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

[rlortie]

Fletcher,

drum shape as like a 44 gallon oil drum on its side, where you can fit in two, three, or more disk shapes.

Very interesting! Now I have an excuse for hoarding three 55 gallon drums in my garage. Two are steel the third plastic. Never gave thought to their use in wheel research.

I do agree with you, a disc and a drum are two different objects with little in common.

[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.

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.

A disc implies a solid. A drum implies a hollow interior. Maybe that’s the difference.

Not only did he not demonstrate the wheels off the stands but he didn’t demonstrate two or more on an axle so the reason they were slim drums rather than thicker ones remains another mystery.

The Kassel wheel’s thickness was half again as much as the Merseburg wheel but nearly the same diameter. That speaks for itself. The power was not increased by increasing the diameter as much as from increasing the thickness.

I think the Kassel wheel was thicker so it could perform the long test.

[raj]

NOT using dictionary definitions!!!

1. A disc in my view is a narrow ( in ratio with its diameter), solid circular cylindrical mass, which is one solid piece with no room inside, except may a small hole for an axle.

2a. A drum wheel is circular, of any diameter, of any thickness and empty inside that can roll on flat surfaces, and rotate on axles on stands.

2b. A drum wheel can be of any shape, of any thickness and empty inside, that can rotate on axles on stands, BUT cannot roll on flat surface i.e rectangular, square, triangular, polygonal. etc.

My drum wheel is any one of 2a and 2b.
I always show my drum wheel as a circle in my drawings, because it is easier to draw.

This is only my views.. So please have pity on me.

Raj

[Fletcher]

"Shape : A shape is the form of an object or its external boundary, outline, or external surface, as opposed to other properties such as color, texture or material composition."

"Disc or disk : A thin, flat, circular object or plate; a round, flattened object."

I could have called them cylinders, either thin or fat, shallow or deep etc etc.

I chose to differentiate a disk shape from a drum shape, is all.

[ChrisHarper]

The timber-framed canvas-drum was necessarily light for the mechanism it hid / supported produced very little surplus torque. Barely enough to turn itself .

Moreover, as there's was no physical cross-migration of weight(s) along the z-axis, why the need to make things wider / heavier than they need be ?

The only reason to have a drum would be if you made a horizontal layer-cake of duplicate working wheels joined along the axle. Surely?

Chris

[eccentrically1]

That’s another problem, we don’t know how much any of the wheels weighed.

I disagree, the Kassel wheel produced enough torque to lift a hundred weight, etc.

We also don’t know if the weights stayed on plane or not.

There could have been two Merseburg arrangements side by side in the Kassel. Who knows?

[Fletcher]

A disc implies a solid. A drum implies a hollow interior. Maybe that’s the difference.

Not only did he not demonstrate the wheels off the stands but he didn’t demonstrate two or more on an axle so the reason they were slim drums rather than thicker ones remains another mystery.

The Kassel wheel’s thickness was half again as much as the Merseburg wheel but nearly the same diameter. That speaks for itself. The power was not increased by increasing the diameter as much as from increasing the thickness.

I think the Kassel wheel was thicker so it could perform the long test.

Remember I don't believe in coincidences, especially in mechanical matters. And neither should you. Things tend to be built with efficiency, accuracy, and purpose in mind, especially after 5 public builds and demonstrations over a period of years. His first POP wheel in his workshop was a disk of 3 foot diameter and only 4 inches thickness and this is a big pointer to purpose. Why was it so narrow ? Because that was all the thickness required to do the job, and give a manageable interior workspace. Any greater depth was a waste of resources requiring extra spacers and packers around the vertical falling lw OOB systems horizontal sub-axles (pivots) and extra structural stability from deformation or flexing under stress, in the wrong areas.

So each successive wheel was of similar proportions or ratios of diameter to depth i.e. they remained thin disk shaped. That was the one common denominator and necessity for every wheel. It was non-negotiable. Bessler gives us another important pointer that there is something significant about the shape when he says if you want more power connect many of his wheels onto just one axle. The wheel shape was so important that he tells us this openly, challenging us. He does not say just build a single wheel that is the same diameter but make it 5 times as deep. Use 5 lots of mechs side by side. You'd normally think that was a more efficient way to go and save on resources and time if you didn't understand the design parameters, but it takes out of play an important feature. The required Prime Mover which is common to all his wheels that also use different types (he called them different principles) of secondary OOB systems - MT48 being an extreme example seemingly on the end of the spectrum of possibilities which he says would work. He is challenging us and taunting us to figure out what those extra structures are.

The wheels were covered in wooden slats in the earlier ones, later replaced by canvass pinned to the rim. He wanted to covet his Prime Mover which was a little difficult since it was a necessary part of each wheel framework visible if stripped bare. So in some cases I have little doubt he distracted the eye and mind with a facade, which added to the thickness slightly.

So to recap IMO they were wide diameter and thin shaped wheels so the sides could deform and stress like a Englishman's long bow being slightly drawn or staff being bent. This energy stored in the deformation process (coming from some of the KE of the falling lw) had to have an escape path or gradient so it could discharge this energy given to it, and all go around together with nothing hanging from the axle. (N.B. Bessler was a clock maker amongst others skill sets so that wouldn't have been too difficult to arrange.) This discharge of energy gradient was what gave the wheels an extra impetus of positive torque. Note it was a torque impetus from deformation energy and not from a weight-force imbalance of a closed path secondary OOB system. And FWIW I can't run the math, nor can I simulate a machine as it involves a 3rd dimension of movement (the z plane), nor would I attempt to describe 'g' or a wheels hypothetical source of power in macro or quantum terms without a working wheel.

[ChrisHarper]

Fletcher,

There is a lot of truth in what you say above, and I instantly recognised the benefits that arrangement may bring.

If you want the energy exchange to perpetuate, the ability to breathe or flex along or around an axis, then the Z Axis is the perfect place for that to happen. It does not impair rotation.

Boundary rigidity = failure.

Such is my autism, the complete functional design to match your theory is already drawn in my head, along with the axle spring escapement .

Regulation of the energy 'amplitude' is governed by turning the axle screw which adjusts the spring tension.

As you stated Fletcher, the wheel is not solid. The outer skin merely masks the inner mechanism.

There was absolutely no 'Meat on the Bone'. Every part was measured, weighed and calibrated.

Chris

[eccentrically1]

One problem with a thin wheel is once the levered weights were attached, there wouldn’t be lot of room left for a prime mover mechanism rotating around the same axle on a different closed path. If the first wheel was 3 inches deep on the inside, and there were 8 coke can sized weights, there isn’t much space left in between them for another set of mechanisms and the connections between the two. And there couldn’t have been any movement in the z plane or the weights would have bounced back and forth wasting energy.

The most deformation wouldn’t be at the side coverings. It would be at the axle, nearest to where it connected to the wheel,, and it would be negligible once the wheel reached top speed.
I disagree the prime mover was an energy gradient given to the wooden or canvas sides by the falling weights and they returned it as positive torque.

Since we don’t know what his prime mover was, I hesitate to rule out anything, including the Kassel wheel could have had two Merseburg arrangements side by side. It’s been suggested the Merseburg wheel was two Drashwitz wheels counter rotating.

And finally, Bessler said an ounce here or there matters not a whit.
And for good measure, a surreptitious shove could bring it grinding to a halt.
It doesn’t sound like things were that intolerant.
The shove statement sounds like it wouldn’t do well off of the supports.

[Fletcher]

Lol .. a set of wheel frame spokes made from yew (for example) for each lw mech. 5 mechs - 5 x 2 spokes, 8 mechs - 8 x 2 spokes, you get the idea. The lw mech falls at the appropriate place on the down-going side and the dual yew radial spokes its axle pivot runs thru are strained inwards or outwards and cocked (think like a cam or screw being turned to get an idea). Of course it requires a little engineering and the lw sub-axle might pass thru the radial yew spoke in a vertical slot and be solidly bearing mounted into something else behind it to maintain its radius and rigidity.

Seems 3 inches would then be plenty of room for the lw OOB system coz the Prime Mover is in the frame. The lw only falls vertically - the spokes/staff/sides move in the z plane towards each other an equal amount or away from each other an equal amount. This strain is discharged via a mechanical pathway and the wheel turns.

[eccentrically1]

I see what you’re saying, but I still disagree. That is like attaching springs to the weights in the conventional direction and expecting them to be the mover. The direction the elasticity is stored in doesn’t matter.

[Fletcher]

I'll tell you a little story about your idea. Its a story of irony. I was interested in the possibility of a gravity PM as a 12 or 13 year old. I did some drawings and one day found sketches very similar in the Encyclopedia Britannica. Roll on many years and life gets in the way. Then around 1997 I become interested again. I do some more drawings on a white board and lo and behold I remember those same drawings as a kid and these look just like them although many years have gone by and I thought my thought processes would be better. Seems all roads lead to Rome in the PM stakes. For a few years I mull it over in my spare time trying to nail down exactly why standard OOB designs fail to work. Eureka, they don't have any asymmetric torque and they are closed path (Simon Stevin's analysis, tho I hadn't heard of him yet). Then in the early 2000s I read an article on Bessler by JC in Nexus magazine. I contact him and ask him if there are any discussion groups or anything that would be worth joining. He suggests Scott's BW.com. I join and discover everyone else trying to unravel the Bessler mystery. I also discover most people never sharing their research or best ideas. I find this disappointing but I hang in to learn more, especially about Bessler and his wheels.

Here's the irony bit. I read all I can about Bessler on this website and I buy most of JC's books when they come out. I happen to have some Popular Mechanics articles on rubber band heat engines and I have built one or two in my garage. They are fascinating and I want to replace a heat source and sink with gravity force. I formulate an idea that splits the Prime Mover from the OOB system in about 2003, as outlined. I start to build this into a real wheel with 8 mechs in my garage. But I don't fully appreciate the need to cock the Prime Mover so it can operate independently of the lw system once cocked. And I decide that it would be simpler (and you must be able to simplify, to reduce, and you should when able - right) to just have the lws turn on their sub-axles and pull a spring in the same vertical plane. Damn, it doesn't work. No asymmetric torque. The original idea of separating the OOB system and the Prime Mover was the right one, but it was (my) human nature to simplify from 2 interacting systems down to 1 seemless one, even when it couldn't be done because you lost an important element - the gradient for discharge causing a torque that was for a far greater distance than the sector torques from the OOB system. Plus the engineering complexity was a step up for me at the time with little experience or resources.

I am excited at having found a brotherhood of sorts at BW.com and I read every post, even going back years into the archives. I forget about my idea and the wheel that I eventually cannibalize to try other more exotic ideas because everyone knows that gravity is conservative and a zero sum game. I eventually learn quite a bit more, but mainly about human nature.

[Fletcher]

Fletcher,

There is a lot of truth in what you say above, and I instantly recognised the benefits that arrangement may bring.

If you want the energy exchange to perpetuate, the ability to breathe or flex along or around an axis, then the Z Axis is the perfect place for that to happen. It does not impair rotation.

Boundary rigidity = failure.

Such is my autism, the complete functional design to match your theory is already drawn in my head, along with the axle spring escapement.

Regulation of the energy 'amplitude' is governed by turning the axle screw which adjusts the spring tension.

As you stated Fletcher, the wheel is not solid. The outer skin merely masks the inner mechanism.

There was absolutely no 'Meat on the Bone'. Every part was measured, weighed and calibrated.

Chris

Ta Chris .. best of luck with everything. There is another way that is quite simple in principle. That was why I posted a google image page up previously for Raj about rubber band heat engines instead of the info page. So the visual cues might ring a bell when he took the time to study a few designs.

[ChrisHarper]

Fletcher

The problem is everyone is so bloody fixated with circles or wheels. You could install the advantage into a lightweight pineapple and it will turn !

Like Alice, once you peer through the fracture into Wonderland, everything is opposite to what you've been conditioned to believe.

With the exception of Ralph, you appear to be the only one on this forum who has the inate intuition to get even close to finding the key to unlock that tiny door ? 🔑 🚪

Forget maths and over analysis, for that can come after. Let that child inside guide you once more.

Chris

[raj]

I read Fletcher's and Christ's posts with great interest.
Thanks you both of you.

In the last hour, I made a new connectivity change in my Auto Wheel concept.

I am just flabbergasted for now.

Cannot say much for now. It's way to early. I have to mull over it and be happy with it before I share it. The connectivity of course!

Raj