not important: a single weight separated from the center with a double distance will be equivalent to TWO weights.
I presume your next assumption could be wrong: there is no friction as the weights are rotating (Remember the remarks made about the shape of the weights axel by the witnesses, and also the 'rolling noise')
Regarding the question of the acceleration this point is much more difficult to analyse. If a weight is consuming some kinetic energy at the top during the acceleration, this energy will be returned to the wheel between 4:00 and 6:00 when the weight passes from the outer to the inner rim (remember the experiment of the student rotating on a chair with some weights on his arms). On my opinion, in a first view, the resultant will be null (to be more examinated)

If the ideal path obtained with the cam (like in the animation) gives to much chaotic motion, the replacement of this shape by a simple ellipse is not forbidden. The performance will just be lower.

[Michael]

Why not just make things simple and have the cam fixed to a stationary outside source, or to a fixed axel?

[path_finder]

Dear Michael,
Perhaps I was not enough explicit but I have explained already many times why the fixed point CANNOT be mechanically linked to the main axis (COG more close and therefore reduction of the torque). The fixed point must be absolutely obtained from the outer rim
Let's make yourself the experiment with your sugestion. It don't work!...
http://www.todayinsci.com/Books/MechApp ... /page2.htm

[Michael]

Pathfinder I didn't mean fixed to a rotating axle, I think my post states that.

[path_finder]

Dear Michael,
If you use the earth as reference (or use a link with the pillar per example), you will be obliged at a particular moment to transfer this reference through the axis of the main wheel, at the disposal of the internal mechanism. This is the reason why (speaking on a general point of view) I talked about axel.
The difficulty is to obtain a fixed point without any mechanical linkage with the center of the wheel, with axel or without axel. Any link (by rod, gear, cord,etc) will give an unsuccessful solution because you will link back the COG to the center and therefore reduce the torque.

[ectropy]

Hi Pathfinder, Replace the words "much friction" in my previous post with "much resistance". Fixing the cam in any configuration is immaterial. The force of the weights acting on the cam will simply be transferred to the fixture where ever that fixture may be. What is important is that the available torque of the weights acting on the cam has been negated from the wheel and resistance has been added. In this scenario there would be one or two weights which would have to overcome the resistance of the rest. Even if there was a mechanical advantage this advantage would be depleted in overcoming the resistance present. Regards.