[justathought (OP)]

I am sorry for late replies. I have been away for some days. Though I had drafted a reply to some of the questions two days ago before I left but for some technical reasons I could not post them. Let me go through some of the queries now.

The Earth with your machine on it is still a closed system.
It is still impossible to extract work continuously from a closed system
Your idea still does not, and can not, work.

I am yet to understand this well. How is the earth and my machine on, a closed system? Does the same apply to a hydro-power plant or even a fuel-driven electrical generator?
If the above two are not closed systems, then I don't see why my machine is.
I am hoping to make a completely operational prototype and hopefully, this may give us answers or maybe questions-I don't know.

As long as you understand that it is highly unlikely that your machine is not doing work without some source of energy, you should be in good shape. If you can make a machine that can harness the available ambient energy and convert it into useful work, it's a great machine.

I agree. I would also re-affirm that all along I have been working on the machine with the knowledge that it is getting its energy from some source. Only that I was not sure from where. The conception was in a 'cart before horse' manner because I envisioned a continuously imbalanced wheel. The imbalance meant there was some energy provided in line with thermodynamics. Let me explain  this : If you place two equal weights on the opposite sides of a beam balance and at equal distance from the pivot, the beam balance is balanced. If you however, apply force so as to move one weight further from the pivot, then you will create imbalance and consequently motion and Kinetic energy. This motion and kinetic energy should be equal to the energy used to shift the weight less the other energy losses such as friction. This has been the basis of my working because at every step of my design, I analyzed to see that there is an ideological balance to satisfy thermodynamics laws.And that there is a logical explanation as to the presence of the force which moves the weights. This is how I could tell that my first design would not work. I later, sought to get energy for moving the weights and I found out how to use water to help move the weights. So principally, the energy to move the machine is actually the flotation. Even though I have not built a fully functional prototype, my conviction so far is that there has not been enough reason based on analysis to show that it does not work. My sharing of this concept is aimed at putting it into scrutiny by different people to really get the truth about the concept.However I try only to expose what to me is safe to help the argument without exposing too much for obvious reasons. And I think answers to 'how' the concept has failed rather than 'why' it has failed are the more appropriate ones for anyone who has a contrary opinion.

Justathought: Can you put a video of your working prototype on Youtube?

I have been thinking about this for quite some time, but I think it is not yet time for this. The gains of putting it on internet are less than the harm of exposure. The prototype I have currently achieves motion for only about 45 degrees of rotation. I will be honest and say that even though there is motion, the force of rotation during testing was smaller than I had expected. I had downplayed the effect of friction on some joints whereby I should have used bearings and water resistance and was not keen to reduce it in the design. I should have streamlined the parts which move through water and also the weights themselves.
The machine rotated as explained when partially dipped in water. Contrary to what I had stated in an earlier post, It did not rotate back when removed from the water, but remained unmoved and balanced. When making that earlier post, I had confused the results with some earlier test results I had conducted on the machine out of water.Sorry for that.

The force achieved however logically shows that if completely made the machine would rotate continuously in one direction, not requiring push so as to start. If I manage to make a completely functional one, I will post it; obviously, after making the necessary protection arrangements.

[Bored chemist]

"
Quote
The Earth with your machine on it is still a closed system.
It is still impossible to extract work continuously from a closed system
Your idea still does not, and can not, work.
I am yet to understand this well. How is the earth and my machine on, a closed system? Does the same apply to a hydro-power plant or even a fuel-driven electrical generator?
If the above two are not closed systems, then I don't see why my machine is. "

Hydro power isn't perpetual motion, it's powered by the sun. Eventually, the sun will run out of hydrogen and stop working so the hydro power plant will stop.
A fuel driven generator will run out of fuel, it will then stop.
It's not perpetual motion.
Your machine doesn't use anything up (like fuel or hydrogen) so it would carry on forever.
That makes it a perpetual motion machine and, therefore impossible.

You really need to realise that you are wasting your time.

[syhprum]

It depends how you define perpetual motion, perpetual motion certainly exists in systems that are not exporting any energy such as the electron cloud around an atomic nucleus.
When one talks of perpetual motion machines it assumed that one can continuously extract power from them, this of course not possible and although some designs may appear to defy this rule it is normally because they are in fact low efficiency heat engines such as the nodding duck.
Your wheel dunking weights in water probably falls into this class.

[justathought (OP)]

Your wheel dunking weights in water probably falls into this class.

Probably. I don't rule this out. I guess only when I finish making a fully functional one will anything about it be confirmed.

Eventually, the sun will run out of hydrogen and stop working so the hydro power plant will stop.

This may be true or not because it is based on an axiom, just in the same way as the thermodynamics laws and many other scientific laws that we adhere to.
Axioms are not proven beyond doubt with 'hard evidence' and may not be proven, but are believed to be true, mainly because they offer crucial answers and work when applied in science. I however think it is not correct to refer to them as infallible. Even if an axiom is correct lack of its complete understanding opens up loop holes in its application. Basing argument on axiom is a good guideline but should not be a limiting factor.Rather in reality something may operate due to some factors outside the axiom applied so long as the factors are not contradictory to the axiom itself.
While I don't wish to challenge axioms that for long have been working for us, I on the other hand, tend to take a law as infallible and therefore unchallengeable if there is hard evidence supporting it. Many times, what works is not always correct or true. Something may work due to what I call a 'true lie theory'.
A 'True lie theory' to me is one which is working without being necessarily correct but when applied, it enforces some parallel unknown or known law which is the one that works. For instance, For many years ago, Diabetes [ High blood sugar(glucose)] had been perceived to be caused by the intake of sugary(sucrose) foods and as such, people were advised by medical practitioners to reduce intake of sweet and sugary foods. In later years, It was discovered that Diabetes is not precisely caused by high sugar intake but rather by not having enough fiber content in our foods and not taking whole unprocessed foods.
The earlier perception partially worked because in the effort of avoiding sugary foods, most people actually avoided processed and low fiber content foods ( most of the sugary foods fall into this category) and so it worked but was not entirely true.
The interpretation that one cannot gain useful energy from a physically rotating object without the input of fuel or electricity has been held for long but is this a correct interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics? If my concept applied on earth is a closed system and limited to operate as long as the earth and sun exists then is it not worthwhile?
We also may not be able to understand every phenomenon observed in the universe. For instance we cannot perceive in our minds or explain whether the universe has an edge or not? Using science there is no answer to this, but the universe is a reality. In a way it seems our minds are limited to a certain extent of understanding something which most scientists including Isaac Newton, came to realize. However, there is still more to be understood and discovered and we should seek to get them for our own benefit as mankind.

 While appreciating the great work done by scientists through history and for the laws that have been of such huge benefit to us, I don't think we can entirely prove that everything they said was 100% correct even though they work. Some laws may be operating in the 'true lie theory'( I don't know if there is another term for this -it stands to be corrected). The only way a law can be regarded as infallible is if it has a substantive prove of which this may not be possible for some.
Right now, because they work, then we should use them as they are the best of what we have. We should not however resist change or modification on them.The world is changing and new discoveries are being made. There may be forces in existence which are yet to be discovered. Sometime later we might discover some new laws or even build on existing laws. What is working right now may eventually be found out to be not true or being partially true.

This is the reason why I look for substantive evidence against a concept. My concept has to be analyzed in line with currently known axiom. However the statement that it is not possible to source energy by a system which runs not on known fuel, wind, solar or active energy input is in itself not an axiom but is based upon an axiom. The interpretation of the related axiom resulting in the statement may be in error. The axiom is that energy can not be created in a closed system. In that case the question should be if my concept seeks to do this of which I think it does not. My concept if proven by a working model, may have succeeded in taping energy from flotation or whatever we may find out. My experiments so far are positive, but until I have a fully functional wheel, I cannot claim 100% that it works. I however, seek substantive argument on the concept and not on the law it tends to break because if it works, it may be found that there is no law being broken and that there is source of its energy. I don't consider this a waste of time. How much time and money has been spent in research on finding possible solutions to our problems? What is spent on this project is relatively very little and I think it is worth it.
I will share more on the concept to allow for more scrutiny.

[Bored chemist]

So, you are saying that running out of fuel won't stop the sun?
OK ignoring the fact that this is a science website and that's gogwash, you have then decided that the sun is a perpetual motion machine.
But, since perpetual motion machines don't exist, it must be awfully dark where you are.


"While I don't wish to challenge axioms that for long have been working for us, I on the other hand, tend to take a law as infallible and therefore unchallengeable if there is hard evidence supporting it."
OK, the conservation of energy is very robustly demonstrated to be true in absolutely every system in which it has been tested.
You therefore accept that the conservation of energy is true.
So, why are you wasting time on a perpetual motion machine which you already know cannot, and will not, work?

"It was discovered that Diabetes is not precisely caused by high sugar intake but rather by not having enough fiber content in our foods and not taking whole unprocessed foods."
Would you like to explain that bollocks to my vegetarian yet diabetic friend?
Do you not understand that diabetes was a known condition before there was much processed food. Do you know that it occurs in non-human animals too?

"The interpretation that one cannot gain useful energy from a physically rotating object without the input of fuel or electricity has been held for long but is this a correct interpretation of the laws of thermodynamics? "
Yes, it is.

"What is spent on this project is relatively very little and I think it is worth it."
Possibly, but only as a work of art; because it will never work.

[justathought (OP)]

About the Diabetes thing, let me not talk much about it as it is not the subject of our discussion. My point was to express the fact that some times some theory might work but not necessarily because it is correct. I however am aware that currently the talk on Diabetes centers around encouraging people to eat whole, unprocessed foods as well as having a physically active lifestyle. Not being a medical practitioner, my statements may not be accurate. I also have heard that these measures are taken more because of statistical evidence rather than research. Let me leave this for the respective experts to confirm. I am sorry if I have wronged anyone in relation to this; it was not my intention.
Now concerning the wheel, let me say that there is no harm in trying out something so long as I am not causing infringement on anyone, intellectually or otherwise. So far my attempts are based on trial- but not with 'error'. I am working as well as reflecting on relevant laws concerning what I am working on and so long as I find the going is within the relevant laws, then I don't see reason to stop. In the end if my wheel does not work, it will still be a good trial.
though I plan to post information about the wheel,I may not be able to explain enough about it on this forum for reasons of space and continuity, but more is on my blog.
I am seeking constructive criticism on the wheel to find out why it should not work. If it violates scientific laws then I will need to know how. For instance I would like prove that my wheel has not attained constant imbalance; if it is balanced or an analysis on forces working on it.I am prepared to expose enough about it. I risk loosing its novelty in the event that it is a runner, but I am prepared for this.

[Stefanb]

If you want to prove your wheel has not achieved constant imbalance, then note that friction will slowly reduce its momentum until it rests (perfectly balanced) at the lowest point of its swing.

[Bored chemist]

"About the Diabetes thing, let me not talk much about it as it is not the subject of our discussion."
OK.

The wheel still won't work.
You keep saying that it won't do any harm for you to try.
It will.
It lends credibility to the "anti science" movement.
It wastes time that you might use doing something useful.
It may lead others to waste their time.

[justathought (OP)]

If you want to prove your wheel has not achieved constant imbalance, then note that friction will slowly reduce its momentum until it rests (perfectly balanced) at the lowest point of its swing.

This statement applies to mechanisms that utilize swinging action, or that would need to be started in some ways. In such mechanisms, the motion achieved is as a result of the initial force applied so that the force has to be applied again and again so as to maintain the motion and to keep overcoming the friction and other forces.
Now my principle does not operate in this way. I am thinking of how to post a video shot of  my experiment. A picture speaks a thousand words.
To give an explanation, the principle utilizes some force (flotation/gravitational). Now the force created on the wheel by this principle is enough to fulfill the following three key requirements: to drive the wheel, overcome all resistances; friction and other,and still maintain enough power that will be tapped for economic use.
The force which moves the wheel is not applied by push or any other input.Once the wheel is completely assembled, it is expected to initiate its own rotation. Force will have to be applied to prevent it from rotating so long as it is partially immersed in water.This means that the friction and other forces are already overcomed from the start. Also, the force available at any time for rotation is enough to run it. The wheel has imbalance at all times of rotation though the force of imbalance varies as it rotates, but the minimum force at any one time fulfills all the above three key requirements.

[justathought (OP)]

It lends credibility to the "anti science" movement.

This is one "movement" I will try to keep away from or be an inspiration to. Back here at home we have a saying: 'You don't cut down the tree which supports you'. The mental picture is a person sitting on a branch and then using a saw to cut down the same branch at the base where it joins the main trunk.
I respect science and am far from 'attacking' it. All along, man has benefited from science.
My efforts will come to an abrupt end once I build a complete wheel and it fails to work. So I think the faster I do this the earlier we would conclude on the matter.
If the wheel fails, science will have won, I would have learnt.
In the event that  my wheel works, science will still have won. A new area of scientific study might have opened up. So far I am using science to do my work, the calculations, analysis and experiments are all scientific.
I tend to think this work may benefit all of us. Why would I bring this wheel onto this forum if it is not scientific? Even though I have worked on the wheel, I tend to think I need more expert input from others. If somebody proves that the mechanism cannot work, then that's the end of the story, we 'shake hands' go our different ways. Just in case it works (however unlikely this seems)we all benefit. We join hands, work together for the benefit of all. So in a way the prize at the end is greater than the shame.

[justathought (OP)]

After much deliberation, I have decided to put my principles out for scrutiny. All comments are welcome. More so, those directly on the principles used in the wheel's mechanisms. I will appreciate it so much if someone would point out the mistakes in the principles and give a sound analytical argument. The details of the wheel can be downloaded through the links given below:

http://www.filesonic.com/file/17520449/FREE WHEEL ANALYSIS 2.docx [nofollow]
http://www.filesonic.com/file/17515797/FREEWHEEL PARTS (IMAGES) DEISCRIPTION.docx [nofollow]
http://www.filesonic.com/file/17516177/Fulcrum S.GIF [nofollow]
http://www.filesonic.com/file/17520411/fw drawings.pdf [nofollow]
http://www.filesonic.com/file/17516201/Image001.GIF [nofollow]
http://www.filesonic.com/file/17516243/Image012.GIF [nofollow]
http://www.filesonic.com/file/17516287/Image013.GIF [nofollow]
http://www.filesonic.com/file/17516757/Image018.GIF [nofollow]
http://www.filesonic.com/file/17516799/Image019.GIF [nofollow]
http://www.filesonic.com/file/17516843/Image020.GIF [nofollow]
http://www.filesonic.com/file/17516923/Video000.3gp [nofollow]

[Bored chemist]

"I will appreciate it so much if someone would point out the mistakes in the principles"
One mistake is that you have forgotten about the law of conservation of energy.

Incidentally, I couldn't actually see the files but that really doesn't matter in this case.

[justathought (OP)]

I have noticed the problem with the file links I gave previously. Sorry for all affected by this. I have removed the files from that particular server and placed them in another one. This time there are no hassles. The links may be copy-pasted onto the address window of your browser if they don't work automatically.

http://www.ziddu.com/download/11416002/FREEWHEELANALYSIS2.docx.html [nofollow]

http://www.ziddu.com/download/11415974/FREEWHEELPARTSIMAGESDEISCRIPTION.docx.ht [nofollow]
ml

http://www.ziddu.com/download/11415983/Video000.3gp.html [nofollow]

http://www.ziddu.com/download/11415919/fwdrawings.pdf.html [nofollow]

http://www.ziddu.com/download/11415858/Image020.jpg.html [nofollow]

http://www.ziddu.com/download/11415849/Image019.jpg.html [nofollow]

http://www.ziddu.com/download/11415811/Image013.jpg.html [nofollow]

http://www.ziddu.com/download/11415829/Image018.jpg.html [nofollow]

http://www.ziddu.com/download/11415749/Image012.jpg.html [nofollow]

http://www.ziddu.com/download/11415741/Image002.jpg.html [nofollow]

http://www.ziddu.com/download/11392416/FulcrumS.jpg.html [nofollow]

http://www.ziddu.com/download/11390915/Image001.jpg.html [nofollow]

Thanks

[Bored chemist]

Most of those files just link to a whole lot of junk advertising.
Surely you can come up with just one simple picture and post it here on this site.

[justathought (OP)]

Bored Chemist and all, hope you will excuse me for taking long to reply.Due to some personal activities I am unable to participate more frequently.This may go on for some time, but I will try as much as possible to keep up with the going.
About the links I gave, I have found this to be convenient. Any other way simply is not working well. However, anyone who has been able to download the documents and pictures successfully may post them on the forum.

Regards

[justathought (OP)]

OOops!

I didn't know the uploading was successful. Anyway here are more pictures.

[justathought (OP)]

Some more

[justathought (OP)]

Just to point out, diagrams 18 and 19 show the two positions by which the wheel balances. This reveals the reality about the pedal and imbalance forces I have described in the analysis.

[peppercorn]

It's a very nice art installation you have there, Justa'

I'm glad to see you've discovered the device's balancing point... Having done the work to build your machine, now you can see in person how the system will find the lowest energy state - and stop.  There is no 'free' energy here, I'm afraid.

[justathought (OP)]

I'm glad to see you've discovered the device's balancing point...

No,The machine is supposed to be immersed in water so as to loose its balance. The machine I have posted aims to show the principle by which permanent imbalance can be achieved. More is explained in the analysis. I was posting it immediately after the pictures but was interrupted by a power black-out; the very thing I am fighting.
so, below is the analysis which aims to prove imbalance created by the use of the principle.To avoid complexity of the explanation, I have not included the calculations to determine the energy. The energy equivalents are only estimates based upon the imbalance. The conventional formulas for calculating Kinetic energy are not applicable here directly due to the numerous movements of different parts of the machine. I have a way to simplify the machine into a rigid equivalent 'imaginary 'structure for the purpose of getting it's kinetic energy, unless someone suggests another way. I will share this some other time.Note that the diagrams in the analysis could not be displayed and one may need to check them out from the downloads, until I formulates some for this forum.




ANALYSIS OF THE MAIN FORCES
ACTING ON THE WHEEL (FREE WHEEL)
This study is aimed at revealing the main forces acting on the free wheel which eventually cause motion on the Free wheel. Practically due to the fact that the wheel partly moves in water, the total resultant forces are many including water resistance, friction as well as up thrust. This study however does not focus on them. It is expected that the wheel design seeks to reduce these forces as much as possible. This study focuses on the main forces which are responsible for both the clockwise and anti-clockwise moments on the wheel which are:-
A)   Imbalance force
B)   Pedal force


A)   IMBALANCE FORCE
         Figures fw. 1 and fw. 3 show the movement of the weights as seen from the side of the wheel as it rotates. The drawings show 16 different weight positions as a single weight moves in one complete revolution of the wheel.
The lever (r) is joined to the big arm (R) through a joint (S) so that as the wheel rotates, (r) revolves about the joint (S) at the same angular velocity but in a plane which is 90° to the wheel’s plane of rotation. This means that as the wheel rotates in the anti – clockwise direction the weight in position 1 moves in a direction 90° to the paper i.e. either ‘out’ of the paper or ‘into’ the paper.
The perpendicular distance of r (perpendicular distance of weight from (s)) will be r cos θ where θ is the angle of rotation from the weight position 1. If the wheel had 16 weights each mounted on a lever(r) and positioned as shown in the diagram fw.3, then if it is made to rotate, each weight assumes the position of the fore-running weight and thus the weights will always be positioned as shown despite the rotation.
The arrangement has achieved two important things:-
a)   The weights descending are positioned further from fulcrum (f) and the weights ascending are positioned closer to fulcrum (f) and thereby creating imbalance.
b)   Unlike most perpetual motion wheels suggested, the number of weights distributed on the left hand side and on the right hand side of the point of rotation are equal in number and thus the imbalance is still maintained by this arrangement (side view arrangement).

This arrangement however, comes with a price which as we will see later balances out the wheel and this price is the pedal force.

B)   THE PEDALING (Pedal) FORCE
The introduction of a second plane of rotation on the wheel results in some side-ways weight displacement which can be seen by a front view of the wheel. This causes the ‘pedal’ force. This force result from the mass of the weights acting at 900 from the wheels plane of rotation as the weight revolves about fulcrum (s).

As seen from figures fw2 and fw4, the pedal force will be at a maximum at weight positions 5 and 13 and reduce to zero at positions 1 and 9.

If the laws of conservation of energy are to be retained then the wheel should be balanced. The ONLY possible explanation is that the imbalance reveled on figure fw3 and fw1 (side view) is cancelled by the pedaling force shown in figures fw2 and fw4. 
NB. All of the pedaling force is contributing to the clockwise moment.

Taking each plane as a balance lever machine the weights act in pairs i.e. weight on position 1 acts with weight on position 9. Consequently weight 2 acts with weight 10, and weight 5 with weight 13 etc. In this case it will be discovered that the weights on the horizontal i.e. positions 16  through 2 and 8 through 10 have more imbalance force in them then pedal force.
NB. Compare figure fw1 and fw2 or fw3 and fw4 to see this.

However, weights 12 through 14 and 4 through 6 have more of the pedal force then imbalance force. As such, the weights on vertical plane contribute more to pedal force and thus the clockwise moment - but the weights on horizontal plane contribute more to the imbalance force and thus anti – clockwise moment.




Creating force to move the wheel
If weights with equal density to water such as water bottles, are used and the wheels submerged into water at the level show, then the force that will be ‘canceled’ by the submerged weights will be the pedal force (or more of it than the imbalance force) and thus, force will be created to cause motion on the wheel.


COMPLICATION IN CREATING CONSTANT IMBALANCE
In ideal situations and to get as much power as possible from the wheel, then all the weights in positions 12 through 14 and 4 through 6 should be ‘cancelled’ or negated in some way.
Because of the ellipse shape of the path of the weights, achieving this is tricky. To find the best way, we need to look at several outstanding factors of the Free wheel arrangement.
a)   Both the ‘Imbalance’ and ‘Pedal’ forces can be increased by either or both of the following:-
   Increasing the mass of the weight used
   Decreasing the ratio of the length of the lever (r) to the arm (R).
   Increasing the small (gear) radius (please see note below)

N/B. If the difference between r and R is increased then the weights will tend to move closer to their usual circular path (shown by the dotted) line and both the ‘imbalance’ and ‘pedal’ forces will be reduced. However it will be easier to cancel out the pedal force. This is because it will be easier to ‘capture’ the weights inside water through positions 4 and 6. It will also be easier to design a railing to ‘support’ the weight through position 13 to (almost) 15. Refer of fig Fw. 3. Ideally the distance of weight through x should be in water and the distance y not in water.
If r:R is 2 : 5 i.e figures fw.3 and fw.4 then at least we will be able to ‘capture’ distance w in water which is a good achievement. Unfortunately a bit of y is also captured in water(it shouldn’t be) and a portion of x (from position 6 to 7) is not in water (it should be).
Even though so far I have not designed the railing to support the weight from position 14 to 15. This is possible and will contribute some more to the energy to rotate the wheel.
Considering that r: R is 4: 5 (figure fw.1 and fw. 2) there is more ‘pedal’ and ‘imbalance’ force created but  unfortunately much less of distance x is ‘captured’ in water and at the same time all of distance y is in water (again,it shouldn’t be).
The water level may be in either of the two levels shown.




Move experimentation needs to be done to find out the best dimensions of r and R to be used for optimum energy and efficiency.
N/B. The ‘small wheel’ is the gear attached to the (r) and which transmits the ‘pedal’ force to the wheel. It is shown in the technical drawings and prototype pictures.

EXPERIMENTS RESULTS
An experimental prototype with Four weights was made to test the forces acting on the wheel
The ratio of r: R was 1: 2.
The wheels measurements were as follows:
R   =   25cm
r   =   12.5 cm
Mass of weight    = 500g
Small wheel radius    = 4.25cm
The lower weight was removed to cause the effect of negating as when it is immersed in water. The results were as follows:
a)   The wheel attained enough force to rotate when three weights are placed in position 1, 9 and 13 each, and also in positions 2, 10 and 14 each. These two positions are significant as they can be achieved by emerging the wheel in water to negate the lower weight.

However, position 15, 7 and 12 had a balance effect with no motion either clockwise or anticlockwise. This is likely due to the small wheel radius which is quite too small as compared to r thus causing a bigger pedaling force on the weights.
b)   Weights on the vertical plane exhibited clockwise moment e.g. if two weights are mounted in positions 13 and 5 each, they would move in the clockwise direction until they reach positions 3 and 11.

c)   Weights on the horizontal plane exhibited anticlockwise moment as expected. If two weights are placed in positions 16 and 8 each, they would move in the anticlockwise direction until they reach position 3 and 11.

d)   Two weights placed on position 15 and 7 each exhibited a balanced state with no motion in either direction.

e)   A single weight placed in position 5 exhibited clockwise moment and moved at least to position 4 and if r is closer to R, the weight moved beyond 4 and closer to 3.


These experiment results reveal that the principle used to cause imbalance and pedal forces are successful. More can however be done to improve on the working of the wheel.