Hi guys,
Just a concept I'm messing round with that utilizes gravity to power an overbalanced wheel for free energy.
Please feel free to comment, I'd love to hear your ideas.
http://www.simonswheel.co.uk/ (http://www.simonswheel.co.uk/)
@s1m0n,
Variations of this design have been studied for many years. The energy required to lift the weights is exactly the energy gained from the rotation of the wheel due to the added overbalance. When you add in friction, the wheel is a non-runner. If you are going to study designs similar to those Bessler shows in his MT, you might consider joining www.besslerwheel.com.
Thanks so much Zoelra.
My thoughts behind SimonsWheel were to look at a PMM from an engineering point of view. Although I'm not an engineer I can clearly see from looking at pictures of other attempts why they don't work. Finding the weak links in previous attempts allowed me to make those links as strong as possible.
I've thrown it over to Myth Busters ATM.
The prime mover, whatever it is, likely provides some type of mechanical advantage. It could be a lever mechanism, or some type of centrifugal/inertia induced movement. John Collins, 0ystein, and Trevor (users on www.besslerwheel.com (http://www.besslerwheel.com)) all claim to know the secret and say it is a lever mechanism that provides the advantage. For the last 10 years I myself have been experimenting with variations of the two stage oscillator (the Milkovic 2SO) and the Buzzsaw Gravity Wheel. My intent is not to reproduce the Bessler Wheel, but to find a solution that creates OU. Once a solution is found, it should open the door to many others. Good luck with your research.
P.S. I remember hearing that Myth Busters did a show on a PM wheel, and showed it to NOT work. Sorry I don't have a link to that show, but it is probably searchable on YouTube.
I'll have a look for that episode of Myth Busters.
I just can't see that there could be a prime mover. If the sum of the net gains are greater than the energy required to reset, it would work.
This would purely come down to size. If each opposing pair of weights gave a net gain of 1 unit and 60 units were needed to reset, then the wheel would need over 120 weights.
An exaggerated view would be a Ferris wheel with thousands of weights on each side.
The net gain from all those weights still only has to lift two weights.
Once the weights are raised they become part of the net gain again.
What spikes my curiosity is that the only large PMM attempt that I'm aware of was the BesslerWheel.
That said, I'm expecting someone really good at maths to tell me I'm a fool anytime soon.
s1m0n,
There are a lot of points to reply to so let me break it up into parts. You sound like a seasoned PM researcher so if I speak in simple terms, or concepts you already understand, it is for anyone else with less experience. No offense is intended.
"I just can't see that there could be a prime mover".
The prime mover is simply the force of mechanical advantage that promotes rotation. It could be from a unique lever design or centrifugal force. In your wheel design, the prime mover would be the mechanical advantage that comes from overbalance.
"An exaggerated view would be a Ferris wheel with thousands of weights on each side. The net gain from all those weights still only has to lift two weights".
This will take more space and prep that I can provide at this point and will reply with more details as soon as I can. That said, the angular distance between crossbars is the displacement in which the upper and lower weights need to be lifted. More weight pairs mean less distance between pairs and less time to lift and so more weights does not equate to more energy to lift. Work/Energy = Force X Distance.
"What spikes my curiosity is that the only large PMM attempt that I'm aware of was the BesslerWheel".
There are many accounts of PM wheel attempts throughout history. From Divinci thru modern times. Two examples in US history are from Asa Jackson and the Pop Keeney (the Buzzsaw Wheel).
That said, I'm expecting someone really good at maths to tell me I'm a fool anytime soon.
I am a mathematician and I can tell you that your design has been modeled mathematically and using SIMs and it will not work no matter how many weights you add.
.
Quote from: zoelra on August 19, 2015, 10:56:48 AM
s1m0n,
There are a lot of points to reply to so let me break it up into parts. You sound like a seasoned PM researcher so if I speak in simple terms, or concepts you already understand, it is for anyone else with less experience. No offense is intended.
"I just can't see that there could be a prime mover".
The prime mover is simply the force of mechanical advantage that promotes rotation. It could be from a unique lever design or centrifugal force. In your wheel design, the prime mover would be the mechanical advantage that comes from overbalance.
There is the first problem: Finding a way to sustain an imbalanced condition while extracting energy.
Quote
"An exaggerated view would be a Ferris wheel with thousands of weights on each side. The net gain from all those weights still only has to lift two weights".
This will take more space and prep that I can provide at this point and will reply with more details as soon as I can. That said, the angular distance between crossbars is the displacement in which the upper and lower weights need to be lifted. More weight pairs mean less distance between pairs and less time to lift and so more weights does not equate to more energy to lift. Work/Energy = Force X Distance.
And there seems to be the doom of all prior attempts at an overbalanced wheel.
Quote
"What spikes my curiosity is that the only large PMM attempt that I'm aware of was the BesslerWheel".[/b]
There are many accounts of PM wheel attempts throughout history. From Divinci thru modern times. Two examples in US history are from Asa Jackson and the Pop Keeney (the Buzzsaw Wheel).
That said, I'm expecting someone really good at maths to tell me I'm a fool anytime soon.
I am a mathematician and I can tell you that your design has been modeled mathematically and using SIMs and it will not work no matter how many weights you add.
BINGO!!!
The 'gravity-principle' in the following gravity device https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gAchuS8SyU , is very impressive .
Assumedly, a hidden Electro-magnet acts on Point 'A', in the diagram of the device, below, but obviously the Electro-magnet is actually hidden in the base of the device, where point 'A' touches the base.
It may be possible to replace the hidden Electro-magnet at point 'A', in the diagram below, with some type of Permanent-Magnet design or device ( or, even with a second-replication of this actual device, linked to the main device, and the mid-cycle of one device would be linked to the end-of-the-cycle of the second device, and maybe throw in a magnet to break symmetry ).
UPDATE : Firstly, the problem with the device must be that, eventually, the system would run out of enough force to Bend point 'A' . So, maybe some type of tilt-switch( activated by gravity ) could somehow trigger a permanent-magnet, to always Bend point 'A', and then 'that' could be deactivated when the ball rolls onto it.
ONE POINT COULD BE, THAT COMBINING THE TWO FORCES, GRAVITY AND MAGNETISM, COULD 'BREAK THE SYMMETRY' USUALLY PRESENT IN DEVICES RELYING ON JUST GRAVITY OR MAGNETISM
guest1289,
The information you are presenting is interesting and deserving of it's own topic or at a minimum should be placed in another topic related to magnetic devices.