New accelerating gravity wheel ! Converted video from www.newenergymachine.com !

[unbalanced]

  Further to the discussion of the air pistons as a means of cushioning the blows of the weights  and delivering some of this energy to help the initial lift of the next weight in line to be lifted, in Bessler's and Bob's wheel:

The forces would be such that the use of hydraulic hoses to connect these two rams would be essential, hense the appearance of these hoses in Bob's wheel.

It would not be a stretch to assume that Bessler used a similar system. A close look at Bessler's illustration of his stamp mill, shows that each rod drops into a declevity. If the tolerances of these declevities in relation to the piston / weights were quite close, then the impact of one weight (at the 12:00) could feasibly have aided in initiating the rise of another weight (at the 5:00) by means of a pipe or simililar enclosure.

[unbalanced]

  For Larry C:
I love the ingenuity of your design and your use of readily available bearings and other materials.

I would like to add, with all due humility, that I believe your design may be improved upon in the following aspects:

A. That the efficiency of your design may be improved upon by the elimination of the articulating arms that carry your weights back and forth. I believe that it is not necessary to move the weights as far as you are moving them. If you are able to lift the weights just past the neutral position, centrifugal force will carry them to their stops. I do not believe that a total travel of more than two to six inches is necessary.

B. The efficiency of your design may be improved upon by using only one push rod that extends through the axle like Bessler suggests, with a weight on either end. This affords less moving parts, less friction, less probability of failure.

C. The utility of your design may be improved upon if you change the shape and manner of attaching your lifting cam to that of a symmetrical egg shape (elliptic) and make it so that it can be advanced and retarded (moveable about its axis by 15-30 degrees) so that your wheel would be able to rotate in either direction and so that it can be used as a throttle. If your weights needed to be lifted a lesser distance, your cam could be considerably smaller, lessening considerably the resistance your device will face in lifting the weights.

D. A design that incorporates five weights lifting one weight (as Bessler seems to do) could be essential.

E. Incorporating a closed system of transferring the force of impact of one weight into the initial lift of the next in line may be hugely advantageous.

I hope that you take these suggestions is the light that they are offered i.e. I wish only to colaborate with my fellow O/U enthusiast for the ultimate goal of our mutual success.

Keep up the great work and expect photos of my own prototype soon.

[LarryC]

@Unbalanced

Wellcome to OU and looking forward to results from another builder.


love the ingenuity of your design and your use of readily available bearings and other materials.

Thanks, but it is an attempt at Bob K.'s design. And I always strive for the cheapest and most efficient solution.


I would like to add, with all due humility, that I believe your design may be improved upon in the following aspects:

Great, appreciate any help.


A. That the efficiency of your design may be improved upon by the elimination of the articulating arms that carry your weights back and forth. I believe that it is not necessary to move the weights as far as you are moving them. If you are able to lift the weights just past the neutral position, centrifugal force will carry them to their stops. I do not believe that a total travel of more than two to six inches is necessary.

Actually, my unit has a 21.50" movement on each side of the center. So it requires a 10.75" +1" movement to get to the point where centrifugal force will sling them outward. The lift is slowly continued beyond that point but it should not be used if the CF slam occurs. It is just there to support the weights at 1:30 during initial release. It also stops the dreaded distruction of the rollers in a unwanted bounce back.


B. The efficiency of your design may be improved upon by using only one push rod that extends through the axle like Bessler suggests, with a weight on either end. This affords less moving parts, less friction, less probability of failure.

Basically thats what I have, weight boxes on each end connected by rods on each side for proper balance. I did have a simpler one track system earlier but the side forces ripped it apart. Allthough, I do agree a more robust system could be built with the proper equipment and resources. 


C. The utility of your design may be improved upon if you change the shape and manner of attaching your lifting cam to that of a symmetrical egg shape (elliptic) and make it so that it can be advanced and retarded (moveable about its axis by 15-30 degrees) so that your wheel would be able to rotate in either direction and so that it can be used as a throttle. If your weights needed to be lifted a lesser distance, your cam could be considerably smaller, lessening considerably the resistance your device will face in lifting the weights.

The cam is not a symmetrical egg shape because only the top side is used for lift as required by the device. The bottom is shaped as such to allow for the return of the other arm at CF slam.

A adjustable cam position would be nice, but I don't know how to do that easily with my current setup. I just check out the results on the bench to get the position correct for the desired goal.

The current lift distance is required. Also, I have no means of making a small hard metal cam. Cutting out of hardwood and adding aluminum cladding is easier and more flexible in my case.


D. A design that incorporates five weights lifting one weight (as Bessler seems to do) could be essential.

Agreed, that would be better, but Bob did it with a one arm bandit, why can't we?


E. Incorporating a closed system of transferring the force of impact of one weight into the initial lift of the next in line may be hugely advantageous.

The closed system is the irwing clamps with the bungee cords which lock and save the energy from the CF slam. The irwing clamps are released at 3:30 and assist in the initial lift. In fact if the unit is going to slow, the force will throw the weight boxes completely across and throw the lifting out of sync.


I hope that you take these suggestions is the light that they are offered i.e. I wish only to colaborate with my fellow O/U enthusiast for the ultimate goal of our mutual success.

Appreciate your positive input.


Keep up the great work and expect photos of my own prototype soon.

Looking forward to your prototype photos.


Regards, Larry

[unbalanced]

 Appreciate the response Larry, an inexpensive and effective material I have found for the construction of cams when metal fabrication is not an option is to find a source for those small white polyfin cutting boards you may see in many stores. This is a polymer akin to polyethylene that has very little friction, is durable and easily worked with wood working tools. I buy them for a a couple of bucks a pot here in Bend, Or.

My very best to you,

[bobmary]

Bob's Home page states;

This engine is a self sustaining gravity powered unit. It produces all the

energy needed to run a generator large enough to provide power for

all the hydro and heat needed for your home. This Patent Pending system


If a Patent is pending then he has legal rights wrapped up!  doe anyone have the patent pending application No.?

Ralph Lortie

The american government shelves the patent for 18  months before it is processes........hummmm
If you invested over $200000+ over 6 years, would you say "here this is for you guys...Have a goog time"
I don't think so.

Regards.......Bob