Bhaskara's Wheel

[citfta]

Hi Rick,

If you don't mind I would like to make a small suggestion. Either make the wheel a little larger or reduce the number of tubes so that the tubes could be angled closer to the wheel. What I mean by that is tubes L and F need to be completely horizontal just before the inside end passes the vertical axis. And of course all other tubes adjusted the same. This would allow tube L to start filling sooner and tube F to start emptying sooner. This should increase the difference in force between the left side of the wheel and the right side of the wheel. I hope I have explained that clearly.

By the way, good to see you back on the forum again. There are very few real builders on here anymore.

Take care,
Carroll

[rickoff]

Increasing the angularity of the tubes.

Hi Carroll,

I'm glad to see someone is thinking about this. I felt certain that, in looking at my drawing, several possible alterations would become obvious, and of course you struck on one of them, which is to increase the angularity of the tubes even further. Yes, six tubes would allow more room to do so, but actually there is no need to do away with the other six tubes because they can simply be moved to the other side of the wheel in an alternating pattern of progression. You probably noticed that, in post #11, I had suggested that 6 tubes on a side might be ideal, and that the tubes could be used on either or both sides of the wheel. I had already been working on a drawing to show how both alterations (increasing the tube angularity and moving half the tubes to the other side of the wheel) would affect distribution of the water, and I'll post that as soon as it is completed. In the meantime, though, here's a drawing showing how increasing the tube angle, and alternating tubes from one side of wheel to the other would affect the layout.

Relating what we see in the above drawing to the wheel as previously laid out would be helpful if we had that view for comparison, so I'll show that again below.



If the 110 degree modification is used, the difference will be as follows:

• The majority of water in tube L's feeder vessel (about 3/4ths of it) will be fed to tube L while that vessel is at the right side of the centerline, thus shifting more weight to the left side.
• As tube L is shifted downward at its outer end, it takes the place of tube A as seen in the lower drawing, A takes B's position, B takes C's position, and C takes D's position, etc.
  
• Four tubes (L, A, B and C) will have overbalance of water weight to drive rotation.
• The water in tube D will have moved past the centerline, thus having a counter-rotational effect.
• Tube E, taking F's position, will also have a counter-rotational effect.
• Tube F, taking G's position, will have sent all its water back to its feeder vessel, which is at the left of the centerline.

So all is pretty much the same as far as the tubes go, as we still have three overbalance tubes on the left and two on the right. The difference, of course, is in the feeder vessels. The top right feeder vessel has shifted most of its water to the left side in tube L, and the bottom left feeder vessel has been filled by tube F. Thus we can conclude that this modification has in fact shifted additional weight to the left side. Previously we had six feeder vessels full on the right side and six empty on the left. Now we have 5 and 1/4 full on the right and one on the left. It would be nice to have moved the rest of tube L's feeder water to the left also, and there is a way to do that which I will explain in my next post. Of course that remaining water would quickly be dumped into tube L if the wheel is rotating counter-clockwise.

We should notice, however, that in repositioning the tubes to a 110 degree angle, there is less overhang of the perimeter than there was previously. If we want the same overhang as before, to increase water weight rotational force, then we would have to add length to the tubes.

[rickoff]

Construction of the wheel

In continuing to improve the basic design concept of the overbalance water wheel, I thought it best to concentrate not only on what works, but in making this as easy as possible to build. The circular waterway with baffles, as shown in previous drawings, was useful for preliminary drawings of the concept, but of course would be very difficult to build. Since I determined that twelve tubes could be used for the concept, it made sense to simplify the build by redesigning the perimeter sections to form a 12 sided polygon, or dodecagon.

As mentioned in my last post, there would be six tubes mounted to bores on one side of this dodecagon. This would leave a dodecagon section without a tube between each tube that is mounted. The other six tubes would be mounted on the opposite side of the wheel, with each tube alternating from one side to the other every 30 degrees. I'll explain this further in my next post, but for now will offer a simple drawing of the dodecagon wheel with its bored sections.



You will probably notice that the dodecagon sections aren't all exactly the same. Of course in the actual build you would want to be as precise as possible, with very careful measurements, but I have been doing all my drawings in Microsoft Paint and drawing objects like these is a very tedious process. So, while not perfect, I think the drawings serve a useful purpose in that they help to envision what would otherwise be difficult to explain.

Note that I have moved the bore holes to the lower center of each bored dodecagon section. The only reason the bore holes were situated to the far left of each section previously was because this made sense when thinking in terms of attachment to a feeder/receiver vessel. Now, instead of using such a vessel constructed as part of a circular waterway perimeter, I have determined that there is a better way to feed water out to the tubes. What I have in mind is a method in which, unlike in the top photo of my previous post, all water will flow outward to a tube when its outer end is angled below horizontal, and before the bore hole reaches the centerline, without any remaining to be drained. I'll speak more of this alteration later, and supply a drawing to illustrate the idea.

[kenssurplus]

use a 90 degree elbow

Thank you for your efforts, drawings, thoughts and free exchange of ideas.

Instead of building a dodecahedron and trying to keep everything watertight, why not use a 90 degree elbow and continue the tube parallel to the axis of the wheel. That would keep all the water within the diameter of the tube greatly reducing the amount of unwanted counterbalancing while containing all the liquid in the under-balanced condition.

Use a wire spool for the base wheel. Bore holes through the wheel ends near the outside, or else run the elbows and tubes in through next to the axle if it has a cross spoke hub like in your drawings.

If this is all still unclear, I can modify a drawing to show what I mean later.

[rickoff]

Reply to kenssurplus

Yes, I do understand what you are saying, and I had been thinking of a two-wheel setup on the same axle, spaced about 12 inches apart, so this would be somewhat similar to one of those large wooden wire spools the electric companies use. There were two reasons why I decided against that build:

1. Unless one has access to a large wire spool for free then one would have to build the water wheel, and if all can be done on a single wheel (and it can) then that cuts the lumber yard and fastener costs in half.

1. I thought about extending the tubes several inches through the bores if using the two-wheel design concept, but unless a tube is lifted above the wheel axis at an angle (say 22 degrees, for example) then such a configuration is going to slow down the flow of water back to the outer end of the tube. By capping the tube off directly after it passes through the bore, you end up with a tube that offers pretty much a straight path for outflow, and the straightest path is the best path for speed of outflow.

If you'd like to build this with the two wheel design concept, or make use of a large wire spool that you have free access to, then that would be useful for comparison sake. Before urging anyone to build even a scaled down model of the concept wheel, though, I'd suggest that folks wait until I have figured the applied torque forces for the wheel halves to determine how much, if any, overbalance torque will be available. I should be able to calculate that rather closely, and will post the results before the weekend. I do think this can work to rotate the wheel, but the question of how well it will work, and how much torque can be harnessed, remains to be seen.

Folks who are interested in this concept should keep in mind that an overbalance water wheel should only be expected to turn slowly. If it were to turn anything but slowly then the centrifugal force would work against the flow of water back towards the perimeter sections, and of course that would negate the effects we are hoping to achieve.

Rick

[rickoff]

A change in direction

Hi folks,

I have completed my drawing of the revised dodecagon build and have calculated the water weight distribution for both sides of the centerline, but have decided to move further explanations to a new thread, which can be found here. My main reason for moving further information is because I am concerned that readers who enter this thread, and discover that the wheel initially being discussed is a hoax, might be inclined to leave rather quickly without staying long enough to read about my concept.

So, to those who have been reading about my ideas, I hope to see you in the continuation thread where I'll be posting new material.

Best to all,

Rick

[vidbid]

Update



[VIDEO]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXEGpDsvKRw[/VIDEO]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXEGpDsvKRw

Perpetual Motion Machine - FREE ENERGY - Last Update Before Complete Rebuild - YouTube

Update