Build 2

[Johnsmith]

 I think what I need to do is focus on my build and finish a design for my underwater wheel. I need surgery. And
over the years, things could've gone better if people understood why scientists said that perpetual motion is impossible.
Then they would've known that the Moon is an example of the Earth's gravity being conserved.
Mechanical engineering manipulates the laws of physics. This is where a lot of people will not take the time to learn
basic principles. And a submarine submerging or surface happens because? A tether ball hits its pole because?
Basically what is work? How can it be quantified when its formula is w = md or work equals mass times distance.
Then when that is considered with either the submarine or a tether ball, you'd notice that the answer you get isn't the
same as moving a weight on the ground. Even then, having wheels under something allows more work to be performed
while using less energy. That's engineering. And with the example used for the "keel effect", the underwater wheel will
prove that wrong by using only 4 weights. and with that, the weight furthest from the axle will change the balance so
rotation can continue and not stop as many self proclaimed experts have said. I think when that becomes known, people
will wonder why such people became authorities on a subject when they're wrong. And it's simply because scientists said
that a rock can't move itself. When scientists say thermodynamics does not allow for perpetual motion, they can say that a rock is one example. Or they could say that an Atmos clock demonstrates why it is impossible.
That's because it relies on an outside source of energy to lift it's weight.
There are actually 2 different definitions that are used. A working machine will have scientists say that the Atmos clock is the example they meant when they were actually talking about the rock example.
https://www.jaeger-lecoultre.com/us/en/watches/story-of/story-of-atmos.html

p.s., self winding is a "perpetual" attribute like a weight shifting on its own in a machine. This is what happens
in the Atmos clock. A weight shifts without someone moving it. Still, this doesn't leave much to discuss
because experts prevented discussions about what engineering allows for. And Bessler wanted to start an engineering school. If he revealed his secret, he could've started his school. I think with his being arrested changed everything for him.

[Johnsmith]

 I thought I'd post a build update. I did say the week of the 20th I hoped to have a video showing the next test.
I will be using 8 pulleys and 12 bushings to connect the top and bottom weights like what is shown in MT 134.
If it works then a wheel using 4 weight wheels can work.
What this test will show is if it takes work to lift the top weight wheel. We do have bearings today while it seems
that Bessler invented his. And with 4 working weight wheels that I have, I can test for 8 weights as well. That will
be next if this test doesn't work. Kind of why 1 step at a time is necessary. It can be boring and if all works out
okay, I'll make known some information that people aren't aware of. And this might go back to what was the science
of the day when Bessler was a kid. Things were different then and what people got excited over was alchemy and
Newton along with Leibniz. Basically speaking, gravity and the conservation of energy were just discovered.
In 1686, there wasn't a theory of gravity. En Principia was published in 1687 when Bessler was 7 years old and
perpetual motion wasn't impossible.
And from my perspective, if one weight moves towards the axle while another moves away works, Bessler wrote
about that as well. And it does need to work as well.
What will be telling from testing I have done is when the wheel is rotated 22.5° from center. Basically 1:30 and 7:30.
If it rotates that far then it should rotate past 90°. With this, it is odd to try and to explain to adults about line segments.
There's line A --- B which is less than line segment B --- C while the whole line A --- D is longer. A --- D might be the
length of the line but the shorter segments are a part of the the line segment A --- D.
Then you get into if it's congruent, parallel or some other relationship that can be defined. So being familiar with math
does help. It helps to understand Bessler's Paradox where the drum lifts the weight while the drum isn't rotating but
the wheel is. And in math, the inverse is always true. When the wheel rotates, it is merely the inverse function of a
drum rotating.

p.s., when things are broken down into line segments, things make since up to a point. Then you have to say the inverse
is true as well. A wheel rotating is the inverse function of a drum rotating. Same result but just an inverse function.
This simply means that the wheel itself is lifting the weight and not the drum. I think nerds who like math will have fun
with this. An inverse function performing work while it isn't. Kind of why it's called free energy.

[Johnsmith]

 After the glue does some drying I'll mount the end caps on. Then I can drill holes for
the pulley mounts. I'll be using 12 pulleys. This next test will determine if using only
4 weights can work. If not then the 2 weights not shown will be mounted 45°
counterclockwise of what's on there now. That would be to determine if using 8 weights
will work.
I have my own design that I'll be continuing design work on. And that's one I will be
paying someone else to build.

p.s., I'll be using 2 pulleys on top like what is shown in Bessler's drawing. In his drawing
the bar will be the weight wheel. And I am hoping that a 4 weight configuration will work.
Since the line isn't doing any work there shouldn't be much energy lost because the top
weight is being lifted. And tests I did showed that after 22.5° of rotation it rotates. In this
video, the top weight is in a fixed position that when lifted would be at an angle of the 22.5°
I mentioned.  https://youtu.be/pzUn-BlaZX8 And this is what will help me to know if lifting
the top weight is costing a lot of energy. At 45° it goes even better.

[Johnsmith]

 This is it with all of the pulleys on it necessary for the test. I have to add 4 fasteners to each
weight wheel for a place to secure the connecting lines. If you look just above the axle you'll
see a pulley. The one below the axle is hidden by the disc. And with 2 pulleys on each end this
agrees with Mt 134. Tomorrow I'll probably test it.
I'll be using imitation sinew to connect the 2 opposing pulleys. Then I'll just need to attach the
retraction lines to one weight wheel and then test it. Unfortunately no one has made an app
for this yet.

[Johnsmith]

 I checked it out some and it comes up short. It requires about .3 to .4 kg to rotate it.
That's an extra 10 to 14 oz. This allows for the question of decreasing the size of the retraction
discs or reducing how much the top weight is lifted. 2 ways in which the amount of energy
needed to rotate the wheel.
I do have my own design which I'll continue design work on Monday. To continue work on Bessler's
wheel will require me to be healthy. With Bessler, my being successful with my own invention will
only help to gather more interest in his work.
It is possible that a smaller retraction disc will allow for more acceleration. A larger disc allowed
for nothing, just no movement. With a 1:1 ratio, it rotated. This is where a smaller retraction disc
might allow for more movement. This is one issue with trying to engineer someone else's work
relying on cryptic clues.

p.s., to increase the torque generated as far as efficiency goes, having the weight wheels roll into
the axle requires less torque to rotate the wheel. Bessler did use springs. With something like that,
springs would be helpful. When weights rotate around the axle at a distance, f = ma is increased.
Next to the axle, energy saved. My build is not set up to test this.
And with Occam's Razor https://www.britannica.com/topic/Occams-razor reducing the force necessary
to rotate the wheel will most likely work. An easy test of this is using only 2 weights. Then when
compared to using 4 weights with the extra 2 at a distance, then math will show what is what.

p.s.s., And with the previous build I did, there is something suggested. It would take modifying this recent
build as well as trying a variation of my earlier build. And with that said, f does = ma which matters when
something is rotating. And this is why I'll need to build my own design next. That will give me the
opportunity to try 2 variations of what I've built. And in support of what I've said, I'll make a video that
explains my reasoning and how Occam's Razor can allow for more than 1 possible solution.
And as witnesses said, they heard 8 knocking sounds per revolution. There is a solution that allows for
that and it's not what people would think. This would probably require a new frame for the wheel but that
might be doable.