Not Half Baked - Half built.

[Ant Burr]

@shruggedatlas
the Besslerwheel did work !

But most people over here forget, that you have to
store the down-movement in springs, so the potential energy
is not lost for the next cycle.

The perspective is to unbalance a wheel with a shifting weight going down,
but being on a spring,
then "cash in" the unbalanced gravity acceleration of the wheel,
which then has extracted enough gravity energy to
pull up the weight again via the spring for the next cycle to
again unbalance the wheel and "cash in" the next gravity energy.

The Besslerwheel must have have used this principle and was
successful.

I do not understand how springs can help.  A spring is not an overunity device.  Whatever energy is used to compress the spring, the spring will give out less afterwards, after you account for friction, sound, heat, etc.

Although your query appears to be addressed to hartiberlin or is it Stefen! My wheel design employs a 2D spring in the form of a square wave.

When the middle pins are removed the square wave can be coiled, no good for the machine but I think it is an interesting piece of data.

Here is a 100 square wave coiled, tightly packed it appears as a circle with pieces of 8 - segments to the spiral, with & in the middle.

[shruggedatlas]

My wheel design employs a 2D spring in the form of a square wave.

When the middle pins are removed the square wave can be coiled, no good for the machine but I think it is an interesting piece of data.

Here is a 100 square wave coiled, tightly packed it appears as a circle with pieces of 8 - segments to the spiral, with & in the middle.

I will admit I am not sure how the spring goes inside your device.  Is the whole thing coiled inside the wheel, as displayed?  If so, I do not see how it aids rotation.  I did read your description as carefully as I could, and I do not quite get the role of the spring.

Even given my incomplete picture, let me assure you, no one has ever gotten more energy out of a spring than was put in to compress/extend it to begin with, so you cannot come out ahead here.  I feel for you and commend you - I can tell you have put a ton of work into this wheel.  But you are beating your head against the same wall that Leonardo Da Vinci and countless others did.  There is no gravity wheel.  Ironically, the perfect spinning wheel will include nothing except itself.  Any additional bits designed to gain "free energy" will only slow down rotation.  If you have a control wheel of identical design but no flaps, you would see this for yourself.  There is a reason bicyle and car wheels do not have shifting tubes of water or sand in them or other such nonsense - they do more harm than good.

If perpetual motion is possible, the answer lies somewhere besides the gravity wheel.

[Ant Burr]

I will admit I am not sure how the spring goes inside your device.  Is the whole thing coiled inside the wheel, as displayed?  If so, I do not see how it aids rotation.  I did read your description as carefully as I could, and I do not quite get the role of the spring.

I'll try to explain it differently. A slinky - a long coiled spring that 'walks' downstairs. If you were to place it on a table hold it at each end in a straight line pulling it open a bit. Then if you oscillate the long spring in and out once there so a close bunch of springs together that travel along the slightly expanded spring.

In a long spring that bunch of springs together represents weight displacement.

Looking at the small arm in the post above, like a small spring it does not have this long coiled spring bunching effect.
The reason I illustrated it was to show that when the wheel is rotated clockwise, Gravity and the fixed angle of the arm on the wheel - closes the arm - because the centre pins and the square waves steady incline.

Here is a longer arm, the one fitted in the wheel on the video is 1 square longer.

Even given my incomplete picture, let me assure you, no one has ever gotten more energy out of a spring than was put in to compress/extend it to begin with, so you cannot come out ahead here.  I feel for you and commend you - I can tell you have put a ton of work into this wheel.  But you are beating your head against the same wall that Leonardo Da Vinci and countless others did.  There is no gravity wheel.  Ironically, the perfect spinning wheel will include nothing except itself.  Any additional bits designed to gain "free energy" will only slow down rotation.  If you have a control wheel of identical design but no flaps, you would see this for yourself.  There is a reason bicyle and car wheels do not have shifting tubes of water or sand in them or other such nonsense - they do more harm than good.

I have seen Da Vinci's wheel design, although I have not built it, I can see from my experience the design would not work.

If perpetual motion is possible, the answer lies somewhere besides the gravity wheel.

The answer lies within the magic square constant sharing tables. I packed up my brass rods soon after I made the film clip in 2004. I kept 1 arm intact and salvaged the others to make the spiral.

Satisfying my curiosity about the feasibility of a Gravity Wheel, I started analysing the alleged 880 magic 4 squares.

My last post to besslerwheel.com was here http://www.besslerwheel.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=42580#42580 on Sep 01, 2007 at 1:05 pm

It may look the same but there is a definite difference in the force I had to apply to go counter clockwise relative to clockwise. In the finished version it may well rotate both ways because of the seen displacement.

I have made a 'Blue Peter' model to satisfy my curiosity, in making this prototype there were no suitable premises, engineering skills, precision machinery and in hindsight I used unsuitable materials (the brass bars I used were too soft).

The point really is... if my prototype can work this well, relatively speaking a badly constructed effort, then it MUST be worth investment of time, skills, and perhaps funding from government to a facility with the resources to build and it will work.

With proper testing, the mechanics of the length to rotation ratio can be applied to magnetic square waves. Anti-gravity can be obtained from the minimum application where minimum e=0*8^2 or 0*4^3.

Even the science fiction series Stargate Atlantis implies a link between a Zero Point Module (ZPM) and a magic 3 square, I've seen a repeat recently on sky TV.

I'm just fed up with sitting on a clip of video since 15 July 2004, 21:20:46 just because it has a number of 666 = 6*111, that could be the futures beast of burden.

Anybody wanna try and patent minimum e=mc^2?

Or patent 360 degrees as meaning 36 squares in a square, within each square there are four more equal squares. On closer examination each individual empty square can be identified as quadrants 1+2+3+4=10 therefore within one square is 10. 10*36=360. The empty 3^2 frame of the smaller four squares also has a total sum of 36, 0+1+2+3+4+5+6+7+8.

I think not!!!

[Ant Burr]

Here is a clip as an attempt to show another type of spring within a 6 square, the number sequence.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/804641/snake_6_sq_countdown/

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=dSJHCbI_GyI

Next one will be a similar clip showing the normal magic square constant now available here

metacafe
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/806502/linear_and_snake_111/
or
utube
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=2rpHTOGW61k

[Ant Burr]

Here is a video of the weight and real dimentions of the prototype arm.

It needs 1 to 111 squares, this has up to 75 squared... I counted.


http://www.metacafe.com/watch/813798/gravity_wheel_arm/