Well how would you like one that works? but isn't worth any thing more than a toy. It doesn't have any torque to speak of, and it won't run a generator. But it does solve the problems of ball wheels of the past. It is so touche that if you build it wrong/rough it probably wouldn't even run well.
So you will need to build it with good precision, and then watch it go around, and around. I thought about saving this one for my step sons school project but it would be cheating.
So guys put this one on your computer 2d and 3d programs, and go for it.
OH! PS I nicknamed it the Klingon wheel. and 6+ disk will work best.
Quote from: AB Hammer on October 17, 2007, 12:21:07 PM
Well how would you like one that works? but isn't worth any thing more than a toy. It doesn't have any torque to speak of, and it won't run a generator. But it does solve the problems of ball wheels of the past. It is so touche that if you build it wrong/rough it probably wouldn't even run well.
So you will need to build it with good precision, and then watch it go around, and around. I thought about saving this one for my step sons school project but it would be cheating.
So guys put this one on your computer 2d and 3d programs, and go for it.
OH! PS I nicknamed it the Klingon wheel. and 6+ disk will work best.
Alain , you can use DISKs or wheels "init" instead of balls ,
the deviice will come more "compact" .
If this can work , i give you an better solution for the driving Weigts (discs) in in . Possibly the "Rosencruizers" have used them to
have "energy" centuries ago.
G . Pese
www.pese.cjb.net
Yes Pese
To make it narrower, yes you can use disk, you just have to make the wheel large enough to fit the different diameters for the distance on the drop side.
Sorry Hammer,
Good try. The idea of bringing the balls to the centre and allowing them to freewheel rather than lifting them above the axle has merit. Still the design will not work.
The first flaw in your design is the curve on the bottom. The position where you drew your ball is incorrect, it cannot get there because of the curve. This will deprive you of approximately ten degrees of usable arc. Better to use a straight line as indicated by my addition.
This is easily fixed.
What is not so easily fixed is that you only have about 80 degrees of arc under torque, where you require 120 degrees to bring the next ball into play.
The best way to test these designs is to make a cardboard wheel, draw your arrangement on it, suspend it on the axle with a nail and stick some coins with double sided adhesive tape into the positions where the balls should be for any given position. You will soon see where the problems are without having to build a full model.
Good try though, but it's back to the drawing board on this one I'm afraid.
And this is a place where all of us have been many, many times :-)
Hans von Lieven
you will notice that he actually has six "wheels" so the effective angle between each is not 120 which it would be with three wheels but 60 degrees, and as you stated yourself there is about 80 degrees of usable torque, so his design is not disproven yet. I assume he just put in 3 for ease of explanation.
Still does not work, the relationships are the same.
Hans von Lieven
Great talking to you Hans
I agree with you on the straighter line instead but to a milder dip. That is my first drawing and that design allows the ball to finish more in the direction of the rotation which gives less vibration of the ball or disk of hitting the outer wall. I have 2 other versions that came from this wheel design with other effects. And if you look a little closer you will see the the third ball or disk is not a drain from the dropping ball or disk. It is rolling as well around the lower tracking ready to drop on its time. It does work better with six for my test (pleas don't laugh) with cardboard and duct tape I built a 3 plate version and it ran fine until one of the ball fell out the seam. But I felt it was time to build it in Plexiglas so people could see the ball or disk rolling. Then I started improving it which will give a little more power and speed, so I backburnered the first wheel for the better design.
The little drawing in the lower corner, is just to give an ideal of how they are supposed to be stacked. It is not precise.
So please check again and use 6, but account for the 3rd positioon which will the have a ball rolling in at the same time a ball is rolling out with the six disk.
G'day Hammer,
I will never laugh at someone who makes a cardboard and duct-tape mock up of a design in order to test a principle. This is common sense and good practice before committing time and resources to a full scale prototype.
Far too often I have seen people spending large amounts of time and money on something only to find out that it does not work, when a few simple tests could have established that.
Keep going, I will make a mock up of the amended version and see what happens.
Good luck
Hans von Lieven
Cardboard mockup is a great idea and I have done that sometimes
even in my office just to see quickly. But the problem I have seen
many times is look at the weights below the axle - usually they are bottom
heavy and will not rotate.
Its easy to get one to move but not so easy to get it to reset and make
another move.
Norman
norman6538
Yes the balls or disk are under the axle, but you have missed that there are none to be lifted over the axle eather. It is like its own orbit causing the wheel to move, as if you where in a big wheel as you walk up the wall the the big wheel roles. Now it may only work in a light wheel for I only consider this wheel a toy, but for us it is a great toy.
Quote from: AB Hammer on October 17, 2007, 05:40:18 PM
built a 3 plate version and it ran fine until one of the ball fell out the seam.
Hi Hammer,
did you videotape it ?
How long did it run ?
Did it selfaccelerate a bit or did you just give it a spin manually
and it just rotated from the push until the ball fell out ?
Can you rebuild it and show it in a video running ?
Many thanks.
Would a software simulation show this as working?
hartiberlin
No I didn't video tape it and I only have the patterns and here are a couple of photos of these. I am even showing the 8 pattern and if you look close you will see why I didn't use it. The sets of 3 work so much better.
For running it ran about 10 minuts before the ball fell out, and it got alot rougher towards the end it was tearing up bad so I only kept the patterns.
Hi Hammer,
can you still show the actual unit ?
Or did you destroy it ?
So it did run 10 minutes overcoming friction ?
Without giving it a big push at start time ?
Can you build it up again and show it running in a video ?
Many thanks.
Smeg! since I showed the patterns I will show you the second version. But not the 3rd version for it has something extra, and it will work just the same according to the math, as Besslers 12 ft wheel.
mramos
I have to laugh a little for I don't think you are a Red Dwarf fan. Smeg is a substitution for a smelly word.
The third wheel is the one I want to build, it will be a 4 ft. version, that way I can carry it in my car. I am showing what has come before it due to the video won't show the action. even thow those actions fall short of the third. I also have my other wheels to finish for patent to go along with my flywheel designs. Yes the third is meant for open source due to I truly feel that it is bessler's wheel design and how it worked. At least the 12 foot one. I have other ideas for the others for I have strong beliefs that they all where different.
Quote from: AB Hammer on October 17, 2007, 08:39:32 PM
Smeg! since I showed the patterns I will show you the second version. But not the 3rd version for it has something extra, and it will work just the same according to the math, as Besslers 12 ft wheel.
Hmm, I wonder,
how this could be simulated in WorkingModel 2D.
Can I use 3 layer behind each other ?
I have to try this..
@Hammer,
maybe you can still rebuild it and show a video of it running ?
Many thanks in advance.
Interesting but as soon as the bottom ball passes to the left, you're cooked. There will be more weight on the left than on the right and stop.
Also, don't waste time with a cardboard cause this will only falsify your results.
First rule. The wheel has to be perfectly balanced first without the balls.
Then add the balls.
But even then, the fact that the right ends curve downwards, it will pass the center line sooner and become a counter weight faster.
The solution to these wheels is alot more complex then we may think. What you do on the left, happens faster or slower on the right. What you do on the right happens faster or slower on the left.
Even if you keep a percentage of the balls in a neutral zone, those active will always be more on the left, less on the right.
If you do your drawings, do it with the bottom ball on center and see if the wheel will pass this point. If it does not, then you know there's a problem.
this idea looks like it will work, at least from my point of view! i can be wrong though. :)
Stefan any luck with working model 2d in replicating this design?
peace
Greetings all
This is to help you understand my approach to the gravity/Bessler wheel problem. The patterns I am making go into 4 categories.
1. Is toy a wheel that moves but has little to no modern value.
2. Is a wheel that has value but might have to be to big for home use.
3. Is a wheel that has value to home or industry.
4. Is a totaly new concept that may exceed the imagination.
With armour I have dealt with many moving problems to duplicate the bodies movement comfortably. I have also show mechanical abilities since I was young. At 8 I could repair any fishing real that was brought to me. And as far as I can remember I have never failed in figuring out any mechanical problem. Categories 3 and 4 are the only ones that will have any value today, so that is my real target goal. I have been seeing people keep on a narrow path and loosing hope all to often, including my nabber that got me into this hobby. The cardboard wheel was just a test. I was using 3/4 inch ball bearings. It got Buddy my nabber and I very excited but not going very fast either like 1, 2, 3, only making 1/4 turn, and then it started to deform and a ball fell out. Thus started even more and more patterning. The first one that I have been working on (on its 4 alteration) is only a 18 inch wheel and should be able to run a small generator. When it works, this one will make a difference.
The ball wheel that I have posted, is to give people more hope with something that at least runs some. I can't say if it runs forever either but is promising as a toy #1 category. From what I have read of Bessler the 12 foot wheel would only fit into the #2 category but like the 6.5 foot and the 9.3 would have fit into the #3 category.
I at least hope this help you understand my approach.
And wattsup use 6
Alan
I have been thinking about the gravity wheel concept as a whole here for a couple days, and I think that the one you have with the ball rotating into the center is a good example to build my conclusion off of, but It fits most other designs.
If you have a wheel with a row of cups on the rim designed to catch falling balls, you would have a type of water wheel. Now if you had two rows of cups, one on the rim, and one further in towards the center, now you have a wheel with two concentric circles of cups, a fancy water wheel if you will.
Now this is the question that begs answering.
If I drop balls into the outer rim, and say the wheel has very little mass and the balls are quite heavy so their momentum dominates the system. If you drop a ball onto the outside circle of cups, you will cause the rim to rotate downwards, but no faster than -9.81 meters per second squared. Towards the center of the wheel, movement will be much less as we would expect.
Now if you were to drop the same ball into the smaller circle of cups, does the outside circumference travel downwards faster than gravitational acceleration? Or since the cups in the center ring are harder to move, will the wheel rotate at the same speed no matter which cup you drop it into?
Physics tells us that it doesn?t matter which you drop it into, and this has been my experience. This thought experiment is reversible. Lifting the ball to a certain height takes the same amount of energy that will be released from it upon return to its starting position, regardless of path.
Im sure there is a way around this, but I really don?t think it matters where on the wheel the ball comes back up, be it a straight path from the 6 o?clock position to the center, or along the outside rim, it takes the same force to accomplish both.
But here is the really interesting thing that never made sense to me about vector addition, and I found this when I tried to quantify vector components in terms of percentages of a whole. (say you have a vector with an angle of 90 and a magnitude of 2. You have a y component vector that is equal to magnitude 2 and an x that is equal to 0. or if you have vector angle zero, and magnitude 2, you have a y =2 and an x=0. But if you have a 45 degree magnitude one, you have an x = 1.414 y=1.414, so together you have a displacement of 2, but individually you have one that is greater?.How can this be? Obviously x is 50 percent of the whole, and y is 50 percent of the whole, but of what whole? The two vector magnitudes added together? Do you take it from their resultant multiplication? Are we saying that 1.414 is 50% of 2?
This applies to wheels too, which are just essentially unit circles which the above math is based off of.
I understand that speed of a falling ball on a wheel is dependant on its path as stated above, but energy stays the same, but there is still something hidden that I cant quite put my finger on. I think the lead out theory explains this, but I haven?t studied it enough carefully, maybe someone would enlighten me a bit more.
I think it is possible to get something out of a wheel, but it?s a sticky wicket indeed.
I also have access to a Data Tech table, which is essentially a computer controlled exacto knife that can cut out cardboard designs exactly up to 6ft by 9ft. If anybody has need of exact replication of ideas, id be willing to cut the ideas out, and give it a try or send you your requests over mail, (materials and time would be free, but it would be nice to have a little shipping compensation)
I would need the files to be made on a computer aided drafting program like AutoCAD, and you must save your drawing as a .dxf which is one of the options when saving your file
armagdn03
I have already posted one that is like one you mentioned.
The key is using the law of leverage and understanding shift. It has been said- With a long enough leaver you can move mountains.
http://www.overunity.com/index.php/topic,3497.0/topicseen.html
That?s just the thing though, if you have a lever with fulcrum at one end, a load at the other, and a driving force inbetween, it doesn?t matter where you put the driving force, you will always get the same amount of work done, it is a trade off between force and distance moved, but never more energy than put in. for example if you x displacement at the load, and you have a pressure near the fulcrum, you don?t move the pressure very far, but you have to apply a bit of force, if you move it closer to the load you move it far, but not that much force. It?s a trade off based on trigonometric principles outlined in the unit circle, and vector addition.
You said you have one like I said and pointed me to a link, but your ball one is like this too, and almost every other one I have ever seen. The problem is that I see people trying to do something that is impossible. You are changing the path of an object but its displacement is the same, and I see a ton of designs that look different by are trying to solve the problem in the same manor, which DOES NOT WORK. We need to go about this a different way. We need to look at the horizontal component, the perpendicular to gravitational force, as this is where extra work is done in my opinion.
Remember one gift 4 man, or whatever that crazy site was? It claimed a new use of Bernoulli?s principle? Think about the principle, it contains a displacement perpendicular to gravity that causes extra movement of molecules creating a vacuum over a wing making it rise. Maybe there is something to this?
I could be way off, but who knows.
armagdn03
What do you think made the cardboard one work? If the principle is wrong, then something happened that we need to examen. The thoughts come to me specilly when it started to deform, but still kept running. So maybe it was shifting the whole wheel each time the ball fell which may have kept it running. Its just a thought but it would still give a direction to go with.
I hope you are correct! and I dont doubt you are!
Im only having a bit of trouble understanding why it would work if it does. Thants my point, is that I think there is something there to be taken advantage of, but I cannot figure it out on paper which bothers the F*$K out of me! ???
Quote from: FreeEnergy on October 18, 2007, 02:35:25 AM
Stefan any luck with working model 2d in replicating this design?
Haven?t had the time to try it yet,
Still want to finish first my test with the TEP and transformer thing.
Well, maybe it could be modelled in WM2D by using 3 wheels
and coupling them via gears or belts and have one ball in each wheel ?
But I think the Bob Kostoff device is much interesting,
but I also still ponder how to simulate this in WM2D...
armagdn03
I took a little longer lunch to add a couple more attachments to the snowflake wheel now 2.0.
Between all that I have added there is one extra part to look at, the ball excelerator. Now I hope this will help your math to clear what up what is needed to fill the gap. Like a Poker player I don't show all my cards to soon, but it is time to lay another down.
Sorry Hammer,
Your working Ball Wheel is not what it is cracked up to be, unless there is something you have not told us about. My original assessment was right. It does not work as drawn.
Your design states:
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.keelytech.com%2Foverunity%2Fhammer.jpg&hash=6210623f3946422bedb4cb31e3676d556323ac98)
Here is my analysis in detail:
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.keelytech.com%2Foverunity%2Fhammerwheel3.gif&hash=570a13f649c0f4e14ee2e0d3d9e31c31a502575d)
Each sector drawn is 5 degrees anticlockwise from the previous one. It must be borne in mind that at all times there are two additional balls "parked" in the centre which are not shown in the drawings for sake of clarity. The drawings cover the full 60 degrees of revolution, which is one cycle out of three per revolution. The other cycles are identical in function only the sectors in play vary.
I am aware that each ball has its own disk to run in and that the disks are stacked horizontally.
This raises another point that I find difficult to evaluate. Since there is a cavity in each disk where the ball rolls the disk by necessity is an eccentric wheel by itself. The axis is no longer the centre of gravity.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.keelytech.com%2Foverunity%2Fgrav1.gif&hash=5632de0c7eef5fa7204a4e65b4015d22f16814a0)
The centre of gravity was determined in the standard way. The disk was suspended in turn by three points and allowed to settle. A plumb line was used to determine the point immediately below, as dictated by the gravitic forces. A line was drawn connecting both points. Where the three lines cross there is the centre of gravity. Actually, strictly speaking only two lines are required, the third one is only to eliminate errors. This is also standard practice.
This is the cardboard cutout with the plumb lines that I used to determine the centre of gravity. The cutout lies on a piece of green cardboard for better visibility. The disk was suspended from the points where the arrows are.
(https://overunityarchives.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.keelytech.com%2Foverunity%2Fgrav2.gif&hash=918921def4f47affb1b69ba4f2f4b2174b70f71b)
In my analysis I have assumed that this discrepancy is being compensated for by counterweights in order to have the empty wheel run true.
If leaving the eccentricity in place is helpful or a hindrance is a matter of trial. Without knowing the displacement weight relative to the weight of the balls it is impossible to calculate since everything depends on the materials used in the disk and in the balls and their specific gravity and relative dimensions.
Hope this is of help to those contemplating to build the device.
Hans von Lieven
Thanks Hans
Now I guess it is time to try to figure out what happened with the cardboard model that made it run, for something happened and I want to know what. Like I said it didn't move that well but it did move deformed in a loping kind of way. All and all it wouldn't have helped free energy anyway. The 2nd version would work better than the first, and the third version I have no droughts. It has a really cool snap to it, which I believe fits Bessler's 12 ft wheel to a T. I am redrawing it to make it clear on how the mechanisms works, and I think you will be surprised. Just give me a couple of days.
Hans brilliant assessment, only one little thing that you may have missed. You observed that the center of gravity will fall on a point excentric to the disk. You also noted that in order to have the wheel run true, one would have to compensate. Since there are more than one wheel in the stack, and they are arranged in a geometrically perfect arangement, with equal rotation they should balance each other out when assembled. This problem should take care of itself. However, perhaps it could be exploited?
Hans
I have 1 other question. On your drawings with 12 block sections, there is 6 positive 1 neutral, and 5 negative. Lets add some momentum also note the the neutral balls are still rolling. Wouldn't that have a loping effect when running and just enough to run if it runs?
G'day all,
@ arma,
What you are saying about the displacement of the centre of gravity and about the forces so created canceling each other out is certainly true if there are no balls in the system and the drum runs empty.
With the balls in play I am not so certain they would. Let us just briefly examine what it is that we are trying to do here. How are we trying to achieve rotation?
Looking at one disk and one ball as a unit and following the movement of the ball during one complete revolution we notice that the distance between the centre of gravity of the ball changes its distance from the axle to return to its starting position after one complete turn. With each change of distance from the axle the centre of gravity of the UNIT gets displaced. In other words we are trying to achieve rotation by manipulation of the centre of gravity.
In the above example the cutout is almost exactly radial. That means that the shift of the centre of gravity is almost exactly in the oppoite direction to the position of the ball. In other words in its optimum position of potential energy it acts as a counterweight. That effect would have to be cumulative over the entire structure.
What further complicates the issue is that the ball does not move in a straight line in relation to the new centre of gravity. That means that the effective potential energy is adversely affected to a different degree for each change of position of the ball.
These effects are impossible to calculate in a general way, they can only be established for a given configuration.
The factors that have to be taken into consideration when assessing the forces at play are the shape of the cavity, the weight of the disk and the weight of the ball the material used in the ball and the disk as this determines the drag imposed by friction on the ball and so forth.
Very complex stuff for such a simple contraption :-) Even a complete mathematical analysis will at best be only an approximation. Real parameters have to be established by experimentation and measurement.
Which brings me to Hammer's question.
Is there enough inertia building up over the "working cycle" to compensate for the adverse cycle? I would say not. There are too many factors adversely affecting the system for it to do that.
Hans von Lieven
Hans
I wish I could talk like you, but it seams that my mind is full of shapes and lacking for words.
To all who follows this thread.
I will go ahead an build the 1st type again in wood, Plexiglas and steel this time, if nothing else but for at least my own peace of mind. But this time I will use disk so I can make it thinner and make an AVI of it, to show.
You are doing well Hammer,
Keep trying, if you need my input at any time feel free to contact me, privately if you wish.
Good luck
Hans von Lieven
Just remember the rule of the ball stopping, and starting. those are the two gretest losses. Specifically the dead start aspect.
Well it is time to report on the 1st design. The mass of the wood was much too great for it and it wouldn't run. The second version will be done in another week, for I am only aloud to work on them on week ends. I have the video and it will show some of the problem with the rolling back and forth disk. Note I am turning it by hand to show the movement. If you PM me with your email, I can send it to you, if the avi don't post.
I do have some corrections to do (like bore large holes in the wood to lighten it up), but that will go on the back burner for now, and since I did this one I am thinking of doing a little change to the 2nd version as well.
Quote from: AB Hammer on October 28, 2007, 02:46:55 PM
Well it is time to report on the 1st design. The mass of the wood was much too great for it and it wouldn't run. The second version will be done in another week, for I am only aloud to work on them on week ends. I have the video and it will show some of the problem with the rolling back and forth disk. Note I am turning it by hand to show the movement. If you PM me with your email, I can send it to you, if the avi don't post.
I do have some corrections to do (like bore large holes in the wood to lighten it up), but that will go on the back burner for now, and since I did this one I am thinking of doing a little change to the 2nd version as well.
The idea is pretty good. I think you should bend a piece of thin acrylic plastic in those organic shapes, instead of using a solid wood cylinder. That would cut the weight dramatically. You could make the shape in two halves using a wood shape as your guide, then glue them using acrylic glue.
G'day Alan and all,
Looking at the video it appears that you are wasting a lot of energy in the centre of the wheel with your disk bouncing back and forth.
You seem to have more than enough energy to transport the disk to the other side, so why not try the following arrangement. No guarantee it will work but it sure is a lot more efficient than the current configuration. You will also get two working cycles per revolution.
Good luck, let us know how you are going with this.
Hans von Lieven
The second set of wheels disk are already cut out, and here they are. I am still looking at a newer twist to this story so please be patient.
Here is that wheel and new modification coming shortly.
Why not use a liquid, instead of a ball.
I suppose liquid has less friction, maybe quicksilver
just a suggestion.
Do you have a update on your progress Hammer?
Regards,
Enigma
mercury,
is very heavy and follow very quick each movement.
Also in Electro-devices, mercury was used to swapp-making contacts in an glas-tube. (before WW2)
The rosenkreuzer have also used this -possibly- for small-diameter PM-wheels to have high power.
(Sorry , i cant find any details over this in google & co.
Some old knowledges , but shure, i have not seen this device, read old books 50 years ago .
Pese
enigma
I have set these to the side for awhile, due to newer research, but I have made some changes to the ball/disk wheels, so when I get back to them they will have better hope. But at this time I am trying to perfect a wheel that shows that it will not reach equilibrium, which I am very excited about, and it has all my attention.
And Thank You all
Pese and hansvonlieven and others on this srings. I will be back on these in a few months.