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

[Stewart]

May be yes, may be not. So many words have been put in the mouth of Bessler.
As titled in the topic, and although the full respect I keep for Bessler, he is not the alone solution, and without minoring his contribution, I think the most important is to build a working wheel, with any kind of design.

Yes, I agree - any working wheel would be great - it doesn't have to conform exactly to Bessler's wheel. My own research, like yours, is not restricted only to Bessler's wheel. However, this is besslerwheel.com and many people who visit here hang on every single word that is said about the wheel and even base some of their designs and builds on one word. Therefore it's important to make sure no false quotes are perpetuated. So, does anyone know where this 'wheel inside a wheel' quote comes from?

Stewart

[daxwc]

You are exactly right Stewart, it is Besslerwheel.com (notice the Bessler)and most important information on him is as pure as possible. A virtual free for all could be had if we all started a forum called Cranks "R" Us 8)))

I also have in the past said things that are not proven and I was not offended by the correction, but very grateful. Sometimes your brain links ideas to things not actually written in words.

[jim_mich]

Maybe from the Bible?
Bible in Basic English: Ezekiel 1:16
The form of the wheels and their work was like a beryl; the four of them had the same form and design, and they were like a wheel inside a wheel.

[path_finder]

Dear Daxwc,
I respect your point of view.
I chosen www.besslerwheel.com because this site seemed to me more convivial and more specifically dedicated to the gravitic wheels.
I have no intent to post on www.overunity.com per example, wich covers everything and nothing, and where much more bessler007 are acting.
If this forum must be exclusively reservated to Bessler, I'm ready to go elsewhere.
If there is a problem of unadequation, just tell me. I will stop my posts and share my data elsewhere.
What is the position of the webmaster (Scott) on this subject?
Wich webmaster will accept to heberge my next posts?

[Stewart]

Don't take it so personally path_finder! No one wants you to stop posting here and your posts are perfectly acceptable topics for this forum. You must surely see the need to make sure we don't keep posting false quotes and information here though?

[daxwc]

Sorry path_finder... I don't wish you to stop posting. I think, I was wrong anyway, as I only wished that you realized the much work that goes into the activities of the Bessler diehards and that they get the recognition they deserve. It was the title of your thread and the odd comment that I found little offensive, there is more then enough room for both. I jump both sides of the fence myself anyway.

I don't know how the others translate that old German it makes my head spin and the only reason I don't work on the codes more. That being said it is very important somebody is wading through it to work on it.

[path_finder]

Dear daxwc and Stewart,
Many thanks for your comments.
I'm not an expert on Bessler and I will try in the future do not improve any confusion between the certified and unverified clues.
My reaction was not epidermic, I was just 'in the fog' due to the small level of feedback. It's important to know if my literatur is still interesting for the members and the guests.
.

[genmurphy]

Hi Path-finder,

Just a little message to say that there are people reading your posts... and with great interest.

Best regards,

Genmurphy.

[path_finder]

Dear genmurphy,
Many thanks for your encouragement.

[path_finder]

I still continue to analyse here the multiple ways for using the 'virtual fixed point'.
We saw that point has only an existence if the cross (in the designs of order 4) or the tripod (in the designs of order 3) physically exist.
In that case this point is materialized at the center of the cross (tripod) and the most important features of this point are:
(1) it's mechanical independence with the main axis
(2) it's independence from the rotational speed of the cross (tripod)
(3) it's constant distance with the main axis in any position of the cross (tripod)
So far if we want to apply this design to the concept previously described in the 'rodx3b.gif' animation
(visible here: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/downl ... ec8e9c52ac)
the first idea is for sure to build TWO crosses with two pods located at the right place (the points A and B of the circle were the rods are attached). But this is not really clever because the both crosses will collide together during their rotation, and even if we separate them by a plane this complex mechanism (I agree with ectropy) will be available just for one couple of weights. So far we will be obliged to install FOUR times the same mechanism, if we wish to use eight weights (like in all animations). Any suggestion to solve that?

[greendoor]

Pathfinder - I just clicked your green light. Your ideas and animations are most welcome here in this forum. Keep up the good work!

[path_finder]

dear greendoor,
Many thanks

[path_finder]

In a previous post we saw the way to use a cam (with a specific shape) in view to oblige the eights weights to follow the 'ideal path' defined at the beginning of this topic.
(for memory: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/files ... ssbar4.gif)
In another post an alternative has been suggested: an ellipse with the main center as pole, although this path could be NOT optimum in terms of energy efficiency.
(for memory: http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/downl ... a3029a7ca0)
In the next animation hereafter I suggest a combination of the both design.
The ellipse is in fact a circle (specific ellipse as you know) where all weights are rolling around it's outer rim.
The weights are 'sticked' on this circle, two by two linked by a spring (the springs are not represented).
This circular cam will be positioned by the same way used in the previous animations: centered on the 'virtual fixed point'.
Note the motion of the weight between 9:00 and 13:00 clock, similar with the wheel of Sjack-Abelin, discussed at the present time in another topic.
(not exactly the same mechanical way, but about the same acceleration/avalanche process).

Dear ectropy,
In a previous post you explained the need for two co-incident axis
Why do not double the 'cross' mechanism (giving the 'virtual fixed point') and arrange the attachments between the both crosses in the way that the axis of the main wheel be located on the 'virtual fixed point' of the both crosses
In that case the main axle will not be linked anymore with the ground.
Et voilà.

[rlortie]

Attached is a picture of a radial design I have been "playing" with.

I emphasize 'playing' as I know full well that this concept is simply two components balanced on separate axles. They are four inches off center and the crank journal can be adjusted for a full 360 degree swing, although I cannot see any advantage of having it outside of 1:00 to 3:00 on the clock.

Note that the offset levers and weights may protude out farther than on the alleged descending right, it creates more on the ascending left. A deceptive arrangement as both are always in balance.

Ralph

[ectropy]

Hi Pathfinder, Not sure what your meaning is with shifting the main axis but yes the controlling mechanism axis and main axis must be coincident.
eg, disregard the weight of the wheel and peripherals. manually lift the the unit by the control shaft. The whole will rotate in the opposite direction as the weights are supported by the offset axis. Locate the control axis coincident with the main axis and again lift the unit by the control shaft. The whole will now rotate in the correct direction. ie; torque is still applicable to the main wheel axis. Simple eg. but true none the less. Offsetting the control axis towards the overbalance side negates much of the positive torque available to the main axis. If one were able to locate the control axis to the negative side? A runner. Highly unlikely though. Regards.