FYI

[johnny874]

    @All,
With Bessler's working wheel, there is math that supports it's potential to work.
The expression is 1m a/ 8ma-a=x       
                                1ma/8m =  x
                                    x = .125ma     .125ma is the potential of the wheel to accelerate because of gravity's effect on it.
This is a basic thought. m is a variable which can be any weight. An example is m could be 1kg. Then 1m would be 1kg and 2m would be 2kg, etc. And with a-a, it is because gravity acts equally on both sides of the wheel.
As with any machine, there is always room for improvement. It might be possible once the design is better understood to increase the 1m to a higher value such as 2 or 3 m.

edited to add; to consider what it would take to rotate a wheel at 60rpm like Bessler did, the velocity of the outside edge of the wheel would need to be considered.
Since gravity accelerates at 9.8m/s/s, it would need to be considered the maximum circumfrence would be 9.8m.
By dividing 9.8/Pi = 3.12 meters in diameter or about 7.8 feet. Smaller than some of the wheels Bessler demonstrated. Of course, the smaller the wheel, the quicker it can rotate.
But with a wheel that would perform work, size would matter. This is because the over balance weight would be equal to the work it could perform. An example of this is if the wheel used 8 weights that were 3kg, then the over balance weight could be 10kg. By undrestanding that the 10kg weight would be on the outside periphery of the wheel, it would be factored as torque. And then by understanding the axle is an output shaft, you could then consider that as bhp or brake horse power and would know how much work the engine (wheel) could perform.
Then it would be as simple as automotive mechanics 

And to think Bessler wanted to start a school for this, lmao !

[johnny874]

  The attached pic is another full scale drawing I have started. It's boring and seems redundant.
After all, I have done it before. What happened is I found out that some parts would interfere with the mechanics.
With something like this, when I want to better detail or even make a drawing that is more legible, then I can get
a 24x24 board that I can tape paper to. It's a make shift way to do engineered drawings, but don't have a computer
that works. Of cxourse, doing it this way, if i want, I can make parts and compare them to the design.
This can be done with a computer and a printer but I guess taking the time to think about everything I am doing
allows me to understand it in a way that computer generation doesn't allow for.
Could take into summer to have a finished (working) wheel. Of course, to test certain hypothesis, it does take a working
prototype. Then a mass/force to weight ratio, ratio's of the lever to force, etc. could become better known.
I wonder if this is what Bessler felt like. You know, to understand what can be realized in mechanics.

[johnny874]

  Something all the experts at besslerwheel have missed. That none of Bessler's drawings
show warped boards. Probably because it would allow any ignorant fool to build his wheel.
Actually, it just kept it secret longer. If warped boards were added to Mt 20, then you would
have Bessler's cross section. Then the long lever would be using the short lever to work the
pump. After all, ever consider how much it rotates for no reason ? An example of the potential
it has to perform work. And contrary to what the loudmouths at besslerwheel think, this is
worth doing right if it is to be accomplished. Otherwise, junk is just that, junk.

  @all, since I don't have the means to do a proper build myself, I will have someone build it for me.
I think the reduction in stress will be worth it. Of course, this means I will need to do a very detailed
drawing that any skilled craftsman could work from.
I might do some of the details such as pouring my own weights. I've poured babbitt before. Of course,
for this, I might buy some weights that won't take away from the quality of work of the wheel   

[christo4_99]

You better check on Christo!

Garry

I see the concept but you will have to build bladders or bellows in order to suck the water uphill as it were. Another thing I have encountered in a similar attempt of mine (using water and weights) is the realization that a water column is very resistant to moving uphill .Read Wagner's second critique .

[johnny874]

I see the concept but you will have to build bladders or bellows in order to suck the water uphill as it were. Another thing I have encountered in a similar attempt of mine (using water and weights) is the realization that a water column is very resistant to moving uphill .Read Wagner's second critique .

   christo,
Couldn't follow your link. But yes, I do believe water would be difficult to work with.
I have found out that the adhesion and cohesion of water aremore of a problem than
a person would think. What people have failed to consider is what Bessler had available to him. Oil. It's viscous and self lubricating. Water is a coolant but has no lubricating properties.
If he used suede like I think he might have, oil would have been his best option.
It would also help to keep the suede airtight. Airtight and water tight are the same thing.

                                                                                    Jim