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

[DrWhat]

These are great designs.

[greendoor]

Path-finder - much respect! I particularly love the rhombus design. I wish I had the talent & resources to be a prolific builder and test some of these actions.

[ectropy]

"this design could be able to reach your favorite rule (co-incident axis)".

Hi Pathfinder, Nice one. Yes BUT out of context in that it is at the cost of the Prime Mover offset path. ie; All paths are symmetrical about the z plane through the main axis. I may be missing your intent though! Regards.

[path_finder]

I apologize for the silence (I'm back in Ivoiry Coast and was really busy).
Let's me suspend for a short moment the discussion on the possible prime-mover mechanism.
Hereafter I will put a proposition for a new design.
Although Bessler is not my first concern, with respect for this forum spirit and for those of yours interested with, I believe this new design could be one used by Bessler for his two first unidirectional wheels.
CAUTION! I don't pretend to have found the secret of Bessler!...it's just a suggestion to be taken as.

On my opinion the main reason why the secret of Bessler has not be found until now is coming from an important confusion between the POWER axle and the rotation axle of the wheel.
For sure this was not easy to see by eyes and in addition it's more easier to think (in a natural first approach) that these two axles are co-incident.
This is not the rule researched by our friend ectropy but his rule (co-incident axis) is still valuable for the more complex designs.
A recent topic in this forum was really near of this concept.
http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewt ... 40c1040e77
Now if you accept the idea that the cord is rounded on another axle than the main axle of the flywheel, a new concept will be revealed.
The animation bellow do not represent the whole design and it's only purpose is to show the first step of the principle

We will suppose in this explanation:
- the flywheel (in green) contains a prime-mover (in blue) forcing the wheel to be always unbalanced.
This prime-mover has a 4:1 structure (acting every 90 grades)
- a freewheel ratchet is included in the power axle of the red drum.
- the flywheel black axle rolls on the inner rim of the red drum.
- The ratio between the radius of the black and red circle is 2:1.

How it works?
(to see better you can magnify the animation. On Firefox key on Ctrl-Shift-Plus)
We will suppose that at the rest position (6:00 of the red drum) a cord retains the red axle (because the permanent overbalance coming from the prime-mover) and we liberates the cord. The flywheel black axle will start to rotate inside the red drum.
Depending of the torque the flywheel will climb up on this drum, but the prime-mover itself will turn with the flywheel and after a certain angle the diminishing torque will not be sufficient for climbing more higher and the flywheel will stop.
(On my animation I chosen the position 45 grades because I supposed that the prime-mover has a 4:1 structure, and with the selected ratio in the radius when the flywheel reaches the 45 grades position of the red drum the black axle rotation was 90 grades therefore cancelling the torque).
At that place the flywheel tries to go backward (climbing down) like the hamster (remember the title of my book).
But the freewheel ratchet will engage the red drum wich start to rotate, as shown in the animation, until the first position and so on...

In fact the reality should be different.
If the explanation is still correct, the working area should be 7:00-5:00 (instead 6:00-4:00 in the animation).
In addition this mechanism should be doubled: during the path back of the first, the second mechanism should be active.
On the practical way the final assembly will be a double pendulum
The motion is therefore not linear (the advance is obtained by a successive number of steps) This could explain the presence of the square in the clues and on the axle where the cord is attached.


The dimensions used by Bessler for the black roller and the red drum could be different.
For the explanation these dimensions have been oversized for a better comprehension.
It seems that the questions about the diameter of the Bessler wheel main axle could be justified by the described concept, the main iron axis in this case 'wobbling' inside this thick axle.


But there are still remaining some important questions regarding the construction:
If we need an axel (black) rolling inside the red drum, how can we link the both extremities of the red drum, the main wheel rotating between them.
In view to overcome the friction efficiency (the black axle must absolutely climb inside the inner rim of the red drum as highest as possible) it may be necessary to use another way than just two adjacent surfaces. This is perhaps the reason we can see on most of the Bessler wheels drawings a kind of 'barillet'(keg of machine gun), allowing a teethed cam to rotate like in some pumps or reductors
(see an example here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MfcyTgQsFW8)
In that case the ratio between the black roller and red drum (chosen 2:1 in this animation) could be very different (perhaps 8:7).

Another problem is the mechanical shocks on the assembly coming from the alternating motion: if the pillars are not hardly fixed the assembly will migrate on the floor (everybody knows the walking washmachine during the centrifugal phase). But most interesting, why Bessler did not choose to use a double tripod
This is linked to an earlier topic where I asked why Bessler needed to transport the wheel instead to let roll it on the floor.
The answer is obvious: this kind of design cannot roll on the floor because in that case the major effect disappears.

We can continue the examination: why the pillars where fixed (attached) on the floor and on the roof?
It's not only for the above reason (walking washmachine), it's because we need a mechanical link between the opposite parts of the red drum axle.
On the practical way, because the presence of the flywheel between the two opposite planes, it could be impossible to pass the power thin axle through the center of the flywheel.
The loop linkage may be made in that case by the castle itself.
This suggests by consequence that the two opposite red axles do not rotated at the same speed.
Remember the first drawings showing TWO external pendula (disappearing in the next wheels).

Some another various remarks:
The stone/salt mills on one side could be needed to introduce a delay on one side of the process.
Remember the analogy of the 'kids jumping from one pillar to another'.

Hoping this could be useful for all the fans of Bessler...
Bonne Fête du Travail à tous (merry Work celebration day for all of yours).

[LustInBlack]

Interesting idea..

[path_finder]

Many thanks to LustinBlack (are you alone in that desert?)

Just few comments on the last proposal.

If you practiced yourself the manipulation of the cord in the former Java applet I mentioned earlier in the first page of this topic
(see it again at:http://www.sciences.univ-nantes.fr/phys ... meiro.html and click on the 'stop' button and then on the small hand)
you can find the way to improve the motion (pull down the cord at 6:00 and release it at the highest position).
In the above design we have two parametric pendula each one alternatively applying the rule to the other pendulum.
The first is at the highest position when the second is at 6:00.
Locking the red drum at the highest position is equivalent to release the cord.
Acting down the red drum at the highest position is equivalent to pulling the cord for the lowest pendulum, etc.
So far the people will ask: from where is coming the energy?
It's like for the 'parametric pendulum': from a subtile combination of mutual excitation of the gravitational and centrifugal energy.

Some of yours were disappointed by the title of this topic.
I can explain here my position:
I DO have a lot of respect for Bessler, but my methodology is quite different from the most used here in this forum.
The majority of the members are trying to find the solution by a complex examination of the clues given (or not) by Bessler.
Unfortunately after more than an half decade of numerous exchanges no solution has been found (published? it's another point).
On my opinion this way of research will be still remain unsuccessful for years.
My research way is at the opposite side:
- I start from scratch
- applying the basic principles of the physic, I review all possible mechanical designs
- sometime verifying the concepts with some practical construction
- moving up step by step to more complex assembly, etc.
By this way I'm pretty sure I will have much more chance to find an effective solution.
This is the spirit of the topic's title.
But nobody can claim to possess the truth, we have all a small part of the truth, and my way is perhaps not the best one.
Exactly the same with the Bessler's design: there are a lot of solutions, and may be, the Bessler's one is not the most efficient...

[LustInBlack]

J'ai trouvé intéressant le fait que la roue dans l'animation semble être à la fois en surpoids et par la suite sois allégé, donc le "prime mover" est réinitialisé car le poids total du rotor est fixé momentannément sur l'axe.. ;]

In fact, my latest ideas were based on this.. I tried to use the positive mass element as a driving force and let the negative mass reset itself back ..

This wheel animation seems to show this.. I must admit I didn't read everything in your description tho.. But it sparked new ideas, like a dual action gear ...

Are you in my private forum btw?! You could see some of my ideas at work..

Anyways, lately I didn't give much thought to bessler's wheels, I should put more effort in this...

btw, I don't remember why I gave you a red dot before!? .. But since I don't remember, it's probably because it is not important, so I gave you back a green dot .. :P

[path_finder]

Dear LustinBlack,
Many thanks for your honesty.
When I will be less busy, I will show the next step (how to solve the axle pass-through problem)

[murilo]

Path says:
``Many thanks to LustinBlack (are you alone in that desert?)``
No Path! Absolutely not!
Cheers!
Murilo may/05

[path_finder]

Many thanks to murilo.

Here is another animation ('floatEbis.gif') based on the same principle.
the prime-mover is not represented here
(this prime-mover contains the weights and the locking system controller also)
Again here there is only ONE of the both parametric pendula in quadrature.
There is nothing really new except a better quality, and we can see now better the mutual motion of the axles (click on the small image for a greater view).
The axle of the flywheel is green when free to climb up.
This axle is rosa when locked with the red drum (itself linked with the main axle).
The question of the construction is still remaining here (how to pass the axle of the red drum through the flywheel). any suggestion?

[rlortie]

Path-finder wrote;

The question of the construction is still remaining here (how to pass the axle of the red drum through the flywheel). any suggestion?

Very simple for one mechanically aware of radial aircraft engines. Suggest you Google up some aviation links and find one revealing an engine design of WW1 vintage. The crank and journal stay stationary and the engine (flywheel) turn as the pistons reciprocate.

With the above simulation I envision both wheels on one crankshaft with two throws that reciprocates as a pendulum. both wheels are turning on their own journals and could care less if the crank shaft itself it turning or rocking. The red drum has a split axle providing the source of output.

In fact I have figured out a way for mechanical transference of just about all your posted diagrams posing this problem!

Ralph

[AB Hammer]

path_finder

I will wait to see your next step :)

[path_finder]

Dear riortie,
Thanks for your suggestion, but your idea is only implementable for ONE single flywheel.
The final design is based on a concept using TWO pendula (in fact two flywheels acting in quadrature).
In that case the crank passing through the axle of the first flywheel cannot find the hole of the second flywheel.
For a better understanding I put hereafter this drawing, showing the riortie's suggestion, applied to one single flywheel (in green).
A is the main axis (where we gain the power)
B is the crank (in blue) passing through an hole C coaxial with the flywheel axis.
But there is a solution: put the red drum in the middle (between the two flywheel).
The assembly is now like a bike bracket with two pedals.
I will try to build the corresponding animation.

[path_finder]

I apologize for the delay (I'm now back again in Cameroon and was really busy).

Remember the point was: 'how to pass the main power axle through the both flywheels'
as result of the previous 'floatEbis.gif' animation.
The answer is simple: if we cannot pass trough the gate, let's pass through the window...
By other words: 'if we cannot pass inside, let's pass outside'...

An analysis of the force application for the inside rolling axle shows that we can obtain the same effect by attaching the rolling axle on the outside rim of the red drum, like explained in the drawing 'hamster_path1.png' hereafter.
On the left part is shown the original inner design where the dark grey roller follows the blue path #1.
The size of the red drum is oversized for a better view. Remember that it's center axis is the motion axle.
The weight P can be replaced by the resultant of two forces:
- the red force A (attaching the roller to the inner rim of the red drum)
- and the green force B (giving the torque)

The right part of the drawing shows how we can replace the dark grey roller of the inner design by a combination of three rollers (colored in light grey)
following the path#2 and rolling on the outside rim of the red drum.
The weight of each roller must be a third of P (the calculation of the COG gives the same position like on the left side).
One of the remaining question in this 'outside' design is the effective contact of the rollers to the red drum.
A fourth roller assumes the completion of this fixation in conjunction with some springs.
Now the rollers are outside and we can pass a two stage crank through the center of the red drum.
But how can we restitute the hamster motion of the original inner roller?
That's the job of the prime-mover by locking/unlocking the outside rollers.
Be patient...

[path_finder]

As explained above in the previous message, the outside rollers must be
- locked with the red drum during the down path (right side)
- unlocked and rotation free during the lift up path (left side)
as shown in the next animation 'hamster_G4.gif' hereafter.

The locking state is characterized by the small red balls (the detail of this mechanism is not shown)
During the right part of the travel the rollers are glued on the outside rim of the red drum,
instead during the left part they are rolling on the drum's surface (in view to be back in the right position at 12:00)

For a better view of the mutual motion a quarter of each roller has been colored.
On a practical way each roller can be divided in four compartments and only one filled with iron or lead powder (this one in opposition with the locking mechanism)
The path of these weights don't respect exactly the optimal ideal path defined earlier (as in my logo), but another lock/unlock timing can be chosen for.

For the fans of Bessler (just a single suggestion related with the above design):
If you see the MT135 you can observe the position of the rods passing through the center:
they can be used for locking a roller on the right side and unlock it on the left side (if this roller outer surface has some holes or teeth where the rods can plug in)
But in this case MT135 is only a conceptual schematic (not showing the mechanism giving the excentricity)